عنوان مقاله [English]
The US government's move to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of the Israeli regime can be debated from both a legal and policy perspective. In the context of international law, political decisions and actions are essentially an important conduit for the formation of legal rules. In fact, international law is a law that is formed primarily in the context of international relations and politics. In the absence of international law, hostile relations or war will prevail over international communications as a rule. Of course, this does not mean rejecting moral rules. However, there is also the belief that, in legal terms, ethical rules in general law and general international law in particular are secondary and secondary. Apart from these philosophical and fundamental arguments, the purpose of the relationship between politics and legal rules is to note that a political decision can be the basis for the creation of legal rules or the formulation of existing rules and can also be within or Be based on pre-existing legal rules. A political decision can also help to interpret existing legal rules. Although political decisions are not regarded as primary, primary or even secondary or subordinate sources in any of the relevant texts of international law, and in particular in Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice, they are virtually in the footsteps of decisions. Politics can be found in all sources of international law. At the heart of this research, however, is how the US government's recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of the Israeli regime in accordance with international law can be analyzed and evaluated. In this research, we have concluded with legal arguments and arguments that this decision is inconsistent with the rules and principles governing international law.