Public Law Researsh

Abstract Introduction

Protecting women’s rights has been a perennial concern of human rights advocates over the past two centuries. Their dedicated efforts have resulted in the recognition of gender equality in key human rights documents such as the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. However, these documents alone have fallen short of achieving the anticipated goals in promoting gender equality. This gap prompted the drafting of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) to address gender discrimination in the member states. However, reports from the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women reveal that many member states have not fully complied with the provisions of CEDAW. This failure has raised doubts about the effectiveness of CEDAW in safeguarding women’s rights. On one hand, some states have entered reservations to specific provisions of the Convention; on the other hand, there appears to be a lack of binding mechanisms to hold them accountable for violating their obligations. It is thus crucial to re-evaluate the fundamental concepts of gender discrimination and the provisions of CEDAW in order to examine their feasibility in societies with different norms. CEDAW consists of 30 succinct articles aimed at eliminating all forms of discrimination against women in all societies, regardless of cultural, religious, or ethnic differences. However, it does not explicitly address specific religious or cultural norms, presenting only a universal solution that may not align with diverse contextual complexities. Consequently, several member states, including secular and Islamic ones (e.g., India, Pakistan, and Indonesia), encounter challenges in implementing the provisions. The challenges apparently stem from CEDAW’s emphasis on individualism, which overlooks communal concerns and requirements. Predictably, this approach, coupled with affirmative action favoring women, has sparked backlash against the status of women, even in the U.S. and Europe. In this respect, the present study tried to address the following research questions: What approach does CEDAW take towards the norms governing different societies? And what legal model does Islamic Sharia require to be applied in the domestic legal system, particularly within the framework of CEDAW? The research is based on the hypothesis that the effectiveness of CEDAW can be criticized in terms of normative frameworks and legal guarantees for enforcement.

Materials and Methods

As a qualitative inquiry, the present study used a descriptive–analytical method as well as library resources to examine the contemporary approaches of states toward gender equality. To achieve the objective, the study analyzed about 40 primary and secondary documents and sources, including books, journal articles, reports, etc.

Results and Discussion

The study focused on the needs and interests of involved entities, namely the member states, individual members of societies, and particularly women. The examination of the foundational concepts concerning gender equality and the provisions of CEDAW helped gain insight into the overall approach of the document towards cultural and religious norms governing different societies. CEDAW advocates for women’s rights by promoting equality between men and women in society, regardless of their distinctive roles and status within the family and broader community. Consequently, it does not explicitly address equality of rights in terms of equity or in a just or fair manner. Rather, its focus is on placing men and women in the same, equivalent positions. Furthermore, CEDAW does not explicitly refer to norms. Instead, it calls upon the member states to “modify the social and cultural patterns of conduct of men and women.” This approach can be characterized as somewhat abstract and vague, resembling radical individualism or even libertinism. However, many secular and Islamic states possess diverse social and cultural norms, customs, and taboos regarding the individual and social rights of women. Moreover, the teachings of religious leaders and traditional attitudes are heavily influenced by communitarianism. A notable example can be found in the teachings of Imam Ali, who approves or condemns personal behaviors based on their potential impact on society as a whole. Indeed, he strongly advocates for cultural reforms without any prejudice, recognizing the necessity for change when it serves the greater good.
It is worth noting that some countries, such as the Islamic republic of Iran which is not even a member party of CEDAW, have reformed their national laws to eliminate discrimination against women, thus aligning more closely with CEDAW’s requirements. However, there are still concerns regarding the scope and the applicability of these social and legal reforms. Recent social backlash against affirmative action favoring women’s rights, freedom of homosexuality, and same-sex marriage in Western societies highlight the challenges in this regard. International legal documents should not underestimate the significance of social and cultural norms of societies, as radical individualism or libertinism can lead to serious issues such as civil disobedience and increased crime rates. There is thus a need for reforms in the provisions of CEDAW in order to meet the diverse needs and requirements of the global community. 

Conclusion

Having provided a brief overview of fundamental concepts related to gender equality, the present inquiry tested the hypothesis and examined the main shortcomings of CEDAW by delving into their nature and underlying causes. The analysis focused on the points of contention between the provisions of CEDAW and the positive laws in Iran, particularly in light of Islamic teachings. The analysis is crucial because the perspective of Shia leaders (esp. Imam Ali) on gender equality, which is significantly influenced by their communal concerns, has often been overlooked. Concerning the effectiveness of CEDAW, it is essential that interpreters or drafters of any alternative document consider different norms prevailing in the social context of member states, with particular attention to Sharia-based norms. Such an approach enhances the comprehensiveness of the document, enabling it to address different facets of gender discrimination in the member states

Abstract Introduction

Article 38(1)(c) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice refers to “the general principles of law recognized by civilized nations” as one of the sources of international law. A widely held view is that these general principles serve as a complementary source of international law, filling gaps in treaty and customary law to ensure that there is no absence of applicable legal rules. However, some legal scholars argue that even when no legal gap exists, general principles of law play an important role in the interpretation and application of existing rules. Therefore, while treaties and customary international law are considered the primary sources of international law, the general principles of law function as independent sources. They aid in interpreting and complementing other sources where necessary. Accordingly, the general principles play a prominent role in the interpretation of treaties. Moreover, treaties are considered one of the most important sources for regulating relations in international law and hold a special place in international law due to their stability, clarity, and accuracy in establishing obligations. However, in most cases, the implementation of treaties is not possible without interpretation. Treaty interpretation is therefore a necessary and rational process aimed at understanding the treaty’s provisions, clarifying its concept, and determining its scope. In other words, the interpretation of a treaty serves to eliminate ambiguity and uncover its precise content. The interpretation of treaties holds particular significance within the realm of treaty law. In the interpretative process, beyond the text and context of the treaty itself, relevant rules of international law—including the general principles of law—can play a crucial role. A treaty is a product of the international legal system, and its interpretation and application must be carried out within the framework of that system. The present study aimed to address the following research question: What is the role of general principles of law in treaty interpretation?

Literature Review

The general principles of law can be regarded both as a source of international law and as a tool for interpreting treaties. While there is extensive research on their role as a source of international law, their function as a tool for interpreting treaties has received far less attention. As a result, there is a noticeable gap in the literature regarding the specific focus of the present study. In this respect, this research aimed to address that gap by drawing on all relevant sources—including international jurisprudence and the work of the International Law Commission—to examine the role of general principles of law in treaty interpretation.

Materials and Methods

Using a descriptive–analytical method, the current study relied on library sources, international documents, international judicial decisions, and arbitration awards to examine the role of general principles of law in treaty interpretation.

Results and Discussion

The general rule of interpretation, set out in Article 31 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, consists of several elements that must be considered by the interpreter in the process of interpretation. In principle, a treaty is interpreted according to the ordinary meaning of its terms. In this regard, Article 31(1) of the Vienna Convention states: “A treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose” (Vienna Convention, 1969) However, in some cases, the text and context of a treaty may not be sufficient to interpret its terms. In such situations, the interpreter must refer to other rules outside the treaty itself to carry out the interpretation appropriately. According to Article 31(3)(c) of the Convention, in addition to the context, “any relevant rules of international law applicable in the relations between the parties” (Vienna Convention, 1969) must also be taken into account in treaty interpretation.

Conclusion

This study concluded that the application of general principles of law as a means of interpreting treaties is grounded in Article 31(3)(c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. This view is supported by the majority of legal scholars, the International Law Commission, and international jurisprudence. International jurisprudence provides numerous examples of the use of general principles of law in treaty interpretation, many of which were analyzed in this research. Moreover, the use of general principles of law in treaty interpretation appears to contribute to reducing the potential fragmentation of international law, while promoting coherence and interaction among its various sources.

Abstract Introduction The admission of evidence and the burden of proving a claim are crucial elements in asserting rights in any legal proceeding, including the administrative proceeding. Judicial supervision serves specific objectives that the administrative proceeding must align with. Given the disparity in power between citizens and administrative bodies, the admission of evidence in administrative proceedings should be facilitated in favor of citizens. Moreover, that the burden of proof rests with the claimant is a principle that should be adjusted in favor of citizens, and the court should accurately identify the true claimant party. Furthermore, the court’s decisions should be supported by evidence-based reasoning. During proceedings, both parties present their evidence, and the judge should actively seek additional evidence when required. Merely reflecting the conclusion of reasoning in the court’s decision falls short of characterizing the decision as evidence-based. In this respect, the present study aimed to examine a number of decisions by the Administrative Court of Justice concerning the distribution of the burden of proof, the judge’s active approach in seeking evidence, and the incorporation of reasoning process in the decisions. The study tried to address the following research questions: How is the burden of proof distributed between the parties during court proceedings? And to what extent are the issued decisions based on evidence? Literature Review A review of the related literature revealed a Persian-language article titled “Critical Analysis of Consideration of Evidence in the Administrative Court of Justice” (Mohsenzadeh, 2018), which investigated the issue of evidence in the Administrative Court of Justice. Materials and Methods Using a library research method, the present study analyzed the textual content of decisions issued by various branches of the Administrative Court of Justice. Results and Discussion Not every citizen who files a complaint in the Administrative Court of Justice is necessarily the claimant; they may have initially been accused of a violation by the administration. In such instances, the administration is the actual claimant, despite the citizen initiating the legal complaint. Moreover, when the administration fails to fulfill its legal obligations, the plaintiff citizen is burdened with proving the nullity in the lawsuit. Therefore, imposing the burden of proof on the citizen is not commensurate with the objectives of administrative proceedings. In instances where the administration accuses a citizen of a violation and issues a decision or some kind of punishment based on that accusation, the administration should provide clear and compelling evidence—as imposing punishment necessitates incontrovertible proof. Put differently, by assessing evidence presented by both parties with a margin of 51% favoring the administration and 49% favoring the citizen, one cannot subject the citizen to penalties such as fines, building demolitions, or the revocation of business licenses. In cases where there is no punishment for the citizen, the administration must be held accountable, providing a rationale for its actions and decisions. Consequently, the burden of proof cannot be placed on the citizen making the claim as practiced in civil lawsuits, but rather it is necessary that the judge get actively involved in seeking evidence. In administrative proceedings, most documents are under the control of the administration, leaving citizens without access to them. It is thus becomes incumbent upon the judge to request those documents from the administration and thoroughly examine them. In administrative proceedings, the judge must not adopt a passive stance, merely accepting the evidence presented by the involved parties. Instead, they should take an active role in seeking out evidence pertinent to different aspects of the case. Furthermore, if necessary, the judge should delegate the investigation to judicial officers or refer the matter to an expert. Act on Organizations and Procedures of the Administrative Court of Justice addresses this need in Article (7) by considering the referral of matters to experts, as well as in Article (41), which predicts any investigation and the use of judicial officers for such purposes. Additionally, Article (44) grants judges the authority to demand documents from the administration. These articles underscore the imperative for judges to get actively involved in seeking evidence and to leverage these capabilities to uncover the truth and establish certainty in administrative proceedings. These legal provisions are designed to create balance and empower citizens, who often find themselves in a disadvantaged position against administrative bodies wielding public power. Therefore, it is of paramount importance to use such legal provisions in administrative proceedings to safeguard the rights of citizens. Additionally, the court’s decision must be accompanied by evidence-based reasoning. A reasoned judgment includes the evidence presented by both parties. Moreover, the judge shall be tasked with determining what evidence is the most powerful and persuasive and why. The judge should clearly state both the premises of reasoning and the conclusion in the final verdict. Merely using phrases such as according to the contents of the case and the arguments expressed, followed by the conclusion, does not meet the criteria of evidence-based, valid judgment. Judges must not merely rely on the reasoning process as it goes on in their minds, nor is it sufficient to simply state the conclusion. Instead, they must incorporate the premises, the reasoning, and the conclusion in the final decision. Conclusion The findings indicate that the burden of proving the claim weighs heavily on the citizen. The judge, however, rarely exhibited the requisite level of diligence in seeking evidence and leveraging the provisions outlined in Articles (7), (41), and (44) of Act on Organizations and Procedures of the Administrative Court of Justice. It was also found that the reasoning process underlying the court’s decisions was not clearly articulated in the decisions.

Abstract Introduction The concept of public rights is commonly understood as the rights of the general public. However, when scrutinized more closely, this notion becomes somewhat ambiguous, leading to questions and disagreements among legal doctrines and jurists. This ambiguity revolves around the precise definition of the term, its instances, and its scope, such as whether it pertains solely to criminal law or extends to non-criminal law. Examining the scope of public rights reveals numerous and sometimes conflicting interpretations. Legal and judicial opinions on the scope of public rights generally fall into two general yet conflicting approaches, namely narrow and broad. Given the divergent viewpoints, it is crucial to adopt a valid interpretive approach within the legal system to establish a systematic framework aimed at reaching an understanding. Objective consequentialism, as a normative-based interpretive method, serves as a valuable theoretical tool for evaluating these approaches. In this line, the present study sought to address the following research question: Which of the two approaches, narrow or broad, to the scope of public rights is deemed acceptable from the perspective of objective consequentialism? Literature Review Legal and judicial opinions concerning public rights can generally be categorized into two competing approaches. On one hand, there are viewpoints advocating for a narrow interpretation, which suggests limiting the scope of public rights in times of uncertainty. On the other hand, there are perspectives that advocate for a broader understanding of public rights, incorporating a wider range of interpretations and instances. Although there is no coherent and methodical discussion on this matter in legal literature thus far, various schools of legal interpretation have debated different methods, such as objective consequentialism. In objective consequentialism, the focus lies on discerning the purpose of the law, so the interpreter, whether a judge or a lawyer, seeks to deduce the purpose of the law from the text itself and other relevant sources. Subsequently, they interpret provisions of the law in light of the general purpose. In this method, justification for interpretation is grounded on the objective purpose behind establishing the rule. The purpose of the law can be inferred from the very text of the law, including its title, preamble, or relevant chapters. Furthermore, the purpose may be predestined or assumed, with implications being inferred through logical or judicious readings of the text of the law—based on the premise that the legislator is judicious. Therefore, it is assumed that the legislator has intended for legal provisions to have meaningful effects rather than being rendered null or futile. Objective consequentialism seeks to uncover the underlying purpose behind a given law or provision.     Materials and Methods The present study relied on objective consequentialism, which is an interpretive method based on the normative ground, in order to evaluate the two approaches concerning the scope of pubic rights. The study aimed to address the following research question: Which of the two approaches, narrow or broad, to the scope of public rights is deemed acceptable from the perspective of objective consequentialism? Results and Discussion According to objective consequentialism, fostering a broad understanding of the concept of public rights while maintaining a systematic view of functions of the judiciary body can result in an appropriately balanced understanding aimed at claiming public rights. The present study synthesized the opinions sharing a common essence and overarching direction, discussing the existing legal approaches regarding the scope of public rights. Additionally, considering the principles of the Constitution, a hypothesis (called the conceptual approach derived from purposiveness) was formulated and tested about the distinction between the scope of public rights—as outlined in the Constitution—and the restoration of public rights. The scope of public rights can be either narrowed or expanded, considering the purpose of the law and of justice outlined in each instance, as well as the implications derived from a judicious interpretation of the law. Conclusion Public rights can be re-evaluated with an eye to the purpose of the law, hence interpreted as rights and interests arising from the objective goal of the law. In this light, the scope of public rights becomes meaningful considering the purpose of the law, the justice it guarantees in each instance, and the implications stemming from the judicious interpretation of the law. Therefore, there two central points here: rights (the conceptual standpoint) and the negation of oppression and injustice (the functional standpoint). From the conceptual standpoint, public rights extend to legal rights. Yet the functional standpoint would include those instances of rights that have been or are about to be unjustly taken away from their rightful owners, making it impossible for the beneficiaries (whether individuals or groups) to reclaim them.

Abstract Introduction As outlined in the Statute of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the principles of law are directly invoked as a main source of international law for addressing legal disputes. These principles also hold significant standing within the domestic legal systems of individual states. However, in the international law, the principles of law typically serve to address potential gaps, ensuring that legal proceedings can continue uninterrupted before the courts. There is currently a broad consensus that the general principles of law, as delineated in Article (38) of the Statute of the ICJ, include the principles of both national and international legal systems. Yet, the general principles of national law are mainly recognized by the judicial authority in domestic contexts and applied as a distinct principle in the international law. For some legal scholars, the inclusion of Paragraph (3) of Article (38) of the Statute of the ICJ, which allows for the invocation of the general principles of law, is a significant milestone in the international law as it makes the states acknowledge a third source alongside treaties and custom. Some argue that the text-based interpretative approach, as employed by the arbitration and judicial courts, had gained recognition as a general principle of law prior to being formally acknowledged in the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Others contend that the general principles of law are characterized by a general, universal nature. In other words, these principles work more openly in dealing with value-based arguments and as such establish rights in a manner particularly evident in the regimes of international human rights and international humanitarian law. The present study aimed to examine the approach adopted by the International Law Commission (hereafter referred to as the Commission) towards the topic of general principles of law, as well as Iran’s stance in response to the Commission’s approach. Specifically, the Commission has demonstrated a keen interest in studying the sources of international law over the past two decades. Meanwhile, the approach presented in the last three reports by the Special Rapporteur has sparked considerable debate and controversy among proponents and critics alike, primarily concerning the identification of general principles of law derived from the international legal system. The representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran in the United Nations General Assembly Sixth Committee has also voiced opinions regarding those reports. Literature Review The discussion on the general principles of law has been relatively rare in the Persian-language studies. The topic typically finds its place in the general books on international law, especially in the sections dedicated to sources of international law. Yet, there are a few Persian-language studies that specifically address the issue. For example, in the article titled “The Nature of the General Principles of Law and Their Functions in International Law,” Mahmoudi (2018) studied the scope and function of general principles of law as well as their roles during the implementation. However, Mahmoudi’s research predates the Commission’s study, so it could not deal with the reports of the Special Rapporteur of the Commission. Moreover, the present study explored the Iranian perspective on the general principles of law, as evidenced in the statements made by the representatives of the Islamic Republic of Iran in the United Nations General Assembly Sixth Committee. Materials and Methods First, the present study used a descriptive approach to examine the three reports issued by the Special Rapporteur of the Commission. It then analyzed Iran’s perspectives on the reports, concluding with an analysis of Iran’s stances. Results and Discussion The present study aimed to examine the Commission’s methodology in studying the general principles of law, followed by an investigation into Iran’s stance concerning the Commission’s conclusions. According to the findings, Iran’s approach to the Commission’s reports on the general principles of law appears to be acceptable in some aspects while warranting further consideration. The positive aspects of Iran’s approach include highlighting the premature presentation of draft materials by the Rapporteur in the initial report, considering a non-hierarchical approach among sources, and advocating for a comprehensive methodology in extracting general principles of law from all legal systems. Conversely, there are aspects that merit reflection, such as solely relying on Article (38) of the Statute of the ICJ for reviewing general principles of law, acknowledging the role of international judges in crafting rules when confronted with legal gaps or ambiguities, recognizing the framework of customary rules as a means to establish general principles of law, basing subordinate rules outlined in Article (38) of the Statute (including the judicial precedent and doctrine) on the general precedent and legal beliefs of states. Regarding the most challenging aspect in the work of the Special Rapporteur on the general principles of law, it must be acknowledged that a review of the third part of Paragraph (1) of Article (38) of the Statute of the ICJ indicates that extracting general principles of law from the international legal system cannot be inferred from Article (38) of the Statute. Therefore, the Special Rapporteur should seek justification beyond mere reference to Article (38) of the Statute.   Conclusion The general principles of law hold significant importance within the international legal system. This significance is underscored by the former president of the ICJ, who emphasized that the relevance of general principles will continue to grow, particularly as courts encounter new challenges where existing legal regulations may not suffice, or where there is a need to consider fundamental values recognized by the international community as binding legal regulations or principles applicable to specific conditions occurring in inter-state relations. The present study could offer a sound analysis of Iran’s perspective in light of developments in international law pertaining to general principles. Critically examining and scrutinizing these viewpoints can direct the attention of the Iranian international law community towards the importance of acknowledging Iran’s approach to international law. This, in turn, could facilitate the indirect involvement of Iranian jurists, enhancing the legal stance of Iran’s representatives in the Sixth Committee and other avenues for demonstrating Iran’s approach to formulating international law. Iran’s participation in the Sixth Committee, particularly in reviewing and providing feedback on the Commission’s studies, is inherently a positive move, fostering Iran’s engagement in formulating international legal regulations.

Abstract Introduction

Scholars have offered various interpretations of the constitution as one of the most important concepts in law. Understanding these perspectives can contribute to a better understanding of the constitution. One such interpretation is the legal conception, which considers the constitution as a text and the supreme document within the legal system, safeguarded by political or judicial authorities. In the legal conception, the role of the guardian of the constitution is especially significant, with the judiciary branch holding primary importance among the branches of power. In contrast, the political conception of the constitution sees it as a contested arena for political actors, aiming to unshackle it from the monopoly of judges and jurists. This perspective tends to emphasize not only the text of the constitution but also the existing reality and political climate.

Literature Review

There appears to be limited research in Persian that explores this concept in depth. However, the Persian translation of Martin Loughlin’s Public Law and Political Theory (1992) includes a brief discussion of Griffith and his association with the school of functionalism. Additionally, some relevant aspects of this discussion are covered in Law is Politics, a volume of articles compiled and translated into Persian by Habibollah Fazeli (2021).

Materials and Methods

The current study used the descriptive–analytical method to explore the meaning of the political constitution and examine the transformations it has undergone from its inception to the present day.

Results and Discussion

The study shed light on some of the foundational elements underlying the concept of the political constitution, including republicanism, conservatism, the leftist tradition, functionalism, and Dicey’s theories. It also examined why the concept first emerged in England. Given that the political constitution, like other concepts, is subject to change, the article finally explored its future trajectory and addressed criticisms. Every concept has a history and evolves over time through political, social, and economic developments—and the political constitution is no exception. This concept was first introduced by John Griffith, who argued for a strong link between politics and law, with the constitution as the focal point connecting these fields. Underscoring the significance of the political constitution in his writings, Griffith believed that political decisions should rest with political actors. According to Griffith, reducing political lawsuits to legal judgments actually shifts political decision-making from politicians to judges. Concerned with protecting the English legal system, Griffith opposed certain legal reforms proposed by some jurists, viewing them as potentially rendering the legal system meaningless. Although he outlined the main principles of the political constitution, later generations modified this conception in response to critiques. Figures like Richard Bellamy and Adam Tomkins sought to imbue the concept with a normative aspect, while later thinkers like Martin Loughlin redefined the political within the concept. The present research discussed these key developments in the concept of the political constitution, and delved into the foundational issues, such as its origin.

Conclusion

The political constitution encourages moving beyond the text of the constitution to consider the political reality and allow participation from all actors in the political arena. Although first introduced in England, this concept has also influenced the tradition in countries with written constitutions, prompting constitutional theorists to acknowledge factors beyond the text itself and to recognize the profound connection between law and politics. An accurate understanding of the constitution is incomplete without considering real-world political contexts. This discussion holds significant relevance for Iran’s constitutional law, which has been relatively limited theoretically. Greater engagement with constitutional law theories can expand the conception of the constitution to acknowledge new perspectives and approaches. The topics recently raised in Iran’s constitutional law (e.g., unwritten constitutional principles, constitutional procedures, and constitutional customs) need a theoretical foundation, and the concept of the political constitution provides a valuable basis for these discussions. Furthermore, exploring the connection between law and political science provides a critical theoretical framework that can support these ongoing discussions.

Abstract Introduction

Over the past decades, artificial intelligence (AI) has increasingly permeated nearly every aspect of our lives—including communication, health care, education, means of industrial production, leisure activities, culture, and even our relationships. This widespread integration has brought about dramatic changes across these fields. From a strategic and organizational standpoint, the measures of political, economic, military, and regional and global institutions reflect a growing awareness of AI’s vast potential, as well as its possible threats to society. AI holds the promise of helping humans maximize their time, freedom, and happiness. Yet, it also carries the risk of leading us toward a dystopian society. It is thus an urgent priority to strike a balance between technological advancement and the protection of human rights, as this will shape our future society. Currently, there is no standardized process for evaluating the impact of AI systems on human rights. A promising way forward is the use of AI human rights impact assessments, which can help AI developers (e.g., government agencies or businesses) anticipate and mitigate the human rights impact of AI systems, both before and after these systems are made available to the public. However, it is not always easy to grasp the range of ways AI can impact human rights. Public discussions often focus on issues like privacy and discrimination, as these are more immediately understandable and relatable. In contrast, the impact on other rights can be harder to conceptualize, making it more difficult to identify exactly how violations might occur. In this respect, the present research aimed to examine the impact of AI on the right to health, evaluating both its positive and negative effects. Although access to AI can be justified under the right to development within the framework of international human rights, its negative effects on the right to health present a significant challenge. Therefore, alongside acknowledging the potential harms, it is necessary to take measures to balance technological advancement with the protection of human rights. To address this challenge, the study first evaluated AI services vis-à-vis the fundamental components of the right to health. Then it explored the specific rights related to health, and finally, analyzed the results. The research questions are as follows: What are the effects of AI on the right to health? And how can we reduce the negative effects of AI on the right to health?

Literature Review

Although some researches have discussed the impact of AI on human rights in general, only a few have focused on specific rights—such as the right to work. At the same time, there is valuable literature in the field of medicine addressing the impact of AI. The present research contributes to the discussion through its precise and focused analysis of the effects of AI on the right to health.

Materials and Methods

This research employed a descriptive method to examine the fundamental components of the right to health, as well as the related rights that have been influenced by AI. In addition, an analytical method was used to evaluate both the positive and negative effects of AI on the right to health.

Results and Discussion

The rights to health and technology have become more interconnected than ever, as AI increasingly permeates various aspects of human life. Despite concerns, the significant benefits of AI for human life and personality have prevented any halt in its progress. However, threats arising from the misuse of AI can be intentional, negligent, accidental, or stem from a lack of anticipation and preparedness for its transformative impact on society. It is thus essential to address the root causes of these threats in order to ensure security and safety. The current analysis examined the extent and nature of AI’s impact on the fundamental components of the right to health and related rights. The findings showed both fear and hope. While AI offers many positive effects, gaps in its application raise significant fears. Therefore, it is crucial to establish a regulatory framework for the development and use of AI and robotics that upholds and respects human dignity. Given the unique features of AI, monitoring systems for verification and continuous oversight must also be tailored accordingly. Decisions increasingly rely on these systems, yet there is often a lack of transparency, accountability, and safeguards regarding their design, function, and evolution over time. In addition, the inherent uncertainty surrounding AI adds to the complexity of this challenge. Moreover, the environmental impact of AI (e.g., pollution) contributes to serious risks to human health. Without adequate safeguards, oversight, and protection of human rights in the development and deployment of AI, the health and well-being of both current and future generations will be jeopardized. To responsibly advance AI and harness its benefits, policymakers must carefully consider its effects on a broad range of fundamental rights and freedoms protected by human rights instruments. Finally, ensuring equitable access to AI—based on the principle of non-discrimination—remains a vital concern.

Conclusion

AI in the health sector presents both opportunities and challenges for the right to health. On the one hand, it offers undeniable benefits such as improved diagnosis and treatment, more equitable access to healthcare services, and increased efficiency within health systems. On the other hand, serious concerns arise from algorithmic discrimination, violations of privacy, and reduced accountability. To address these risks, it is essential to develop comprehensive regulatory frameworks grounded in human rights principles. Such frameworks should ensure algorithmic transparency, data diversity, institutional accountability, and equitable access to technology. Only by balancing innovation and ethics can we achieve a future in which AI not only enhances physical health, but also human dignity and rights.