Document Type : Article

Authors

• Soroush Seyedian Hashemi ¹
• Ahmad Momenirad ²
• seyed hossien mousavi far ³

¹ Ph.D Student

² Associate Professor, Faculty of law and political Science, Tehran University

³ Assistant professor of international law, criminal & criminology law department, Faculty of law & political sciences, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad

Abstract

The aim of this article is to address the question of whether Iran’s intervention as a third party in the case brought by South Africa against the Israeli regime before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) implies implicit recognition of the Israeli regime as a state or not. The central hypothesis of this study is that initiating legal proceedings or third-party intervention, in this context, does not influence the legal matter issue of recognition. An examination of third-party intervention in the ICJ and the international law governing recognition reveals that neither initiating proceedings nor intervening as a third party affects Iran’s position of non-recognition of the Israeli regime as a state. This is because recognition occurs only through the explicit consent of states and considering this fact that Iran explicitly insists on non-recognition of Zionist Regime, intervention in the case as a third party will not be implied recognition of the regime. Nonetheless, in deciding whether to intervene in the aforementioned case, it is necessary to consider the possibility that the Israeli regime could initiate an independent claim against Iran under the Genocide Convention as a means of neutralizing Iran’s legal action and influencing South Africa’s case against the regime.

Keywords

• Implied Recognition
• Declaratory Recognition
• Constitutive Recognition
• Intervention of Article 62
• Intervention of Article 63
• Genocide Convention

Main Subjects

• Public International Law