آسیب‌شناسی ساختار حقوقی اقدام متقابل علیه جنایات رژیم صهیونیستی در قوانین جمهوری اسلامی ایران

Context & Objective: Countermeasures, defined as actions taken by a state in response to another party’s illegal or hostile conduct to enforce cessation or reparations without being independently deemed illegal, are employed in domestic policy, international law, and diplomacy and are typically codified in national legislation. Given Israel’s historical perpetration of unprecedented crimes against Palestinians and countries in the Axis of Resistance, Iran, recognizing Israel as an illegitimate and hostile entity, has implemented various formal countermeasures. The necessity of evaluating the existing legal structure for these prescribed countermeasures has intensified due to the severity of Israel’s regional crimes. The main purpose of this research is to analyze the current legal structure and related statutes concerning countermeasures against Israel's crimes and assess their deficiencies relative to specialized legislative principles. Consequently, the primary research question asks: "What are the weaknesses in the legal and statutory structure of countermeasures against the crimes of Israel in the laws of the Islamic Republic of Iran?".
Method & Approach: This study utilized a descriptive-analytical approach, gathering data through documentary (library-based) methods. The core analytical method involved the pathology (assessment of weaknesses) of laws based on general/formal and specialized/substantive principles of legislation applicable to countermeasures against Israel’s crimes. The process began by reviewing fundamental norms, including the Constitution and the system’s general policies, to identify explicit or implicit rules governing countermeasures. Subsequently, the study gathered, categorized, and analyzed the specific instances of countermeasures reflected in laws passed by the Islamic Consultative Assembly, searching key terms such as Israel, Palestine, and Gaza within official legislative databases. These statutory provisions were organized into two categories: Material Countermeasures and Non-Material Countermeasures, according to established conceptual definitions.
Findings: The investigation identified legal provisions regarding countermeasures against Israel’s crimes in 18 statutory titles and over 50 valid legal articles. While the current structure exhibits certain strengths, such as a balance between material and non-material measures, diversity in non-material measures, and general adherence to constitutional principles, it is undermined by numerous deficiencies. The most significant weaknesses are classified into two categories: General and Formal and Substantive and Specialized. Formal weaknesses include the proliferation of laws, often passed as scattered, single-article statutes, leading to redundancy (e.g., repeated economic boycott rules) and an increased negative burden of regulations. Substantive weaknesses include the practice of inserting broad, abstract system policies into ordinary laws, which compromises the law's executive function and leads to ambiguity. Furthermore, there is a pervasive lack of specific or specialized enforcement guarantees (sanctions) or defined deadlines for most state-implementing bodies, with penalties generally limited to criminal sanctions for individuals. Finally, the structure suffers from a multiplicity and overlap of jurisdiction among executing authorities, with some laws broadly tasking "all executive bodies" without specifying clear duties, potentially delaying execution and causing conflicts.
Conclusion: Countermeasures are essential tools used for political deterrence, aiming to force hostile parties, such as Israel, to bear costs and deter future unlawful behavior, often relying on non-military strategies. Although Iran's countermeasures are deeply rooted in religious and ideological convictions, past efforts have sometimes been confined to media and cultural rhetoric, failing to fully translate into specialized, technical legislation. The research concludes that the existing legal and statutory structure for countermeasures against Israel is significantly removed from an optimal, efficient, and specialized model due to the identified set of formal and substantive deficiencies. A comprehensive strengthening and revision of the legal framework, employing specialized legislative techniques, is necessary to increase the impact factor, enhance resource management, and ensure a more proportional and effective response to Israel’s crimes.