Public Law Researsh

Abstract The concepts of abuse of rights and abuse of process are being considered by litigants in international courts. In the abuse of the right and abuse of process, bad faith replaces good faith. In abuse of rights, the question is about exercising a right but with an improper purpose while abuse of process occurs to take advantage of a process with different intentions in order to disrupt proceedings. Abuse of rights is an issue that is related to the substantive part of a case, while abuse of process is a non-substantive issue in most cases and is raised in the admissibility. This study's main objective is to examine the practice of the ICJ in relation to the abuse of rights and abuse of process. The research method of this research is descriptive-analytical by using library-documentary sources. Despite the refusal of the court to state the status of abuse of rights and process, today these concepts can be referred to as general principles of law in international law. This article proves that the court considers a high threshold to accept the realization of the abuse of rights and process, and so far it has not been able to confirm such abuse.

Abstract The right to life is the first human right that forms the central core of the human rights system.In order to protect this right, governments are obliged to respect and protect the right to life and provide provisions for the people under their jurisdiction.There is an inseparable link between health and human life. It exists and benefiting from physical and mental health is a necessary prelude to preserving life and human dignity. But today, humanity is facing phenomena and crises such as emerging infectious diseases El Nino, water shortage, global warming which have seriously threatened the health and peace of the body and jeopardized the international peace and security and the efficiency and effectiveness of the regulations. International law and the performance of governments in the face of such global crises have been questioned and have led to the revelation of the shortcomings of the international law system in the field of preventing and dealing with infectious diseases such as Covid19 Although various international documents have addressed the issue of international obligations of governments and the world community in this field the findings of the present study show that the anticipated obligations were not very efficient and effective and require

Abstract The digital transformation of international dispute resolution mechanisms has accelerated markedly in recent years. While virtual hearings were not unprecedented, the COVID-19 pandemic compelled international courts and tribunals to transcend conventional procedural models to prevent undue delays in adjudication.
This article adopts a descriptive-analytical methodology grounded in doctrinal legal research to examine whether the right to an in-person hearing is recognized under the procedural regimes of international judiciary bodies. It interrogates the evolving judicial attitudes toward the principle of physical presence in hearings and assesses the extent to which such a principle is embedded in the normative frameworks of international proceedings.
The findings suggest that, although the right to a physical hearing is not explicitly codified in the statutes or procedural rules of most international courts and tribunals, the overarching principles of procedural fairness, equality of arms, and the right to be heard remain central to the administration of justice. In light of recent jurisprudential and institutional practice, the continued use of virtual or hybrid hearings is increasingly regarded not only as a pragmatic response to global exigencies, but also as a necessary evolution in the delivery of international justice.

Abstract As to the legal nature of sovereign wealth funds, there are three different approaches globally. This article aims to analyze and evaluate the impact of these differing methods on international disputes, as well as the desirability of the legal nature and framework of Iran's National Development Fund, considering the current sanctioned situation.
According to the findings of this research, sovereign wealth funds fulfill the necessary technical and legal requirements in each of their forms. In the ICSID practice regarding personal jurisdiction, the Broches criterion is applied, which reduces the role of legal nature. Regarding judicial immunities, the principle of non-applicability of immunity applies in cases where the fund's activities are commercial in nature; similarly, in terms of enforcement immunity, albeit to a lesser extent, the existence or non-existence of independent legal personality from the state is not considered a determining factor. The legal nature of the National Development Fund is characterized as a pool of assets belonging to the state and lacking independent legal personality, which has contributed to its unsuccessful performance alongside various other factors and will pose multiple challenges. Therefore, alongside interpretative and procedural strategies concerning international disputes, corrective strategies within an appropriate legal framework have been proposed.

Abstract In most of the cases filed with the International Court of Justice concerning the Genocide Convention, the Applicants have sought an interim order to cease the Respondent’s military operations. While the Court’s case law shows that in most cases these requests have been dismissed by the Court due to their lack of subject-matter relevance to the Genocide Convention, in some cases this request has also been granted. The only reason expressed in the separate opinions of the judges in these cases is the humanitarian crisis, which in previous cases also existed, perhaps even more severely. Another point that the Court’s case law has established in these cases is the lack of subject-matter relevance of the use of force or self-defense to the provisions of the Genocide Convention. Although the requested interim order must be related to the alleged rights contained in the instrument granting jurisdiction to the Court, in some cases the Court, despite acknowledging the lack of connection between the use of force and the provisions of the Genocide Convention, has referred to the cessation of military operations in the interim order.

Abstract The right to happiness and the pursuit of happiness are significant in human rights discourse, yet they are not explicitly stated in the European Convention on Human Rights. Nevertheless, the European Court of Human Rights has indirectly addressed these concepts through a broad and creative interpretation of the Convention’s rights. The central question is how the right to happiness and its pursuit are articulated in the Court’s jurisprudence. Findings reveal that, although not directly mentioned in the Convention or its protocols, the Court recognizes and supports rights indirectly linked to happiness and well-being through expansive interpretation of the Convention’s provisions. The Court’s judicial practice emphasizes protecting fundamental rights, such as the right to life, freedom of expression, and privacy, which contribute to conditions fostering happiness. This approach implicitly promotes individuals’ well-being. Using a descriptive-analytical research method, this article examines how the Court’s judicial interpretations indirectly support the right to happiness, demonstrating that such interpretations can expand the concept of well-being within the human rights framework.

Abstract This article focuses on how international criminal law responds to the challenges of the use of AI-based weapon systems and the criminal liability of individuals involved in committing international crimes involving these weapons. For this purpose, adopting an analytical-descriptive approach, the study addresses whether the existing framework of international criminal law can adequately meet the challenges arising from crimes committed by autonomous weapons. Considering that various actors are involved in their production, designing, programming, training and deploying, the more important question is that who bears responsibility for international crimes involving military AI?
The author argues that while attributing direct criminal liability to a specific individual in this context is complex, an interpretive expansion of Articles 25 and 28 of the Rome Statute—coupled with the theory of hierarchical responsibility—can establish liability for individuals or groups of individuals who play a decisive role in designing, developing, deploying, or commanding such systems. Thus, all human actors who are at a particular point in the chain of supervision or command and who exercise control over others, may be held responsible.
Keywords: Artificial intelligence, Autonomous Weapons, Criminal Liability, International Crimes, Armed Conflicts.

Abstract This article examines the case law of the European Court of Human Rights and International Law Commission's framework on State responsibility for the joint conduct in multinational operations. The aim of this study is to define legal trends regarding the joint conduct in the approaches of the ILC and the ECtHR. The main question is how the ECtHR reconciles the ILC's principle of concurrent responsibility for joint conduct with the jurisdictional limitations of Article 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights, and what consequences this has for accountability in multi-State actions. Through case studies of key cases related to this issue and their legal analysis, as well as the general trends of each, this essay has argued that the Court's reliance on "effective control" as a prerequisite for jurisdiction creates accountability gaps in areas such as military alliances or illegal decision-making. By aligning the case law of the ECtHR with the principles of the ILC on State responsibility, this article has argued for a coherent framework that balances universal protection of human rights with the realities of multinational cooperation and ensures that States are not allowed to escape accountability through institutional lack of transparency.

Abstract Environmental justice addresses issues related to the fair and equitable distribution of environmental benefits through the principle of inclusiveness at local, national and international levels, which is possible through the meaningful participation of vulnerable indigenous populations in decision-making and policy-making processes. The present study, which is presented in a descriptive-analytical manner, examines the perspectives and various aspects of using the concept of environmental justice as a tool for advancing the rights of indigenous peoples in light of Islamic teachings and the international human rights system. The results of the study indicate that Islamic teachings, emphasizing stewardship of the land and maintaining the balance of the ecosystem, recognize the environmental rights of indigenous peoples as part of human rights and the duties of generations. The international human rights system also recognizes the right of indigenous communities to preserve their land, culture and natural resources through documents such as the Convention on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The key point of similarity is the emphasis on the participation of indigenous communities in environmental management, but the basis of each (divine in Islam and human in the international system) and the scope of these rights are different.

Abstract As the importance and scope of an organization’s activities increase, challenges may arise. Specifically, if an international organization, alone or through its organs or members, adopts or implements decisions that are contrary to international law, various issues arise; especially if the rule in question is peremptory. In light of this proposition, the present study examines the decisions of the United Nations regarding the Palestinian Territory. The question is whether the decisions that this organization has adopted regarding the status of this territory are consistent with the right to self-determination of the Palestinians? If the answer is not in the affirmative, what are the consequences of these unlawful actions? As the International Court of Justice has also acknowledged in its 2024 Advisory Opinion on Palestine, the right to self-determination has been elevated to the level of a peremptory rule in international law in the context of confronting foreign occupation, and on this basis, it cannot be violated by the agreement of subjects of international law.

Abstract Derived from the first paragraph of Article 33 of the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and its 1967 Protocol, State Parties are strictly prohibited, by any means, from returning refugees to territories where their life or freedom would be threatened on account of their race, religion, nationality, membership in a particular social group, or political opinion. The use of the term “refugees” in this provision has given rise to two main interpretive approaches: a restrictive view that limits its application to individuals whose refugee status has been formally recognized, and a broader approach that extends the scope to include both asylum seekers and recognized refugees. In this context, Australia has sought to avoid its obligations under the non-refoulement principle by outsourcing asylum seekers to third countries that do not provide adequate safety and protection. This study, through a descriptive-analytical method, addresses whether the non-refoulement obligation also covers asylum seekers. It further evaluates whether Australia’s outsourcing policy constitutes a breach of this principle. The findings indicate that the principle applies to both asylum seekers and refugees, and that transferring asylum seekers to a third country where safety is uncertain constitutes a violation of the principle of secondary non-refoulement.

Abstract With the increasing expansion of cyberspace and the increase in cyber threats globally, cyber capacity building has been placed on the agenda of governments and international institutions as one of the key elements in strengthening digital security. One of these institutions is the European Union. The European Union, given its multinational structure, has also made extensive efforts to enhance the cyber capabilities of its member states; however, the capacity building process faces numerous challenges. In this study, the authors will address the most important challenges of the European Union in the field of cyber capacity building using a descriptive-analytical method. The results of the study indicate that the challenges facing the European Union include the heterogeneity in the level of cyber development and capability among member states, the shortage of specialized human resources, the lack of an integrated legal and judicial framework, dependence on foreign technologies, and poor public awareness of cyber threats. In addition, the increasing complexity of cyber attacks and the changing nature of threats highlight the need for dynamic and flexible capacity building more than ever.

Abstract Abstract
The tourism industry, despite its pivotal role in the global economy and the enhancement of cultural interactions, increasingly faces substantial environmental, social, and cultural challenges that underscore the urgent need for an effective and legally binding international regulatory framework to ensure its sustainability. Nevertheless, the existing legal instruments governing sustainable tourism are predominantly embedded in non-binding soft law arrangements and therefore lack the necessary clarity, enforceability, and regulatory capacity to adequately address the adverse impacts of tourism activities on the environment and local communities. Employing a descriptive–analytical methodology, this study critically examines the structural deficiencies of the current international legal regime applicable to sustainable tourism and demonstrates its inability to institutionalize fundamental principles of international environmental law. The primary contribution of this research lies in proposing a redesigned governance model for sustainable tourism based on a gradual transition from soft law to binding hard law mechanisms. Grounded in the normative and institutional capacities of the Convention on Biological Diversity and the principle of intergenerational equity, the study advances the development of an international, legally binding supplementary protocol as an effective means to ensure full compliance of tourism activities with environmental obligations for present and future generations.

Abstract With the emergence of the Robust peacekeeping operations in the years after the Cold War, the scope of the use of force in peacekeeping operations expanded. This issue most often occurs in areas that are involved in armed conflicts. Considering the nature of peacekeepers, who must act impartially, this raises questions about the applicability of international humanitarian law: are peacekeeping forces considered military under international humanitarian law, like the parties to the conflict, and may they be legitimate military targets? This article seeks to address these questions using a descriptive - analytical approach and library data. This article argues that in order for peacekeeping forces to become parties to the conflict, they must participate directly or indirectly in an armed conflict, whether international or non-international. Therefore, the mere presence of peacekeeping forces in an area that is involved in armed conflicts nor does the mere use of force make them parties to the conflict.

Abstract In the aftermath of the Second World War and the emergence of the modern international human rights system, environmental concerns initially held no distinct place within human rights discourse. However, the evolution of international law forged an inseparable connection between human rights and environmental protection. Exacerbation of current environmental crises and increased environmental damage in armed conflicts, particularly in the occupied Palestinian territories, the question arises as to how human rights norms can be employed to safeguard environmental rights and address the gaps and shortcomings of international humanitarian law? Drawing on a descriptive, analytical approach and library, based sources, this study explores the relationship between human rights, humanitarian law, and environmental protection, examines the environmental harms resulting from the Israel–Palestine conflict, and evaluates relevant documents and human rights norms for pursuing state responsibility for environmental damage. The findings indicate that despite the existence of specific international humanitarian rules, human rights norms, as general obligations, can provide a meaningful basis for protecting the environment and seeking reparations for environmental harm in situations of armed conflict.

Abstract 1. Introduction
Following the Sochi Olympics scandal in 2016, Grigory Rodchenkov, a former official at the Russian Anti-Doping Agency, fled to the United States and revealed the existence of a systematic doping program in Russia. Rodchenkov’s disclosures triggered widespread international reaction, and in response to investigations conducted by the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), extensive sanctions were imposed on Russian sports institutions and athletes. However, the U.S. government considered these measures insufficient and, in December 2020, enacted the Rodchenkov Anti-Doping Act.
Doping remains a significant issue in professional sports. The use of prohibited substances and methods fundamentally contradicts the core principles, values, and ethical foundations of sport, including those embodied by the Olympic Games. The primary objective of sport is to measure and challenge natural human ability; therefore, the use of performance-enhancing substances to artificially boost physical capabilities undermines the very essence of athletic competition.
During the Cold War, the Soviet Union and other Eastern Bloc countries regarded success in international sports competitions as a means of demonstrating the superiority of the socialist system over capitalism. For decades, state-sponsored doping formed an integral part of Soviet sports policy. Systematic doping was particularly widespread during the 1980s, and despite international prohibitions and well-documented health risks, the use of anabolic steroids to increase muscle mass and strength was common among athletes.
Given the events of the Sochi Winter Olympics, some countries, including the United States, sought to revise their approach to combating doping and to take steps toward more effective governance and oversight of sports at both the national and international levels. As noted earlier, the history of systematic doping dates back to the Soviet era; however, for the purposes of this study, the point of departure is the events surrounding the Sochi Olympics. The Sochi scandal constitutes the most significant and extensive doping case in the history of sports, ultimately leading to the enactment of the Rodchenkov Anti-Doping Act. The study tried to answer the following question: by enacting the Rodchenkov Act and criminalizing doping as provided for under this law, has the U.S. government strengthened the anti-doping system, or has it instead weakened that system by undermining the coherence established through WADA’s efforts?
2. Literature Review
It seems that there is no Persian-language research on the subject; therefore, this study constitutes a necessary contribution to the field.
3. Materials and Methods
The present study employed a descriptive–analytical approach to examine the impact of the Rodchenkov Act on the global anti-doping system. It was based on a qualitative analysis of relevant legal texts, policies, and institutional responses.
4. Results and Discussion
The analysis first examined the background and provisions of the Rodchenkov Anti-Doping Act, then it focused on its impact on the international anti-doping system and the responses of relevant institutions. The Rodchenkov Anti-Doping Act represents a significant shift in the governance of global anti-doping efforts by granting the United States authority to prosecute individuals involved in doping conspiracies that affect American athletes or sports organizations, regardless of where the alleged conduct occurs. While the Act introduces stricter legal measures against those who facilitate doping—including criminal penalties for individuals who aid or abet such schemes—its extraterritorial application raises concerns about potential jurisdictional conflicts and its broader impact on international cooperation in anti-doping governance. The unilateral nature of the Act may also undermine the authority of established global institutions such as WADA by creating parallel enforcement mechanisms that operate outside existing anti-doping frameworks.
5. Conclusion
The content analysis of the Rodchenkov Act and the responses of key international stakeholders, including WADA and the International Olympic Committee (IOC), revealed significant insights. It can be argued that the Act will have a negative impact on the integrity and cohesion of the global anti-doping system in both the short and long term Future research should therefore explore alternative approaches to strengthening the global anti-doping regime, with particular emphasis on enhancing international collaboration, improving whistleblower protections, and reinforcing the effectiveness of existing institutions, rather than relying on unilateral enforcement measures that may disrupt the cohesion and legitimacy of the international anti-doping system.

Abstract 1. Introduction
States, like individuals, do not exist in isolation; rather, they necessarily interact with one another. A state’s geographical position requires it to maintain certain relations with neighboring states and different kinds of relations with others. One of the oldest expressions of friendly relations is diplomacy. Through diplomatic and consular relations, states generally conduct their foreign affairs. In other words, these relations reflect and embody the foreign policy and external relations of international legal entities (i.e., states).
The Internet has become an essential tool for diplomatic negotiations and communication with a wide range of stakeholders. Nevertheless, the absence of treaty law and customary international law in the cyber domain is readily apparent. Still, a few attempts have been made to fill this gap. For example, the 2001 Budapest Convention on Cybercrime—concluded within the framework of the Council of Europe and its Additional Protocol—addresses only individual crimes. Perhaps the only relevant reference is the Tallinn Manuals, prepared in 2013 and 2017 by a group of international experts under NATO auspices
The absence of specific rules does not mean that states may conduct cyber operations without legal constraint. Although existing treaty laws and customary international law do not explicitly regulate cyber operations, established methods of legal interpretation make it possible to extend existing rules to this domain. This approach has been accepted by international organizations such as the United Nations and the European Union, as well as by a number of states, including the United States, Iran, the United Kingdom, Russia, Italy, Australia, China, the Netherlands, Qatar, Cuba, Hungary, and Mali.
The Tallinn Manual 2.0 is widely regarded as the most authoritative and frequently cited work on the international law applicable to cyber operations. Given the normative gap and the absence of uniform state practice, the Manual provides a comprehensive analysis of how existing international rules and regulations may be adapted to the complex and evolving domain of cyberspace. It also offers valuable insight into the views of legal and technical experts regarding how states engaged in cyber operations should conduct themselves.

Considering the rules and interpretations of Tallinn Manual 2.0, the present study aimed to examine the international law governing diplomatic and consular relations as it applies to state conduct in cyberspace.
2. Literature Review
Given the novelty of the topic, no research in Iran has yet examined the international law governing diplomatic and consular relations as it applies to state conduct in cyberspace. This distinguishes the present article in terms of its timeliness, theoretical framework, and analytical focus.
3. Materials and Methods
This study adopted a descriptive–analytical approach and drew on library sources to examine the positions advanced in the Tallinn Manual 2.0 in light of both general international law and the specific body of international law governing diplomatic and consular relations as applied to cyber operations. Accordingly, the study relied not only on the Tallinn Manual 2.0, but also on the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations and the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, since diplomatic and consular law is grounded primarily in these two conventions. The international group of experts involved in the preparation of the Tallinn Manual 2.0 also agreed that these conventions largely reflect customary international law.
4. Results and Discussion
The analysis first addressed the basic definitions and concepts relating to cyberspace and to diplomatic and consular law. Then it focused on the conditions and requirements governing cyber operations within the framework of diplomatic and consular law. Communication is vital to diplomacy. The nature of the Internet has made it an indispensable tool for communication in the modern age and has given rise to what may be called internet diplomacy. Other factors contributing to this transformation include widespread access to telecommunications networks and the low cost of telecommunications equipment, both of which have expanded the capacity of many states to engage in internet diplomacy.
In this new environment, traditional diplomacy must evolve through the reinterpretation of existing rules, and where those rules prove inadequate or incomplete, new ones must be developed. First, diplomatic and consular missions enjoy the inviolability of their premises under customary international law, as codified in the Vienna Conventions on Diplomatic and Consular Relations. Mission premises are inviolable, and officials of the receiving state may not enter them without the consent of the head of mission.
Moreover, any property within the mission—including information and communication technology (ICT) infrastructure—is immune from search, seizure, confiscation, and the enforcement of judicial orders. This means that even remote access to ICT infrastructure located within the mission, without explicit consent, is prohibited. In addition, the mission’s archives, documents, and official communications are inviolable, even in electronic form and regardless of their location. The receiving state is also obligated to ensure the mission’s freedom of communication for all official purposes. All persons enjoying privileges and immunities are under an obligation to respect the laws and regulations of the receiving state and to refrain from interfering in its internal affairs.
Moreover, the premises of the mission must not be used in any manner incompatible with the functions of the mission, with general international law, or with any special agreement in force between the sending and receiving states.
In the cyber context, this means that persons enjoying privileges and immunities must not engage in unlawful surveillance or espionage in the receiving state, and mission premises must not be used for such purposes. Correspondingly, the receiving state is required to take all appropriate measures to protect the mission against intrusion or damage and to prevent any disturbance of the mission’s peace or impairment of its dignity. Therefore, if a state becomes aware of malicious cyber activity targeting a diplomatic or consular mission within its territory, it must take all appropriate measures to protect the mission against that activity.
5. Conclusion
Cyberspace is continuously evolving, and with its high growth potential, any number of future developments are conceivable. Cyber diplomacy has now become an integral part of the daily life of diplomats and consuls. However, the absence of treaty instruments and customary international law in the cyber domain is very evident. Consequently, cyber operations in cyberspace pose questions and challenges for diplomatic and consular law. In this new environment, traditional diplomatic and consular law must evolve through the reinterpretation of existing rules. Where certain rules prove insufficient or incomplete in regulating internet diplomacy, new rules must be established. International rules concerning the inviolability of premises, the immunity of documents and archives, the freedom of official communication, tax exemptions, and immunity from jurisdiction must be reinterpreted and applied in a manner consistent with the cyber-diplomatic environment. Moreover, new rules should be formulated to guarantee the immunity of the cyber diplomatic or consular bag.

Abstract Introduction

Tribunals, in both domestic and international legal systems, hear the claims of parties only under specific circumstances. The rules that define these circumstances fall under the concepts of jurisdiction and admissibility. Rules relating to jurisdiction determine whether a particular judicial body has the authority to consider the nature and form of the arguments presented before it. By contrast, rules of admissibility assess whether, in a given case, the necessary conditions for the exercise of that jurisdiction are satisfied with respect to the parties to the lawsuit.
The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR or the Court) is one of the main bodies for adjudicating human rights disputes in the world. After establishing that it has jurisdiction to examine the lawsuit, the ECtHR takes the first step to determine whether an applicant has a sufficient legal interest in bringing a claim. Under European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR or the Convention), Article 33 allows any member state to refer to the ECtHR any alleged violation of the Convention or its Protocols by another member state. Likewise, pursuant to Articles 34 and 35, the ECtHR examines individual applications to ensure that they comply fully with the substantive and procedural requirements set out in the ECHR and that the applicant has suffered a significant disadvantage. If these conditions are satisfied, the ECtHR may declare the application admissible. Accordingly, individuals, groups of individuals, or NGOs may refer to the ECtHR as victims of alleged violations of the ECHR or its Protocols. These provisions define both the conditions under which the ECtHR may hear a case and the categories of applicants entitled to bring claims before it.
Despite ECHR’s defining the scope of the interested party and setting out the conditions for access to the dispute-resolution mechanism, the ECtHR provides only a limited procedure. In practice, the ECtHR’s procedure demonstrates both the inadequacy of this restrictive list and the Court’s willingness to broaden the concept of legal interest in order to accommodate a greater number of victims of human rights violations, in accordance with the ECHR and its Protocols. The ECtHR has adapted its approach to contemporary developments within the international community by relying on Article 35(3)(b) of the Convention and employing various interpretative techniques, such as dynamic interpretation and reference to human rights principles (including the principle of access to international justice). By moving away from excessive formalism and rigid reasoning, the ECtHR has recognized the need to develop a more flexible and functional understanding of the concept of interested party in its case law.
In light of these developments, the present research aimed to answer the following research question: To what extent has the ECtHR taken the initiative in developing the scope of the concept of interested party? And what principles and justifications have formed the basis of this procedural evolution?

Literature Review

There is a substantial body of English-language scholarship on the concept of the interested party, legal interest in bringing a claim, and the jurisdiction of the ECtHR. In contrast, Persian-language scholarship appears to be limited, with only a few studies addressing the concept of the interested party, primarily within the contexts of private and public law. However, there appears to be a significant gap in Persian-language scholarship concerning the status, definition, and examples of interested party as reflected in the ECtHR’s procedure. What distinguishes the present study from similar works is its emphasis on the Court’s innovations and initiatives in developing and expanding this concept.

Materials and Methods

The present article adopted an analytical–descriptive approach to examine the distinctive treatment of the concept of interested party in the ECtHR’s procedure. It offered a detailed analysis of the Court’s judgments by drawing on library sources, including books, scholarly articles, and credible legal websites—particularly those relating to the ECtHR.

Results and Discussion

The principle of effective protection of individuals and the defense of social interests has led to significant innovations in the concept of interested party and the identification of victims of human rights violations. The ECtHR, through legal techniques such as the evolutionary interpretation of procedural rules, caution against excessive formalism, and consideration of the best interests of individuals—particularly minors and the sick—has succeeded in broadening the scope of who may bring claims. Moreover, profound social changes, the evolving roles of individuals in each other’s lives, and the impact of human rights violations on those beyond the direct victim have prompted the ECtHR to recognize claims from indirect victims, thus expanding the scope of who may bring claims. According to the ECtHR, a victim is not only a person directly affected by a rights violation but also anyone who can present logical and convincing evidence indicating the likelihood of such a violation. This approach has effectively opened the door for a wider range of individuals to bring claims. Finally, the recognition of public interest litigation, such as collective litigations, represents one of the ECtHR’s most recent initiatives. This mechanism allows individuals or NGOs to represent a group collectively, protecting universal rights such as the right to health, the right to a clean environment, and the right of access to information.

Conclusion

In international law, the right to bring a claim is generally determined by the nature of the case and the purpose of each judicial system. In the International Court of Justice, only states possess the legal standing to file a claim. Over time, however, while this principle has been maintained, the concept of standing before this court has evolved. Similarly, the ECtHR grants legal standing to certain individuals, groups, and NGOs, in line with the objectives for which it was established. Social developments, the growing importance of individual rights, the shift away from formalism, and, most importantly, the humanization of procedural rights have significantly expanded the concept of standing in this court.

Abstract Introduction

In every legal system, the question of who is responsible for violations of established laws and regulations is inseparable from the system in that it serves as a guarantee for enforcing the law. Concerning the international responsibility, the debate centers on how and under what criteria the acts of private persons can be attributed to a state. The core issue is the international responsibility of states for the wrongful acts of private persons under their jurisdiction that affect the international arena. The main challenge lies in establishing the criteria for attributing the acts of private persons to states. In this respect, it is essential to examine the exercise of due diligence and the failure to observe it by states. The current study generally aimed to analyze the concept of due diligence within international law, focusing on its implications for state responsibility toward private persons’ acts. The analysis specifically examined due diligence in the context of the law of the sea, where private fleets constitute key actors. In such cases, attributing wrongful acts to the flag state becomes a critical concern. The research question is: What is the role of states’ failure to exercise due diligence regarding the conduct of private actors under the international law of the sea?

Literature Review

During the 19th and 20th centuries, the doctrine of due diligence attracted scholarly attention, especially regarding the protection of foreigners within a state’s territory. In English-language scholarship, this theme has been explored extensively. There are also a few Persian-language studies on the concept of due diligence. For instance, in the article “The Concept and Nature of ‘Due Diligence’ in International Law,” Hosseini and Rahaee (2024) examined the topic in the context of international human rights law. Moreover, the article “Understanding the Concept and Status of ‘Due Diligence’ in International Investment Law” (Hosseini & Habibi-Mojande, 2024) emphasized the role of due diligence in the investment law. The current study, however, deals with a different issue, namely, state responsibility for the actions of private vessels that fly its flag.

Materials and Methods

The research adopted a descriptive–analytical method. The data was collected from library sources and various documents.

Results and Discussion

Given the growing involvement of the private sector in areas traditionally dominated by the state, it is increasingly important to scrutinize the scope of states’ international responsibility for their actions. This issue is especially salient with respect to the law of the sea. Examining a range of doctrinal opinions, the analysis revealed that the concept of due diligence plays a crucial role in determining whether states bear international responsibility for the acts of private actors.
The concept of due diligence lacks a single, universally accepted definition in international law; instead, the requirements for exercising due diligence vary according to the specific context. However, according to the established practices and doctrinal opinions, the concept has several essential elements in international law, including the degree of risk predictability, the potential risks associated with various actions, and the exertion of maximum effort to mitigate those risks.
In addition, due diligence is a pivotal principle widely recognized by most doctrines on state responsibility under the law of the sea. This is particularly underscored by the 2015 advisory opinion of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, which holds that a state’s international responsibility for the acts of private persons, especially fishing vessels, hinges on whether due diligence was exercised or not.

Conclusion

The current inquiry focused on state responsibility for the acts of private vessels that fly its flag, examining the extent to which a state is obligated—under the principle of due diligence—to meet its obligations under the law of the sea. According to the results, states are responsible for the unlawful acts of fishing vessels if they fail to exercise due diligence.

Abstract Introduction

Contemporary international law has adopted novel legal principles and norms that reject the use of immunity as a shield for violations of human rights standards. It treats prosecution as a necessary response to moral imperatives stemming from human conscience. Nevertheless, heads of states continue to evade accountability by invoking the rules of immunity from criminal responsibility. In response, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has ruled that states are obligated to criminalize offenses and exercise jurisdiction in a deterrent and preventive manner, compelling them to equip their legal systems for the prosecution and trial. These judicial rulings prompted the International Law Commission (ILC) to establish a legal framework that removes such immunity for those individuals. In this regard, the present research focused on the immunity of state officials vis‑à‑vis criminal jurisdiction. By scrutinizing the scope of immunity of state officials, it aimed to clarify the conditions under which national courts may exercise jurisdiction over officials who commit international crimes.

Literature Review

The jurisdiction of countries in prosecuting state officials has received little attention in Persian‑language scholarship. It is typically addressed only in the sections on diplomatic immunity in the books on public international law. Even this latter perspective deals with the immunity of diplomats and consular officers, overlooking a wide range of state officials. However, some Persian studies do tackle this gap. For instance, Immunity of States and State Officials From the Viewpoint of International Law (Ziyaei-Bigdeli, 2009) examined the immunities afforded to states and officials. However, Bigdeli’s analysis predates the establishment of the ILC’s investigative mandate.

Materials and Methods

The current study adopted a descriptive–analytical approach and a library research method. The analysis began by examining the ICJ’s procedure for trying state officials. It then investigated how the ICJ’s procedure would align with the ILC’s approach to the immunity of state officials from criminal jurisdiction.

Results and Discussion

Immunity in public international law is a special status that protects its holders and shields them from certain forms of aggression. In practice, this means that the holder is exempt from prosecution and legal proceedings in the host state. The ICJ has clarified that immunity does not eliminate responsibility. Instead, it limits prosecution to specific times and circumstances. For example, the Minister of Foreign Affairs or the head of a state does not enjoy immunity for non-official acts after the term of office ends. At the same time, by reaffirming the priority of jus cogens—that is, recognizing the hierarchy of legal rules—the ICJ’s reasoning offers a strong basis for challenging immunity where criminal responsibility is required. Taken together, these judicial opinions helped inform the ILC’s attempt to narrow or remove immunity ratione materiae in cases involving serious international crimes.
According to international law, the immunity of state officials from foreign criminal jurisdiction—as outlined in the ILC’s draft—precludes immunity ratione materiae for certain serious crimes. Specifically, the following offenses are excluded from protection: Genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, crimes of apartheid, torture, and enforced disappearance. These crimes are prohibited under both international treaties and customary international law. States are therefore obligated to equip their legal systems with the tools necessary to investigate, prosecute, and punish perpetrators. This commitment is erga omnes, that is, a common obligation that applies to all states. Therefore, the state officials who commit any of the above crimes will be subject to prosecution and trial in the courts of the competent state after they leave office.

Conclusion

This study concludes that immunity rules only temporarily hinder the exercise of jurisdiction—either for a specific period or in relation to certain crimes—but cannot completely absolve an individual from criminal responsibility. Moreover, states have a shared global interest in fulfilling their obligation to exercise jurisdiction in cases involving violations of jus cogens. In this respect, the ILC has removed immunity ratione materiae in cases involving serious crimes committed by foreign officials. This places an obligation on the competent state to prosecute such individuals in accordance with applicable international law and the laws and procedures of the forum state.

Abstract Introduction

Jus cogens, as a super-norm in the normative hierarchy of international law, has always been associated with a certain ambiguity in its definition and recognition, primarily due to its inextricable link with fundamental moral principles. In the conventional law and case law, it is not explicitly defined; instead, there are only general criteria for identifying this norm and imposing restrictions on the will of states and other subjects of international law. The identification of a rule as a peremptory norm seems to hinge primarily on the selection of a theoretical justification—should it be natural law theory, public order theory, or customary international law? Moreover, the question of methodology persists: Is there a specific and novel methodological approach for identifying peremptory norms? Or does this concern fall within a realm where recognition is based on the relevant values in an intuitive and clear manner?
These questions do not yield easy answers, given the importance and complexity of the topic. It is also challenging to derive a clear and coherent guide from existing state practices in this regard. However, it is evident that the interaction between the two subsidiary sources of international law (i.e., the doctrine and the case law) will be productive, as the ideas and guidelines generated by one can be assessed against the criteria of the other. In this respect, the present study aimed to examine the criteria for identifying peremptory norms of international law (jus cogens) by examining the draft approved in 2022 by the International Law Commission (ILC) regarding their identification and legal effects, alongside relevant international case law and doctrines. The central question is whether these criteria need to be substantiated or the inherent significance of a rule is sufficient for it to be deemed peremptory?

Literature Review

In Persian-language legal literature, there are several studies about jus cogens or peremptory norms. The notable studies include: “The Foundations and Legal Nature of Jus Cogens From the Perspective of the International Law Commission” (Golchin & Mousazadeh, 2022) and “The Obligation Not to Render Aid or Assistance in Maintaining a Situation Created by the Breach of a Peremptory Norm of General International Law (Momtaz et al., 2018). Much of the relevant literature examines different aspects of jus cogens in international law. What distinguishes the present study from previous research, however, is its focus on the criteria for identifying jus cogens. It does so by drawing on the most recent developments in international law, particularly those reflected in the ILC’s 2022 draft conclusions.

Materials and Methods

The current research used a descriptive–analytical methodology. The data was collected through library research, including credible online sources.

Results and Discussion

According to the research findings, the relevant criteria must be established in each individual case, and that the inherent significance of a rule, by itself, does not confer peremptory status upon it. In fact, any intuitive or impressionistic identification of jus cogens is rejected—both by the ILC and the international case law. This is why international courts rely on a broad range of tools and evidence to determine the existence of jus cogens, including official statements and legal views of states, diplomatic correspondence, national constitutions, administrative and judicial decisions at both national and international levels, treaty provisions, acts and documents issued by international organizations, and the writings of distinguished international jurists. All these sources are used allegorically rather than exhaustively. It should also be noted that, in the ILC’s view, even subsidiary means of identifying jus cogens—such as the doctrine of leading jurists—are not diminished in importance due to their subsidiary character. Rather, their value lies in their facilitative role in the identification, or more precisely the “proof,” of the existence of a peremptory rule.

Conclusion

The study focused on the ILC’s draft and the views expressed in its commentary, as well as the opinions of scholars and international jurists. Although the draft does not entirely dispel the ambiguity surrounding jus cogens and the methods for identifying such norms in international law, it has significantly reduced these uncertainties by providing both primary and secondary tools for identifying jus cogens. Therefore, the ILC’s draft constitutes a forward‑looking and constructive document on the criteria for recognizing jus cogens.

Abstract Introduction

Among the challenges facing the global community is the urgent need to reduce global warming caused by greenhouse gas emissions—which results in climate change—while at same time meeting the world’s increasing demand for energy. Shifting energy production from non-renewable to renewable sources is widely regarded as one of the most effective ways to mitigate global warming and address the climate crisis. Marine renewable energy refers to renewable energy derived from various natural resources in the marine environment. It encompasses four main types: ocean energy obtained from the kinetic or chemical energy of seawater (e.g., waves, tides, and ocean currents), geothermal energy derived from submarine geothermal resources, bioenergy generated from marine biomass, and wind energy from turbines installed in offshore areas. While the first three types are still at different stages of research and development, marine wind energy—commonly referred to as offshore wind energy—has already been commercialized on an industrial scale. Wind energy is generated both onshore and offshore; however, offshore wind currently represents only about 7 percent of global installed wind power capacity. This limited share is primarily due to the significantly higher cost of generating electricity offshore compared to onshore production. Despite these challenges, the offshore wind industry continues to expand, as wind resources generally increase with distance from the shore, resulting in greater energy output. Nevertheless, greater distance also means deeper waters, which substantially raise the costs of offshore wind projects. From the perspective of the Law of the Sea, the establishment of offshore wind farms in relatively shallow waters means that these installations are primarily located within the territorial sea of coastal states. However, as offshore wind projects expand into deeper waters, an increasing number of such installations are expected to be constructed within the 200-nautical-mile exclusive economic zone (EEZ) of coastal states. The unique legal regime of the EEZ—set out in Part V of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS)—raises a range of questions regarding the regulation of various aspects of offshore renewable energy activities within the EEZ. In addition to issues concerning its legal status under the EEZ regime, offshore wind energy development in the EEZ presents two principal challenges under the Law of the Sea: ensuring navigational safety and safeguarding the marine environment. In light of these focal points, the current study sought to examine offshore wind power production within the EEZ from the perspective of the Law of the Sea.

Literature Review

Despite the significant growth of the offshore wind sector over the past two decades, the body of international legal literature on offshore wind energy production remains relatively limited. In particular, there appears to be a scarcity of studies specifically addressing offshore wind production within the EEZ. In Persian legal scholarship, Rezaee (2017) provides an overview of the rights and duties of states concerning the development of marine renewable energies. In “Rights and Duties of Countries in Using Marine Renewable Energies,” Rezaee (2017) offers a concise discussion of renewable energy activities in the EEZ and on the continental shelf. In English-language legal literature, Scott (2006) examined wind energy generation in the EEZ with reference to issues such as navigational safety and marine environmental protection. However, the analysis primarily focused on U.K. domestic law rather than on international law. Other scholars (e.g., Castelos, 2014; Crossley, 2019; Neves, 2021; Young, 2015) explored marine renewable energy within the broader context of the Law of the Sea, briefly addressing how offshore wind production in the EEZ is regulated under that framework. Similarly, Scovazzi and Tani (2014) and Giannopoulos (2018) focused on the environmental dimensions of offshore energy production. Overall, there remains a notable gap in the legal literature concerning a comprehensive and independent examination of offshore wind energy production within the EEZ.

Materials and Methods

The present study aimed to identify and analyze the Law of the Sea rules governing offshore energy production within the EEZ. It adopted a doctrinal approach and an analytical–descriptive method to examine the normative content of relevant legal sources. The data was collected primarily through library-based research. The analysis began with the UNCLOS, which provides the fundamental international legal framework for all activities conducted in the EEZ. In addition, various other binding and non-binding international instruments were examined. These included resolutions adopted by the International Maritime Organization (IMO), as well as law-making treaties such as the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter (the London Convention) and its 1996 Protocol, and the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS Convention), among others.

Results and Discussion

The UNCLOS provides a comprehensive legal framework for wind energy production within the EEZ. The provisions of Part V of UNCLOS, which establish the legal regime of the EEZ, set out the fundamental principles regulating offshore wind energy development. In essence, the coastal state enjoys an exclusive sovereign right over all forms of marine energy production in its EEZ, including electricity generation from offshore wind turbines. Accordingly, the coastal state possesses the exclusive right to construct, authorize, and regulate the construction, operation, and use of offshore wind farms within its EEZ. Furthermore, the coastal state exercises full jurisdiction over installations and structures associated with offshore wind energy plants. With respect to maritime safety, Article 60 of UNCLOS lays down the basic provisions concerning the safety of offshore structures and installations, which also apply to wind farms. These provisions are complemented by the more detailed requirements contained in IMO Resolutions A.671(16) and A.672(16)—both adopted in 1989—which are considered binding through the so-called rule of reference. In addition, soft-law instruments such as the International Organization for Marine Aids to Navigation (IALA) Council Recommendation R0139 (O-139) and IALA Guideline G1162 provide practical guidance on the marking of offshore wind farms. Concerning the protection of the marine environment, the coastal state’s obligations under Part XII of UNCLOS—particularly Articles 192, 193, and 194—require it to protect and preserve the marine environment of the EEZ from the adverse effects of offshore wind energy activities. These obligations are reinforced by other international instruments, including the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS Convention). These environmental obligations are characterized as due diligence obligations, meaning that the coastal state must take all necessary measures to prevent offshore energy activities in the EEZ from causing harm to the environment of other states or to areas beyond national jurisdiction. The duty to prevent transboundary environmental harm is further supported by the procedural obligation to conduct an environmental impact assessment for offshore wind farm projects. Finally, with respect to the decommissioning of offshore wind farms in the EEZ, the relevant rules and procedures established under the London Convention, as amended by the 1996 Protocol, must be complied with. 
 5. Conclusion
Overall, it seems that there are no significant legal lacunae that would hinder the development of offshore wind energy production in the EEZ, as its principal aspects are regulated by UNCLOS and a range of other relevant legal instruments. 

Abstract 1. Introduction
Several centuries have passed since the emergence of the international law system. Over time, the development of international rules has increasingly influenced and regulated numerous aspects of human activity. The expansion of these rules, along with the proliferation of international courts, makes it essential to clarify how the rules of international law should be interpreted and applied. In this growing international legal landscape, where customary international law continues to serve as one of the primary sources of international law, little attention has been given to the question of whether it is possible to interpret the rules of customary international law. Throughout history, customary international law has been the subject of extensive research. Studies on the topic continue even within international institutions. For instance, the International Law Society conducted a 16-year project (1984–2000) on the formation of customary international law. Similarly, the International Law Commission (ILC) began a study in 2013 on the recognition of customary international law, completing it in 2018. Although the ILC produced valuable findings—particularly by noting that determining the existence of a customary rule and its content are simultaneous processes—it did not independently address the question of how to determine the content of customary international law or the related issue of its interpretation. In other words, once an unwritten rule is identified, can it then be meaningfully interpreted? Other ILC work that touches on interpretation—such as studies on the fragmentation of international law or subsequent agreements and procedures in treaty interpretation—has never fully explored the intersection of interpretation and customary international law.
Although extensive research has been conducted in the areas of treaty interpretation and the formation and recognition of customary international law, the point of convergence between these two fields—namely, the interpretation of customary international law—remains largely unexplored. The almost exclusive focus on the formation of customary international law (considering its two elements of state practice and opinio juris) may help explain this gap. Some jurists, for instance, maintain that customary rules cannot be interpreted, and that only written texts are subject to interpretation. Others take the position that while the rules of customary international law can be identified, they cannot be interpreted. There are two main arguments regarding the interpretability of the rules of customary international law. First, it is argued that interpretation applies only to written rules, and since customary rules are unwritten, they cannot be interpreted. Second, it is claimed that the identification of customary rules is the sole process that determines their content; consequently, any attempt to explain a customary rule would require a new stage of identification. The present study aimed to examine the validity of these arguments by analyzing opinions from both the doctrinal sources and judicial jurisprudence concerning the interpretability of customary international law. The study went on to address the methods by which customary rules can be interpreted, should their interpretability be established.

Literature Review

No research on this topic exists in Persian, and studies in other languages remain limited. The current inquiry reviewed the main literature on the subject.

Materials and Methods

The present study used a descriptive–analytical method to examine the validity of the arguments about interpretability of the rules of international law. By examining both doctrinal sources and judicial jurisprudence, it ultimately presented the methods for interpreting customary rules.

Results and Discussion

The analysis focused on whether customary rules can be interpreted and, if so, how such interpretation should be carried out. There is no consensus among international law scholars on this issue. Some argue that the development of customary international law involves the intertwined processes of identification, interpretation, and enforcement. Others maintain that customary international law cannot be interpreted because it is unwritten. Despite the challenges and ambiguities associated with custom, its status as a source of international law is unquestioned. A logical question therefore arises: once a customary rule has formed—and aside from the possibility of its modification or termination through subsequent practice and opinio juris—does its inherent ambiguity not necessitate interpretation for its continued application? The very existence of ambiguity and uncertainty—even in written instruments—is what makes interpretation necessary. It is thus counterintuitive to deny the interpretability of norms derived from a source of law that shares these same characteristics. Interpretation, which involves determining the meaning of a legal act, is equally applicable to both written and unwritten rules. In interpreting the law, we interpret social facts, which may be expressed verbally or nonverbally. Moreover, all laws, whether written or unwritten, leave room for uncertainty and therefore for interpretation.
In response to the claim that interpreting customary international law can be reduced to identification, it is important to distinguish between rule identification and content determination. Identifying a rule is the process by which a legal norm is recognized, whereas determining its content involves defining the meaning of that norm. Although these two processes are often intertwined and complementary in practice, they remain conceptually distinct. Regarding the method of interpretation of customary rules, it was clarified that although Regarding the methods for interpreting customary rules, although Articles 31 and 32 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties apply only to treaty interpretation, the interpretive techniques they contain have acquired a customary character and have been used in various contexts to interpret acts that are not treaties. They are employed, for example, in interpreting unilateral acts, declarations accepting the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice, and Security Council resolutions. What these cases have in common is that Articles 31 and 32 are not applied strictly; rather, they are applied mutatis mutandis, with due regard for the specific nature of the acts being interpreted. This approach appears equally appropriate for the interpretation of customary rules.

Conclusion

It can be concluded that customary international law, like written law, requires interpretation due to its inherently general and often ambiguous nature. The distinction between identifying a rule and determining its content underscores that interpretation is an independent and indispensable process. Moreover, the interpretative methods developed in treaty law, when appropriately adapted, can also be applied to customary norms. Accordingly, denying the
interpretability of customary law is neither theoretically convincing nor practically viable, whereas acknowledging it contributes to greater coherence and effectiveness within the international legal system.

Abstract Introduction

Body searches, especially strip and cavity searches, inherently violate human dignity and privacy. However, prisons often have no alternative means to prevent the entry of prohibited objects or substances. For this reason, international human rights institutions and documents have, in certain circumstances, permitted their use. Nevertheless, these authorities emphasize specific guidelines regarding the methods of implementation, especially when applied to special groups such as children and patients. The present study aimed to examine the various methods of body searches and explore the legality and illegality of intrusive procedures, including strip and body cavity searches. It intended to delineate the boundaries of prohibited territory and identify circumstances that may constitute cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment, or even torture. The analysis focused on the requirements and protective measures mandated by international human rights documents and institutions. These include ensuring that inspection staff are of the same sex as prisoners and detainees, preventing prison doctors from involvement in physical inspections, and addressing the psychological and physical vulnerabilities of children during such procedures. Finally, Iran’s domestic laws, regulations, and executive procedures in prisons and penal institutions were evaluated and analyzed in comparison with established human rights standards.

Literature Review

Persian-language books and theses have occasionally discussed this topic, but no research has specifically investigated the practice of body searches on detainees and prisoners or assessed whether Iranian domestic laws and regulations comply with international human rights standards. For this reason, the present study constitutes original research.

Materials and Methods

Employing a descriptive–analytical method, the present study drew on library and documentary sources to examine human rights instruments, declarations, resolutions, and other international documents—particularly the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners, as reflected in the Bangkok Rules and the Nelson Mandela Rules. Furthermore, it relied on the reasoning articulated in numerous judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, as well as the reports of the UN Special Rapporteur on Torture (CAT) and the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture (CPT), to extract the relevant human rights standards governing body searches. Ultimately, the study evaluated and analyzed Iran’s domestic laws and regulations in comparison with these international standards.

Results and Discussion

International institutions, human rights documents, and the procedures of human rights courts have consistently examined the circumstances in which body searches of prisoners may result in cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment, and in more severe cases, torture. However, no definitive or conclusive position has been established on this issue. The boundary between the legitimate need to maintain prison safety and security and the obligation to respect the human dignity of prisoners remains unclear. Institutions such as the European Court of Human Rights and the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture do not, by default, classify strip and body searches of prisoners as torture or cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. However, they acknowledge that if these actions are carried out in an extreme manner, they can lead to feelings of humiliation and degradation, thereby constituting inhuman treatment and, in certain cases, falling within the definition of torture under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In Wainwright v. the United Kingdom (2006), the Strasbourg Court clarified the interpretative standards of Article 3 of the Convention. It held that maltreatment falls within the scope of Article 3 only when it reaches a certain threshold of severity. This threshold is relative and must be assessed in light of all the circumstances, including the duration of the treatment; its physical and psychological effects; and the victim’s sex, age, and health condition. The court emphasized that degrading treatment is incompatible with Article 3 when the suffering it inflicts exceeds the inevitable level of distress or humiliation inherent in lawful sanctions.  Similarly, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights has ruled that certain invasive searches of women may amount to sexual violence and, owing to their severe consequences, constitute acts of torture. In the same vein, the United Nations Special Rapporteurs on Torture have underscored that strip or cavity searches conducted for a prohibited purpose, or carried out in a discriminatory manner that results in severe pain or suffering, can reach the threshold of torture.
The two principal sets of Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners—the Bangkok Rules and the Nelson Mandela Rules—permit strip and body searches only when strictly necessary and urge prison authorities to develop appropriate alternatives to intrusive searches. In light of international human rights instruments and standards, the three fundamental principles of legality, necessity, and proportionality serve as the essential pillars underpinning the legitimacy of body searches, particularly strip searches and internal body examinations. The landmark judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in Wainwright v. the United Kingdom constitutes a turning point in delineating the permissible boundaries of state interference with personal privacy. The Court held that the legitimacy of strip searches requires a clear legal basis, a legitimate aim, and compliance with the principles of necessity and proportionality. In the Canadian legal system, standards such as reasonableness and justifiability are recognized as key benchmarks for assessing the permissibility of such measures, with courts consistently stressing the need for specific and well-founded suspicion prior to authorizing them. In the United States, despite the absence of a coherent judicial approach, growing legal criticism and empirical evidence point to the inefficacy and harmful consequences of searches conducted without reasonable suspicion. Accordingly, adherence to the principles of legality, necessity, and proportionality constitutes the normative foundation for the legal and legitimate conduct of bodily searches under international human rights law.

Conclusion

In all respects, human rights documents and institutions have not absolutely prohibited carrying out strip searches or cavity searches, but they do require that such practices be subject to certain considerations. Some international institutions, such as the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, as well as several states, have taken a more sensitive approach by explicitly prohibiting intrusive searches or adopting measures to lessen their detrimental impact. In Iran, strip and cavity searches are essentially prohibited under prison regulations, except in cases where they are deemed absolutely necessary. Even in such circumstances, several considerations must be observed: the procedure should be carried out by trained personnel, conducted in private, performed without the use of cameras, and in full compliance with ethical principles and medical norms. One particularly important concern raised in international human rights documents—relevant to the reform of domestic laws and regulations—is the absence of specific provisions regarding body searches of children. To align with human rights standards, cavity searches must be explicitly prohibited in child protection policies, laws, and regulations concerning the treatment of imprisoned children under the age of eighteen.

Abstract Introduction

The world of sports transcends national borders and specific groups, embodying an extra-territorial and multi-age character that sets it apart from other human activities. Sports have become a powerful tool within the international human rights system, providing a basis for the realization and promotion of human rights driven by human innate desire for physical activity. Children, in particular, are central figures in this arena as young athletes. Explaining the dimensions of child-athlete rights violations, the present study aimed to examine how the rights of children in professional sports can be protected. Although children’s rights are broadly supported by governments and society—given the universal duty to uphold them and guarantee compliance—the field of sports often resists direct government intervention. It is thus essential to assess the responsibility of the legal systems that govern the world of sports. A comprehensive analysis is needed to evaluate the current situation and explore the applicability of the minimum age rule in sports, all within the framework of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC).

Literature Review

It seems there is little research on the topic of the current study. In general, legal literature provides limited discussion on children’s rights in the context of professional sports. The issue has largely been overlooked, with most references focusing solely on the broader concept of the right to play. For instance, the report by Mega-Sporting Events Platform for Human Rights deals with the issue under the heading: “Children’s Rights in the Sports Context” (Sporting Chance White Paper 4.1, Version 1, January 2017).

Materials and Methods

The current study relied on a descriptive–analytical method, using
library research to collect the data from various sources.

Results and Discussion

Since it is essential to distinguish between behaviors that are natural and inherent to sports and those that cause harm to athletes, there is a growing need to clearly define and redefine what constitutes unacceptable behaviors in sports—particularly within the framework of the UNCRC. Recognizing and addressing this legal gap, especially given the specialized nature of the field, is a crucial first step in preventing violations and deal with them effectively. Although violations of children’s rights are widespread in the field of sports, their participation cannot—and should not—be denied or explicitly prohibited. Therefore, leveraging the mechanisms established by the UNCRC to prevent and limit rights violations in other areas of children’s lives can also be instrumental in reducing such violations within the context of sports. The norms and rules of the UNCRC must be observed and applied in the realm of organized and professional sports. Adopting this child-centered approach in competitive sports and intensive training will prompt a reassessment of the appropriate age for entering professional sports and for specializing in training. The main sport for each child should be determined according to their stages of growth and maturity. According to Article 5 of the UNCRC, the implementation of a child’s rights must be compatible with the child’s developing capacities. Therefore, in the field of sports, a child’s participation at various levels should be appropriate to their age. To protect the physical and mental well-being of child-athletes, sports organizations and institutions must exercise legislation and supervision to ensure that the highest possible safeguards are in place. While many international sports federations support the establishment of the minimum age rule, unfortunately, these rules are often applied inconsistently and in a fragmented manner. Specifically, they are not enforced across all sports disciplines and, where they do exist, they typically apply only to participation in competitions. This is problematic because the training and preparation that occur before competition can also expose child-athletes to damage and rights violations.

Conclusion

Currently, it seems difficult—if not impossible—to implement this standard uniformly across all sports and levels. However, given the undeniable benefits of applying the minimum age rule to protect children’s rights in sports, a two-step approach appears to be the most practical solution under current circumstances. In the first step, governing bodies in the sports sector should make the minimum age rule mandatory, requiring all sports organizations and institutions to comply with it in the context of professional children’s sports. In the second step, considering the unique characteristics of each sport, these organizations should determine the appropriate minimum age for entering and competing in each sport.