International Law
Mehryar Dashab; Kosar Talebi Esfandarani
Abstract
IntroductionThe 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 ...
Read More
IntroductionThe 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 ReviewIt 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 MethodsThe current study relied on a descriptive–analytical method, usinglibrary 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. ConclusionCurrently, 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.
International Law
Masoumeh Parsoon; Ali Kadkhodaei; Mohsen Hataminia
Abstract
IntroductionIn 2020, the Eastern Mediterranean region faced one of the most challenging periods in its recent history. The discovery of significant hydrocarbon resources intensified disputes among regional countries over the delimitation of maritime boundaries, further complicated by the involvement ...
Read More
IntroductionIn 2020, the Eastern Mediterranean region faced one of the most challenging periods in its recent history. The discovery of significant hydrocarbon resources intensified disputes among regional countries over the delimitation of maritime boundaries, further complicated by the involvement of both regional and global powers. The existence of oil and gas fields in the Eastern Mediterranean heightened competition among coastal states to expand their claimed maritime zones—so much so that some countries demarcated maritime borders despite not being neighbors. This action even brought NATO members—Turkey, France, and Greece—to the brink of military conflict. Amid this turbulent political situation, Turkey’s announcement of the Blue Homeland doctrine, following the signing of a maritime boundary treaty with Libya, sparked strong reactions from several countries. In response, Greece accelerated its negotiations with Egypt, eventually leading to a maritime boundary agreement between the two states. Although the political motivations behind these agreements are undeniable, the present study aimed to examine the legal dimensions of Turkey’s Blue Homeland doctrine from the perspective of international maritime law and judicial precedent. An analysis of the map associated with the Blue Homeland doctrine reveals Turkey’s views on maritime borders and the legal status of islands in relation to maritime zones—a view that significantly diverges from the claims made by Greece and Cyprus. Therefore, to conduct a thorough legal assessment of the Blue Homeland doctrine, it is necessary to consider the region’s geography, the location of the islands, the unilateral claims made by the countries in the region, and the treaties delimiting their boundaries. The present study tried to answer the following research questions: What are the legal dimensions of Turkey’s Blue Homeland doctrine? And to what extent does it comply with international law?Literature ReviewMost Persian-language research has addressed the political dimensions of the Blue Homeland doctrine primarily through theperspective of international relations. For instance, in an online article titled “Turkey’s Blue Homeland Doctrine,” Namini-Miyanji (2020) offered an overview of the doctrine while briefly touching on its legal aspects. Golmohammadi’s article “Transformation in Turkey’s Strategic Culture and Its National Security Doctrine” (2021) analyzed the doctrine in the wider context of foreign policy and Turkey’s relations with its Western allies. In “Regional Change Processes and Their Impact on Turkey’s Geopolitical Competition 2016–2022,” Bagheri et al. (2023) examined how Ankara sought new coalitions in the aftermath of the 2016 failed coup. Moreover, the study “Turkey’s Blue Homeland Doctrine and Its Consequences for Iran” (Reisinezhad & Khanmohammadi, 2023) explored the role of Blue Homeland in Turkey’s attempt to become a regional energy hub. Unlike the Persian-language scholarship, a few English-language researches focus on the legal dimensions of Turkey’s Blue Homeland Doctrine. These studies include: “The Legal Aspects of the Eastern Mediterranean Crisis” (Baran, 2023), “Mavi Vatan, the ‘Blue Homeland’: the Origins, Influences and Limits of an Ambitious Doctrine for Turkey” (Denizeau, 2021), “The Formulation of the Blue Homeland Doctrine” (Kadan, 2020), and “Some Observations on the Agreement between Greece and Egypt on the Delimitation of the Exclusive Economic Zone” (Yiallourides, 2020).Materials and MethodsThe present study used a descriptive–analytical approach, explaining the procedures followed by international tribunals in maritime delimitation and assessing the impact of islands on these decisions. A library research method was employed to collect the data, including the correspondence submitted to the United Nations by Turkey and Greece, as well as the decisions of international tribunals in maritime delimitation cases.Results and DiscussionGeopolitical conditions and the pursuit of regional dominance have driven Eastern Mediterranean countries to expand and assert their maritime zones. The discovery of substantial hydrocarbon reserves has further intensified these disputes. Amid this chaotic situation, one clear issue is the role of islands in the delimitation of maritime boundaries. Turkey’s expansion of its maritime zones is constrained to the south by Cyprus and to the southwest by the Greek islands. The Turkey–Libya MoU and the Greece–Egypt Agreement reflect differing legal views regarding the effect of islands. While the Greece–Egypt Agreement qualifies an acceptable agreement under the Vienna Convention, the status of the Turkey–Libya MoU is more difficult to assess due to Libya’s ongoing political instability. Nevertheless, the MoU is expected to provide both parties with significant bargaining leverage. A review of international court decisions reveals that claims are supported by both case law and customary international law. However, as the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea noted in the Bangladesh/Myanmar case, there is no general rule for determining the effect of islands in maritime boundary delimitation. Instead, the treatment of islands depends on the specific circumstances of each individual case.The location of Greek islands—some of which are little more than rocks, while others possess an economic life of their own—adds further complexity to the issue. Greece maintains that these islands are entitled to full maritime zones, whereas Turkey, as a persistent objector, emphasizes their geographical position, as many lie on the opposite side of the equidistance line. Turkey, accepting the median line of the mainland as a fair solution, does not recognize these islands as having maritime zones beyond their territorial seas. Judicial precedents supporting this case can be seen in instances such as the British–French Continental Shelf case (1977) and the Black Sea case (2009). If the Greek islands have their own exclusive economic zone (EEZ) and continental shelf, the extent of Turkey’s maritime zones would be drastically reduced. It is unacceptable for Turkey to play only a minor role in the waters of the Eastern Mediterranean, while possessing the longest coastline. In spite of Greece’s insistence on giving its islands full effect, recent agreements with Egypt and Italy have moderated the effect of the islands. Although a maritime delimitation agreement remains the ideal solution, achieving it in the short term is unlikely. For now, temporary arrangements (e.g., joint exploitation management) can prevent the escalation of tensions and allow sufficient time to work toward a solution.ConclusionNegotiations and delimitation processes are always political in nature. With sufficient political will, most of these issues can be resolved. Considering the political situation of Turkey, Greece, Cyprus, Egypt, and Libya, joint exploitation management offers a viable alternative. It is natural for all parties to take a maximalist stance: Greece insists on the full effect of its islands; Cyprus advocates for the median line between the coasts; and Turkey pursues the Blue Homeland Doctrine. Alongside existing solutions, a realistic approach grounded in the principles of international law can pave the way to a fair outcome.
International Law
Mahmoud Hajjar; Seyed ghasem zamani
Abstract
IntroductionArticle 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 ...
Read More
IntroductionArticle 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 ReviewThe 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 MethodsUsing 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 DiscussionThe 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. ConclusionThis 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.
International Law
Meysam Haghseresht
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 ...
Read More
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 ReviewAlthough 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 MethodsThis 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 DiscussionThe 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.ConclusionAI 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.
Public Law
Hamid Reza Salehi; Mohammadreza Abbasi; Narges Bageri Motlag
Abstract
IntroductionThe real estate rent is one of the significant sources of tax revenue. Although a considerable number of taxpayers fall under this category, rental tax continues to play a unique role in the cohesion of different tax sources, as other sources are typically identified based on the location ...
Read More
IntroductionThe real estate rent is one of the significant sources of tax revenue. Although a considerable number of taxpayers fall under this category, rental tax continues to play a unique role in the cohesion of different tax sources, as other sources are typically identified based on the location of their activity. Understanding the concept, nature, and scope of this tax source is a key issue in tax law. What exactly is meant by rent in tax legislation? Does it refer strictly to the rental contract, sometimes defined as tamlik ‘ayn biʿawadh maʿlūm (acquisition as a known exchange of a tangible asset)? Or does it encompass a broader scope beyond that traditional concept? Literature ReviewDespite references in the literature, there has been limited in-depth analysis of the concept and scope of rent within tax law. In an article titled “Property Income Tax: Property Rental” Taghi-Nejad and Shayani (1993) explored only certain aspects of rental property taxation. Their discussion focused on taxable persons, the method for determining rental income, taxable rental income, tax rates, procedures for tax payment, municipal fees, the deadline for payment of rental income tax, the place for submitting tax declarations, tax incentives, tax crimes, and tax calculation. However, the literature has largely neglected to address the nature and scope of rent tax. Materials and MethodsThis research adopted a descriptive–analytical approach, drawing on the data from a variety of sources, including published books and articles. In addition to examining the scope of real estate rent tax, it also analyzed several key issues within tax law. Results and DiscussionSome Islamic jurists (faqih) define rent as tamlik al-manfa‘ah bi-‘iwad (acquisition as transfer of benefit for compensation). Meanwhile, other experts in Islamic jurisprudence and law describe rent as the acquisition of a benefit in exchange for a certain amount. This latter definition differs from the traditional jurisprudential view by explicitly including the concept of exchange as a known category. This raises a key question: In tax law, is rent defined primarily as the acquisition of a benefit in return for compensation? Article 53 of the Civil Law states that in case of the mortgage in possession, the mortgagor shall be subject to taxation according to the provisions of this Chapter. Furthermore, it stipulates that taxable income, in cases of the first hand lease of real estates that are endowed or entailed, shall be calculated on basis of this Article. Note 1 of Article 53 clarifies that the residence of the owner’s dependents is not considered as leasehold, unless it is proved by evidence and documents that the rent is paid. According to Note 10, residential units owned by housing construction companies, which are handed over to buyers before the final transfer and remain in the buyer’s possession according to the terms of the contract and supporting documents, shall not be considered as rented during that interim period. It is also stipulated in Note 8 that if the owner sells their residence and a deadline for vacating the property is set in the transfer deed without rent being specified, the property shall not be considered rented during the time it remains the residence of the seller—up to six months—and in a conditional sale (bay‘ al-shart), for as long as the property remains in the possession of the conditional seller according to the terms of the contract. However, if it is proven through documents and evidence that rent is being paid, it will be considered rental. ConclusionAccording to the findings, the scope of property rent in tax law is broader than its definition in civil law, Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh), and private law. In tax law, if a property is in the possession of another party—whether through a possessory mortgage or even unauthorized (aggressive) possession—it may still be considered rented for tax purposes. By clarifying the nature and scope of rent under tax law, several issues regarding property rent can be solved. It is thus recommended that members of the Tax Dispute Resolution Board, the Supreme Tax Council, and judges of the Administrative Court of Justice take into account the broader interpretation of lease within tax law when resolving disputes related to rental income taxation. For example, can the Tax Dispute Resolution Board also examine the tax on a possessory mortgage on the grounds that it does not reflect actual income? This question arises in light of Note 3 of Article 54, which states: In cases where the actual rental is less than the rental income assessed in accordance with the provisions of this Article and the taxpayer makes a complaint against it, then the Tax Dispute Settlement Authorities, referred to in the present Act, shall settle the issue. The Article refers only to the rent. However, if a property is mortgaged for 100 million tomans and the tax authority assesses 50 million tomans as taxable rental income based on estimated rental value, can the taxpayer object to this assessment? If the concept of property lease under tax law includes full mortgages, then such mortgages will also fall under the relevant tax provisions.
International Law
Anahita Seifi; Farangis Mansori
Abstract
IntroductionTraditionally, collective conflict and violence are perceived as the domain of men. Women are often perceived as naturally calm due to their roles as mothers and wives, and are believed to be physically and psychologically less capable of committing acts of violence. Actually, they are viewed ...
Read More
IntroductionTraditionally, collective conflict and violence are perceived as the domain of men. Women are often perceived as naturally calm due to their roles as mothers and wives, and are believed to be physically and psychologically less capable of committing acts of violence. Actually, they are viewed as more vulnerable than men and are typically seen as the primary victims of violence. Moreover, the minority status of women in political and military leadership has reinforced the notion that conflict and collective violence are predominantly male domains. As a result, when a female appears as a defendant before the International Criminal Court, she is perceived as an anomaly due to her gender. Gender narratives are used to align the defendant’s behavior with traditional gender norms, portraying the defendant as either female and therefore non-violent, violent and therefore not truly female, or influenced by a violent man. In doing so, these narratives reinforce existing gender stereotypes and suggest that femininity is inherently incompatible with violence. However, contrary to these stereotypes, recent years have seen a more nuanced understanding of the roles women play in conflict and instability. Women have participated in wars, terrorist acts, and other forms of collective violence—as perpetrators of killings and as accomplices to murder. They served as soldiers and trained militia members in conflicts in Rwanda, Cambodia, Sierra Leone, the former Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria, including membership in terrorist groups such as ISIS. They have been involved in committing murders and other crimes. One of the most unexpected roles of female perpetrators is their participation in war-related sexual violence. During the Rwandan genocide, the conflict in Sierra Leone, at Abu Ghraib prison, and in the wars in the former Yugoslavia, women were actively involved in acts of sexual violence. However, the experiences of these women within the criminal justice system, as well as the influence of gender stereotypes on legal proceedings, have not been adequately studied. Yet it is essential to recognize and examine these stereotypes, given their harmful effects. One of the most damaging consequences of gender stereotypes is that they contribute to discrimination between the sexes in the judicial process. The present research tried to address the following questions: Are women less capable of committing collective violence and crimes than men? How do gender stereotypes influence the treatment of female defendants in international criminal courts? To explore these issues, the study examined gender narratives—such as the mother, the wife, the pacifist, and the monster—as they relate to female defendants in international criminal courts. Literature ReviewThe experiences of women within the criminal justice system, as well as the impact of gender stereotypes on legal proceedings, have received limited scholarly attention. Moreover, few studies have conducted in-depth analyses of cases involving female defendants in international criminal courts. Yet the literature provides some relevant studies. For instance, in her research titled “Women Accused of International Crimes: A Trans-Disciplinary Inquiry and Methodology”, Linton (2016) criticized the predominant portrayal of women as victims of international crimes. She argues that this perspective reinforces harmful stereotypes of women as weak, non-autonomous, pacifist, and victimized. Such a view is problematic, especially considering that since the end of World War II, thousands of women have actively participated in serious crimes such as mass murder, torture, sexual violence, and inhumane treatment. Labenski’s Ph.D. thesis titled Female Defendants in International Criminal Law and Beyond (2017) analyzed the legal and cultural contexts surrounding several female defendants in the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, and the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia. Her work explores the nature of women’s violence in armed conflict beyond traditional gendered meanings. Labenski also challenges assumptions and stereotypes related to racial victimization and sexual vulnerability as they pertain to gender in the context of armed conflict. In “Gender Justice or Gendered Justice? Female Defendants in International Criminal Tribunals,” Hodgson (2017) examined several cases involving female defendants. She concludes that these cases are often interpreted through the lens of gendered assumptions and stereotypes. This form of gendered justice is problematic, as it reinforces patriarchal stereotypes and may undermine broader efforts to achieve gender justice. Materials and MethodsThis research used a descriptive–analytical method, drawing on the analysis of expert opinions, international documents, and a variety of sources. The data was collected through library research, including the work of legal research centers, books, articles, academic theses, and authentic websites. Results and DiscussionFemales also commit crimes and participate in acts of violence. However, this does not mean that women engage in violent acts during armed conflict more frequently than men, or even to the same extent. Rather, while women do commit international crimes, many of these offenses may be overlooked due to the prevailing perception of women primarily as victims of violence and armed conflict. In addition, there is a clear gendered perception and portrayal of female defendants and criminals as insane, abnormal, or devoid of agency. In Mothers, Monsters, Whores: Women’s Violence in Global Politics, Sjoberg and Gentry (2007) analyzed the portrayal of female defendants and criminals through three dominant narratives: the mother, the monster, and the whore. The mother narrative frames women’s violence as stemming from a desire for belonging, a need to nurture, or an expression of care and loyalty to men. The monster narrative strips female offenders of rational behavior or ideological motivation, portraying them as mentally unstable and denying their femininity or even their humanity. Finally, the whore narrative views violence, in its most extreme or vulnerable forms of female sexuality, as stemming from women’s sexual evils.In a similar fashion, Hodgson (2017) identified three narratives: mother narratives, monster narratives, and wife narratives. Concerning the wife narrative, “A defendant’s actions were viewed in the context of her relationship with her husband or partner, with these relationships being used to explain or justify why the defendant had become involved in the conflict or mass violence” (Hodgson, 2017, p. 349). Because it portrays women as being controlled by men, the wife narrative shares similarities with the whore narrative. However, unlike the whore narrative—which emphasizes the defendant’s sexuality and behavior—the wife narrative places greater emphasis on how the defendant’s romantic relationships have shaped her choices (Hodgson, 2017). These narratives and stereotypes are evident in the cases of several accused women in international criminal courts and hybrid courts.In reviewing the cases of female defendants, courts are often influenced by stereotypes and tend to overlook the actual crimes committed by these women. Victims of female perpetrators are further harmed when society and the justice system fail to acknowledge such acts as expressions of agency. This perspective is partly influenced by the reduction of accountability and penalties for female perpetrators in international crimes, and it also reinforces the persistence of strict and violent behavior of women. As a result, the justice system fails both the female defendants and their victims. Overall, stereotypes negatively affect both men and women, though their impact on women is more severe, as these narratives often depict them as weak or inferior. Moreover, such stereotypes undermine women’s recognition as full holders of human rights. ConclusionStudies show that these narratives emphasize the perceived incompatibility of femininity with violence, denying women’s agency in political and military roles as well as in acts of violence. Furthermore, the way accused women present themselves during trials, along with the court’s statements, reveals deeply rooted gender stereotypes within international criminal justice systems. In particular, these gender stereotypes strongly associate women with motherly and peace-loving identities, which diminishes their agency and inevitably influences the orders issued by the courts. The criminal courts’ excessive focus on women primarily as victims of violence reflects a specific view of femininity shaped by gender stereotypes. Regardless of these stereotypes, courts should avoid assuming that women are solely helpless victims during conflicts by recognizing their roles as active participants. Women are equally capable of committing violence and must be held accountable accordingly. With the increasing involvement of women in conflicts and mass violence, it is crucial to treat female defendants in international criminal justice systems as individuals—beyond a gendered perspective. This approach is essential to realize criminal justice. To uphold justice effectively, international criminal courts must evaluate cases of alleged international crimes regardless of gender, race, culture, ethnicity, region, or the scale of conflict.
Environmental law
Rozhin Taghdisi Nezhad; Kian Biglarbeigi; Amirsaed Vakil
Abstract
IntroductionClimate change is progressing rapidly, and its associated risks are intensifying. Evidence shows that these hazards can significantly affect lives and livelihoods around the world, often pushing vulnerable individuals, communities, and countries toward their physical and socio-economic adaptation ...
Read More
IntroductionClimate change is progressing rapidly, and its associated risks are intensifying. Evidence shows that these hazards can significantly affect lives and livelihoods around the world, often pushing vulnerable individuals, communities, and countries toward their physical and socio-economic adaptation limits. In response, human migration has become a common and long-term strategy to cope with the adverse consequences of climate change and recurring droughts. The term environmental refugee refers to individuals who, due to the impact of climate change, are forced to relocate in order to preserve their livelihoods and ensure survival. According to the International Organization for Migration, environmental refugees are individuals who change their place of residence due to environmental disasters or deteriorating environmental conditions. These displacements can be within or across borders, and either short-term or long-term. It is important to distinguish between the concepts of environmental migrant and environmental refugee, as each carries different connotations. Migrants often choose to relocate in search of better living conditions and are not typically fleeing direct threats to their safety or survival. In contrast, refugees are compelled to flee due to such threats and are unable to return safely to their home regions. Unlike refugees, migrants continue to enjoy the protection of their state of nationality. Given the widespread and growing effects of climate change, migration is expected to become an increasingly critical issue for countries at all income levels, as highlighted in World Development Report (2023). Not only do environmental refugees endanger the fundamental rights of migrants—such as the rights to life, health, housing, security, and access to clean water and food—but their displacement can also lead to cultural and ethnic conflicts, thus posing a risk to global peace and security (Mosaffa & Hosseinzadeh-Hashemi, 2016). Moreover, environmental refugees are often more vulnerable due to factors such as poverty, discrimination, separation from their homeland and families, and lack of access to basic resources necessary for the realization of their fundamental rights and freedoms. This highlights the urgent need for enhanced legal protection for them. In this respect, the current study aimed to explore how the requirements of international law concerning refugee protection in general can be extended to cover environmental refugees. Literature ReviewThe literature has addressed the issue of climate change and its associated challenges at both domestic and international levels, including the emerging phenomenon of environmental refugees. For instance, in the article “Legal Protection for Climate Change Refugees,” Mosaffa and Hosseinzadeh-Hashemi (2016) highlighted the need for legal protection of environmental refugees, emphasizing the relevance of international and regional legal documents. Similarly, the article titled “Environmentally-Displaced Persons in International Law: Conceptual Ambiguity and the Need for a Legal Framework” (Modarress-Sabzevary & Ghari Seyed Fatemi, 2019) explored the legal frameworks and challenges surrounding environmental refugees. It offered a conceptual analysis of the term environmental refugee and distinguished between displacement resulting from natural disasters and that caused by climate change. Despite these significant contributions, there remains a gap in the literature: no comprehensive study has yet examined the international community’s commitments to environmental refugees in the form of international legal measures. The present research sought to fill this gap by offering a novel and in-depth examination of international legal norms—both mandatory and non-mandatory—along with governmental actions, the roles of international organizations, and relevant judicial precedents. The objective was to support and clarify the legal rights of environmental refugees within the broader framework of international law. Materials and MethodsThe present study used a library research method to collect the data. Moreover, a descriptive–analytical approach was used to analyze the data. The analysis focused on examining the legal regulations governing climate change, and exploring the protective mechanisms available to environmental refugees under international human rights law. It also investigated relevant mechanisms in international treaties, governmental measures, international organizations, and judicial precedents. Results and DiscussionThe 1992 United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, and the 2015 Paris Agreement are among the most significant international efforts aimed at addressing and stabilizing greenhouse gas emissions. Similarly, the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees underscore the global community’s recognition of the fundamental rights of refugees. In other words, the international community’s efforts to formulate protective laws through various international conventions on refugee rights and climate change demonstrate that global public opinion has not remained indifferent to the issue of environmental refugees. These efforts reflect a consistent desire to uphold the dignity and fundamental rights of refugees. Although judicial systems have shown some support for environmental refugees—potentially signaling the emergence of customary international norms in their favor—a review of international documents reveals that none of the existing treaties on refugee rights specifically address environmental refugees. This legislative gap underscores the urgent need for the international community to lay the groundwork for a comprehensive and inclusive convention that clearly defines the rights of environmental refugees and ensures that states meet their obligations. Until such a convention is adopted, it is essential that countries—particularly those that are parties to the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, the 1967 Protocol, and other relevant human rights instruments—enter into supportive bilateral or multilateral agreements. These agreements, guided by the legal framework of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), can help protect the rights of environmental refugees and facilitate safe, regular, and humane migration through humanitarian aid. It is hoped that the international community will take appropriate measures to address global warming and mitigate the adverse effects of climate change by revisiting the current legal framework for refugees, eliminating existing shortcomings, and establishing effective enforcement guarantees. ConclusionIt is necessary to develop the existing requirements of international law concerning climate change and refugees. As a first step, efforts should focus on strengthening the foundation of the international responsibility regime for refugees, including the formulation of a comprehensive and precise definition of environmental refugees and a clear articulation of the obligations of both countries of origin and host states through international agreements. Building on existing normative frameworks—particularly the principles established in the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees—it is possible either to create a distinct legal system to protect environmental refugees or, at the very least, to extend the scope of human rights protections to encompass their fundamental rights. To achieve this, the legal and supportive mechanisms of international organizations can serve as tools to pressure governments into fulfilling their international commitments.
Public Law
Zohreh Naeimifard; Mahdi Hadavand
Abstract
IntroductionIn administrative law, the rule against bias constitutes a key component of principles of procedural fairness and complements the theory of good governance. Various forms of bias (e.g., personal, cognitive, organizational–institutional, previous involvement, preconceived opinions, ...
Read More
IntroductionIn administrative law, the rule against bias constitutes a key component of principles of procedural fairness and complements the theory of good governance. Various forms of bias (e.g., personal, cognitive, organizational–institutional, previous involvement, preconceived opinions, predispositions, or prejudgments) can significantly influence decision-making processes. Despite the importance of the rule, its foundations and dimensions have received relatively limited attention within administrative law, with most discussions focusing primarily on judicial impartiality. Given the role of comparative law in administrative law, the present study adopted a descriptive–analytical approach to explore the nature, elements, and application of the rule against bias in British administrative law. Currently, the British legal system’s approach to the rule against bias appears fragmented and inconsistently applied, with varying standards. Any violation of this rule may render the administrative authority incompetent, with consequences ranging from the decision being void to merely voidable. While concerns persist regarding the rule’s rigidity—particularly in technically complex or specialized administrative matters—there remains a pressing need to balance between competing concerns. Literature ReviewThe general applicability of the rule against bias, as the second principle of procedural justice, is addressed in a chapter in the Persian-language book titled Comparative Administrative Law: Procedural Justice (Fallahzadeh, 2015). Aside from Fallahzadeh’s work, which serves as a key reference for the present study, the existing Persian-language literature lacks an independent and comprehensive analysis of this topic. It seems that the literature on the principles underlying the rule against bias and the related judicial procedures remains limited. Thus, the present study can be considered a novel contribution in its focus on the legal status of biased administrative decisions, as well as the criticisms and challenges associated with the application of the rule against bias. Materials and MethodsThis study adopted a descriptive–analytical approach, drawing on the data collected through a library research method and a review of library sources. Results and DiscussionAccording to the findings, the rule against bias plays a central role in upholding procedural fairness and legitimacy within the U.K. administrative legal system. The British courts have gradually moved away from rigid, formalistic distinctions—such as that between judicial and administrative functions—toward a more flexible, context-sensitive approach. This shift reflects a growing recognition that all decision-makers, regardless of their institutional position, are bound by the fundamental obligation to act impartially. The analysis identified three doctrinal categories of bias—actual, presumptive, and apparent—each with its own criteria and evidentiary standards. Although this categorization allows for nuanced application, it leads to a fragmented framework. Courts have thus far refrained from adopting a unified test, resulting in inconsistencies in application and interpretative uncertainty. Nevertheless, the current analysis supported the emerging scholarly and judicial view that a single, objective standard of apparent bias—centered on maintaining public confidence—could offer a more coherent and accessible doctrine. Moreover, the legal consequences of bias in administrative decisions—ranging from voidness to voidability—highlight a lack of consistency in available remedies. Outcomes often depend on judicial discretion and the nature of the administrative act, creating ambiguity that may undermine the predictability of the legal system. Despite these challenges, the British courts have consistently emphasized the need to balance procedural safeguards with practical considerations, particularly in specialized or technical administrative contexts. Finally, this research underscored the rule against bias as both a normative and functional safeguard. It serves not only to ensure the integrity of individual decisions but also to reinforce the broader legitimacy of administrative governance. The continued evolution of this doctrine in the U.K. law reflects an ongoing effort to reconcile formal legal principles with the imperatives of effective, accountable, and transparent public administration. ConclusionThe rule against bias remains a fundamental principle of procedural fairness in the U.K. administrative law. Although the British courts have adopted a more flexible, context-sensitive approach—moving away from outdated distinctions between judicial and administrative functions—the absence of a unified standard for identifying bias continues to result in inconsistency. The tripartite framework of bias offers analytical clarity but complicates the predictability. The growing recognition of both material and immaterial interests as grounds for disqualification reflects the expansive scope of the rule, yet also underscores the need for a coherent, objective test grounded in public confidence. While breaches of the rule may render decisions void or voidable, the courts strive to balance this with practical considerations, such as administrative efficiency and expertise. Ultimately, the rule against bias is evolving from a rigid, formalistic safeguard into a dynamic mechanism for ensuring fairness, legitimacy, and accountability in public decision-making.
