Governments have always sought to obtain the secret and strategic intelligence of other countries in order to protect national security and respond to domestic and International threats, thereby applying their covert policies in the target country. This, in most cases, inflicts numerous injuries on the victim country. But the question is, can espionage make the government responsible for that act? Given the absence of any regulations in International Law on espionage, there is a strong disagreement over the legal status of espionage. The present study first elucidates the position of espionage in International Law and then assesses the attribution of espionage to the responsible State. Finally, the terms of the International courts' proceedings and alternative measures are analyzed. Research results show that espionage is a wrongful International act because of its incompatibility with the principles of International Law, but it is not usually possible to take legal action in International courts. The best solution is to use political ways and countermeasures in espionage cases.

Damages caused by hazards in the case of dealing public power with public emergency lead to codification of appropriate legal arrangements to respond the situation properly. In one hand, monitoring government’ s measures to prevent misuse of public power endangering individual right in critical times is necessary. On the other hand, public officials’ violations of rule of Law principles at crisis lead to their Responsibility. The most important standards regarding facing public emergency, which should be abided by government, are: recognition of exceptional threat based on reasonable circumstances, necessity and proportionality of measures, temporary feature of given measures and non-discrimination in exceptional measures’ implementation and also, violations of government or public officials in national and International cause Responsibility.

The Rohingya people are the native inhabitants of Arakan (Rakhine) land in Myanmar, who have faced a series of crimes by the Myanmar army and government. Based on the norms and regulations of International and customary International Law and the principles of International criminal Law and considering the incidents that occurred against the religious minority group of Rohingya Muslims, the continuous violation of human rights and the occurrence of the crime of genocide by the Myanmar government are a matter of fact. There are numerous examples of deliberate actions, which prove the governmental steps to eliminate the Rohingya group, and deliberate measures, which cause the International Responsibility of the Myanmar government. Iran has raised three specific positions regarding the Rohingya Muslim crisis.The major question of the research is to evaluate the occurrence or non-occurrence of violations of International criminal Law, the crimes of genocide, and crimes against humanity by the Myanmar army and government against the Muslim minority in Rakhine State.The hypothesis emphasizes the definite occurrence of violations of humanitarian Law and International criminal Law, especially committing crimes of genocide and crimes against humanity. The purpose of the research is to examine one of the important cases of violation of Muslim rights in today's world, which has not been noticed by International legal societies. It tries to discuss briefly the Iranian positions on the Issue. The analytical-descriptive research method is based on official docs and undeniable facts, especially the documents issued by the International Criminal Court.

The rapid advancement of technology and the unique characteristics of cyberspace have caused change in many of International Law's classic concepts, and in most cases the lack of coherent customary regimes prepared grounds for new interpretation of on classic concepts. Cyber espionage is a relatively new concept in International Law, and there is no agreement on legal regime governing it. Ambiguity and fear of y extending principles and rules governing espionage in traditional sence, to the cyberspace, which is generally the domain of soft Law practice, has put International Law governing this new concept in a State of uncertainty. Therefore, on one hand, the legitimacy of extraterritorial infiltration acts of States through espionage remains controversial, and on the other hand, the use of virtual instruments by States for advancing their extraterritorial infiltration into cyberspace of other States, has fueled ambiguities. The lack of specific International customary and treaty obligations in this regard, paves the way for the application of general principles and rules of International Law. This article seeks to elucidate the concept and scope of cyber espionage and the International Responsibility arising from it, taking into account, State practice and doctrine, to answer this fundamental question that, which principles and rules of International Law govern cyber espionage.

Recently we faced with a scientific Journal, named "Journal of Environmental & Technology''. Although the most content of this Journal had scientific and technical aspect relating to environment, the subject of the last article in this issue (No. 26, 1384) was on International environmental Law. Off course the title of the article which was "Progressive Development of International Environmental Law and State Responsibility'', usually attracts some Lawyers to read it. During studding of the said article, we understood, how basic problems exist, procedural and substantive, in this article. This matter caused that we started to critically review it. It is worthy to note that, we do not know the author of the article, but for the sake of supporting the high position of knowledge and scientists as well as giving value to the valuable books and articles, we decided to analyse it critically without any personal benefit. We Hope the present article causes stopping the continuation of the issue of these kinds of papers in scientific journals.

Consequences of succession of States in respect of International Responsibility, or State succession on International Responsibility has been dealt with International Law doctrines. The issue was postponed by International Law commission (ILC) for many years, due to the highly controversial and dubious thoughts. There is a fundamental debate on the concept and existence, not merely the domain, of State succession on International Responsibility, despite the other consequences of succession. Clarifying the conceptual framework, following the limitative categorization on the basis of legal deterioration or continuity of original State, the present paper saught to illuminate the conception in question has been in the process of rulemaking and showed that this International legal perception, despite the prima facie contradiction between the said conception and two main principles of International Law, the principles of independent Responsibility and clean slate, in fact, has been in harmony with its essence. The necessity of reparation and the linkage between population, territory and the successor State, and the objectivity of rights and obligations, requires transferring Responsibility to the successor State. The said perception is regarded as the other exception to the mentioned principles, logically.

The attributability of actions to States within the context of investment treaty disputes and to focus on the roles played by International and domestic Laws in such attributions have caught the attention of jurists in recent years. The ILC Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, and particularly, article 3 points to the main outcome of this debate, where it does not consider domestic Law irrelevant in Internationally wrongful acts and stipulates that the issue is subject to International Law and it will take into account the relevance of domestic Law. Thus, although the characterization of an act of a State as Internationally wrongful is an independent function of International Law and such characterization is not affected by the characterization of the same act as Lawful by domestic Law, it does not mean that domestic Law is irrelevant to such description; on the contrary, it may be related in various ways. The present article attempts to examine the challenging junction of domestic and International Law with regard to the attributability of actions taken within the framework of investment treaties, specifically by State-owned and para-statal entities that exercise elements of State authority.

The attributability of actions to States within the context of investment treaty disputes and to focus on the roles played by International and domestic Laws in such attributions have caught the attention of jurists in recent years. The ILC Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, and particularly, article 3 points to the main outcome of this debate, where it does not consider domestic Law irrelevant in Internationally wrongful acts and stipulates that the issue is subject to International Law and it will take into account the relevance of domestic Law. Thus, although the characterization of an act of a State as Internationally wrongful is an independent function of International Law and such characterization is not affected by the characterization of the same act as Lawful by domestic Law, it does not mean that domestic Law is irrelevant to such description; on the contrary, it may be related in various ways. The present article attempts to examine the challenging junction of domestic and International Law with regard to the attributability of actions taken within the framework of investment treaties, specifically by State-owned and para-statal entities that exercise elements of State authority.

The obligations of the Sponsoring State are subject to liability arising from the requirements of International environmental Law. The obligations of the Sponsoring State in protecting the environment of the area are of an appropriate nature, assessment, precaution, prevention, control and compensation. However, if the Sponsoring State has taken all necessary and appropriate measures to the best of its ability to bind the sponsored contractor, it will not be liable for damages resulting from the contractor's activities. This situation means that the damages resulting from the contractor's activity to exploit the resources of the area are not compensated. However, the International community should not, in any case, suffer the damage caused by the contractor's activities to the marine environment. Undoubtedly, the inability of the Sponsoring State to control and oblige the contractor to fully comply with International standards in the exploration and extraction of marine resources should not be taken into account by the International community. It is imperative that the Sponsoring State be absolutely responsible for the damages caused by the contractor. If the damage is due to the fault of the contractor, the Sponsoring State shall compensate it and then deduct it from the contractor's bail. If the damage caused by the negligence of the Sponsoring State, it should compensate the same damage so that in any case the damage to the marine environment is not left unattended and the damage is not inflicted on the International community body.

Increasing International organizations as active subjects of International Law, their role in the commission of Internationally wrongful acts has also increased. Organizations not only have committed Internationally wrongful acts independently, but also playing a rloe in wrongful acts committed by States or other International organizations in some way. This has led to address the International Responsibility of International organizations in connection with the act of State or other International organizations in addition to the independent Responsibility of International organizations. It has been known as derivative Responsibility and has been addressed in field of State Responsibility before. While International Law commission (hereinafter I. L. C. ) has not clarified it well in its draft articles on Responsibility of International organizations (2011) (hereinafter ARIO), there are considerable differents which need to be explained, despite the similarities between the concept of derivative Responsibility of International organizations and the said conception in the field of State Responsibility. Aid or assistance, direction and control, coercion and circumvention are regarded as four exclusive situations in the scope of derivative Responsibility of International organizations which the contribution (also known as distribution) of Responsibility is not similar in each of the situations in question. The spectrum of the said distribution is very broad so relatively in Responsibility and also circumstance in precluding wrongfulness would be observed.