---

The rapid and intensive progress in science and technology in the world, despite its abundant advantages and gifts of welfare and comfort for the mankind, in many ways, it has pushed human security to face grave tragic events. To give an example, the progress in chemistry before the Great War, made it possible to produce and use toxic gases including Phosgene gas causing enormous deaths of both military personnel and civilians. Another example in man’s progress in nuclear physics led to innovating nuclear bomb with no precedent and unheard of in terms of mass destruction and ruins. In turn, the international humanitarian law, despite its progress in recent decades, has had been slower than the development of aforementioned scientific progresses. Nonetheless, one should consider the point that those disciplines of human sciences have more essential and fundamental principles that provide it with the ability to prevail with new conditions and situations. To elaborate the subject, although the international humanitarian law lacks explicit rules, regulations and treaties in addressing many of the modern armaments and warfare, it still possesses the principle of distinction, principle of unnecessary pain and suffering, principle of preventing vast and long-term damages that could be enforced on new arms by assessing its legality in order to boost human security.  The present paper aims at studying various aspects of this issue.

---

Strategic bombing of population centers and civilian industrial and communication facilities is a widely-used method by involved parties in the wars waged in the 20^th century. This strategy which aim at destruction of the economic power and the population morale is in contrast with the principles of international humanitarian law regarding the distinction between belligerents and non-belligerents. In its advisory opinion on the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons in 1996, the International Court of Justice, on the one hand insisted on the principle of distinction between combatants and non-combatants and on the other, recognized the deterrence policy as state practice, hence having legal effect. reviewing of some of the technical details and requirements of the deterrence policy leads to the conclusion that this policy is a continuation of the older concepts of total war and strategic bombing. Therefore, the recognition of the deterrence policy in international law is a tacit recognition of the possibility of the principle of distinction being violated in some cases. Hence, the strategy of some States, including the Islamic Republic of Iran for retaliatory attacks on the cities of their adversaries can be legally justified on this basis.