Find in Library

Contradictory interpretations, which are sometimes contrary to the purposes of International humanitarian law, on the principle of military necessity and the existence of ambiguities in nature, conditions and effects of this principle in the law of armed conflicts, have resulted in repeated attacks on residential areas and nonmilitary objectives, especially in recent wars. This situation has made re-examination and disambiguation of the mentioned principle, in international regulations, necessary. One of the best methods to resolve this ambiguity can be through a comparative study with other systems, of them is the Islamic legal system. So, our main question is: "what are the approaches of the Islamic legal system and the law of armed conflicts to the nature, conditions and effects of the principle of military necessity?" Through descriptive research methods based on treaty provisions of the law of armed conflicts and the jurisprudence of international tribunals and the sources of Islamic law and combat performance of the holy Prophet (PBUH) and by using interpretive and comparative methods, we came to the conclusion that these two systems have much in common in this area, but there are differences in some cases, such as the need for the principle of discretion and limitations of referring to military necessity in legitimate wars and the legal effects of this principle