HUMAN RIGHTS IN TIMES OF ARMED CONFLICTS

The present contribution deals with the issue of human rights in armed conflicts versus the concept of war. This distinction was made in Article 2, and the same in all four Geneva Convention of 1949. In this article, the distinction is made between the universal system of human rights and the International Humanitarian Law of Armed Conflicts (IHLAC). The difference of application between these two sets of law relies on the fact, that the universal agreements of human rights always apply, both in armed conflict and peace when the IHLAC applies only in times of armed conflicts. There is a difference between them in the regulation. Human rights regulate the relationship between the state and persons under its jurisdiction, regardless of their nationality and the IHLAC applies to states and individuals or armed groups distinguishing between a civilian or a veteran. About the compliance control, it is a different system too, for the IHLAC, it is the ICRC and criminal tribunals, and for human rights, there are different committees of tribunals like the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The exam of the jurisprudence of the ECtHR shows, that it does not make a distinction between a state of war and peace, which is called the humanization of the law of armed conflicts. Also, the very important question of the fragmentation of international law is examined, based on the jurisprudence of the ICJ.

The Dilemma of War and Peace in the Trend of the XXI Century (Russian – Ukrainian case)

In the presented article the author asks how the essence of the relationship between such states of international relations as war and peace has changed under the influence of the trends of the XXI century. A clear empirical example for such an analysis was the modern Russian-Ukrainian war, a manifestation of which we see on the Donbass. This war was largely the result and manifestation of these new trends in international relations at both the regional and global levels. First of all, these trends and their destructive consequences are typical for the security sphere. From so the dilemma of war and peace takes on a new dimension and becomes one of the most pressing problems of the theory of war and peace and the theory of international relations. The purpose of this article is to understand how the essence of the relationship between such states of international relations as war and peace has changed under the influence of the 21st century trends. In order to properly investigate this problem, was chosen as an object, a striking manifestation of which we see on the Donbass. Research questions relate to changing approaches to understanding the dilemma of war and peace and the nature of the relationship between these states of international relations under the influence of the 21st century trends. To address this research challenge, a systematic review of contemporary research on various aspects of war and peace has been carried out. The answers are based on a study of the criteria for determining the state of war and peace and the determinants that influence the dynamics of change in these states. The study used deductive methods, comparative, political and conflict analysis, as well as neo-realistic and neoliberal approaches to treating the dilemma of war and peace. The article based on the assumption that the modern Russo-Ukrainian war became a consequence and manifestation of these new trends in international relations both at the regional and global levels. The conclusions drawn from this study require a conceptual rethinking and a new reading of the dilemma of war and peace, which are becoming hybrid. Therefore, understanding the new quality of these hybrid forms of war and peace is a very important and necessary task. To solve it, it is necessary to determine how the parameters of the relationship between peace and war have changed. Empirical observations show that one of the new features of this relationship is the blurring of the boundaries of war and peace. The objectives of the study are based on the discovery of a new content of the categories of war and peace and their interdependence due to the influence of 21st century trends in the modern system of international relations. The results of the study are based on the analysis of modern research on various aspects of the war and peace, as well as empirical data on the course of the Russian-Ukrainian war. This article provides an overview of current research on various aspects of war and peace, identifies the interrelationships, interdependencies, and boundaries between hybrid warfare and hybrid peace. The author tried to define the criteria for such a distinction between war and peace, based on the neoliberal and neorealist theory of international relations. The scientific novelty of this publication is that the author clarified the methodological reasons for the unresolved dilemma of war and peace in the current trends of the 21st century. The article concludes with a forecast of the consequences of the unresolved dilemma of war and peace for national and international security. Recommendations are given for a possible solution to the problem of war and peace on Donbass. The research presented in this article is an attempt to conceptually rethink and re-read the dilemmas of war and peace that are becoming hybrid. The article greatly expands the understanding of how the parameters of the relationship between peace and war have changed.

PRIMARY EDUCATION IN TABRIZ CITY DURING THE GAJARS PERIOD

Education was of religious character with schools and madrasahs in Tabriz, as in all Muslim cities during the Middle Ages and was based on the methodology of religious tenets. This type of education system dates back to the early years of Islam and was yet ongoing during its research period. Schools provided primary spiritual education, whereas madrasahs provided high religious education. The first madrasah in Iran was established in Tabriz. Literacy was taught and basic rules and regulations were applied at schools. They operated mainly within the mosques and the classes were held in zaviya (madrasah) and cell. The mosques performed numerous functions. They were not only places of worship (practicing namaz, listening to preaching, etc.), but also the place where Sharia laws are studied and propagated; holy war and peace declared; spoils of war are distributed; letters sent to the authorities; funerals held and where the other work was done.