Public Law Researsh

Abstract 1. Introduction The term climate inherently implies an inseparable connection between atmospheric conditions and water. Oceans play a critical role in the climate system by absorbing and redistributing carbon, anthropogenic CO₂, and heat, while also exerting a vital influence on the Earth’s water cycle. One of the earliest effects of climate change is atmospheric warming and the rise in average air temperature. The warming triggers a chain of consequences, including increased precipitation, altered storm patterns and ocean currents, changes in river systems, and ultimately sea-level rise, which may even affect maritime boundaries and baselines. Given the wide-ranging effects of climate change, the U.N. climate regime interacts with numerous institutions and legal frameworks. However, international rules in this field have largely kept obligations at the level of preferences and aspirations rather than creating enforceable commitments. The present study aimed to examine the current situation through a review of international documents and reports, as well as the views of various scholars. It sought to answer the following questions: What ocean-based legal solutions exist for addressing climate change? And are the existing rules sufficient, or do they need to be revised or supplemented with new solutions? 2. Literature Review Persian-language scholarship offers numerous studies on climate change, but very few address the intersection of climate change and the law of the sea. For example, in their article titled “Climate Change and Changes in the Baseline of Coastal Countries: Solutions and Challenges,” Habibi and Raee-Dehaghi (2020) discussed only the impact of climate change on maritime boundaries. Given the significant role of the oceans, many international works have dealt with this issue, such as the edited volumes The Law of the Sea and Climate Change: Solutions and Constraints (Johansen et al., 2021) and The Environmental Rule of Law for Oceans: Designing Legal Solutions (Platjouwa & Pozdnakova, 2023). 3. Materials and Methods The present study employed a descriptive–analytical approach and a library research method to collect and analyze data drawn from international documents, books, and relevant articles. 4. Results and Discussion The 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), also called the Law of the Sea Convention, was negotiated at a time when climate change had not yet emerged as a major issue in international environmental law. Nevertheless, Part XII of the Convention is applicable to greenhouse gas emissions and climate change insofar as they affect the marine environment. Even the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the broader climate governance framework primarily focus on land-based and atmospheric matters, with only limited application to the oceans. As a first step, a dynamic interpretation of UNCLOS could expand its scope and help fill this gap. Article 194, in particular, provides significant potential for such an interpretation, allowing climate action to be emphasized as part of the broader objective of protecting rare ecosystems. In the next step, national and international judicial bodies could also play an important role by adopting dynamic interpretive approaches. The diversity of dispute settlement mechanisms under the law of the sea makes this field particularly well suited to such developments. The 2023 High Seas Treaty has opened a new avenue for marine environmental protection by addressing the impacts of climate change. Relevant frameworks and tools for responding to environmental harm are set out in Part III and Part IV. This agreement is significant because no previous international legal instrument governing the oceans had explicitly and directly addressed marine biodiversity and environmental protection within the framework of ocean governance. However, it should be noted that the treaty’s obligations regarding hazardous activities are primarily preventive and participatory and do not provide concrete solutions for addressing such activities. As of September 29, 2024, only 13 of the 114 signatory states had ratified the agreement, while 60 ratifications are required for it to enter into force. Under Article 25 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, a treaty may be applied provisionally before its formal entry into force if the negotiating states so agree. However, despite the practical need for such a mechanism, the 2023 High Seas Treaty does not include any provision for provisional application. Therefore, under Article 25(1)(b), the signatory states can adopt a protocol or separate instrument providing for provisional application. This could significantly assist the Preparatory Commission in making arrangements for the treaty’s implementation and for the first meeting of the Conference of the Parties. 5. Conclusion The importance and central role of the oceans in mitigating the effects of climate change are well recognized by scholars in this field. In addition to the shortcomings of climate-related conventions, the law of the sea framework has also been limited in addressing the impacts of climate change on the oceans. This research aimed to evaluate ocean-based legal solutions for combating climate change within the framework of the 1982 UNCLOS and the 2023 High Seas Treaty. Although the 1982 Convention did not explicitly address climate change, it provides considerable capacity for dynamic interpretation and for the use of international dispute settlement mechanisms. Criticizing the Convention based on the historical context in which it was adopted seems unreasonable. Despite being in force for more than 40 years, the UNCLOS has demonstrated a significant degree of adaptability and responsiveness. The 2023 High Seas Treaty was developed with the primary objective of preserving the oceans’ unique biodiversity. Although it explicitly—yet only briefly—refers to the impacts of climate change on the oceans (e.g., acidification, rising temperatures, and sea-level rise), the treaty adopts a relatively soft approach. While it establishes frameworks for addressing environmental challenges—such as identifying and designating marine protected areas and conducting environmental impact assessments—it does not set out binding commitments specifically aimed at combating climate change. The persistent challenge of financial and technology transfer also remains insufficiently addressed. Moreover, in contrast to the accelerating pace of climate change, the process of ratification and implementation of the treaty has been notably slow. It seems that relying on the existing capacities of the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention is a sound approach. However, the 2023 High Seas Treaty faces an uncertain future in terms of both its entry into force and its practical effectiveness. Convening a meeting of the signatory states to adopt an annex or separate instrument providing for the treaty’s provisional application before its formal entry into force could represent an important step in responding to the urgency of the situation.

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

Abstract 1. Introduction Administrative processes can be excessively long, convoluted, and irrational. This diminishes the satisfaction associated with achieving the outcome and, in some cases, renders the result nearly meaningless. Given that a significant portion of human life involves interacting with public administration, administrative processes have a considerable impact on the overall quality and enjoyment of life for both citizens and public employees. Their effects also extend to the broader level of public satisfaction. In this context, the humanization of administration refers to reforming administrative processes in ways that enhance the sense of pleasure derived from administrative outcomes. It is assumed that creating pleasure for citizens, even if not the primary objective of the government, is nevertheless one of its responsibilities. To address the issue, the study reread Jeremy Bentham’s pleasure–pain theory insofar as it relates to the humanization of bureaucracy. The primary objective was to develop a mechanism for humanizing administration by increasing pleasure and reducing pain. It also aimed to explain the concepts of pleasure and pain, along with illustrative examples, from Bentham’s perspective. The main research question is: How can administrative processes be designed so that they do not reduce human pleasure? The study also went on to address more specific questions: What is pleasure, and what are its components? And under what conditions does a person experience pleasure? The research is based on the hypothesis that administrative processes can be reformed to increase the individual pleasure of citizens and employees—and ultimately the general public—by identifying and applying the components of pleasure as outlined by Bentham. 2. Literature Review Persian-language scholarship encompasses some research studies on different aspects of administrative structural reform. For example, in “Individual-Orientation or System-Orientation in the Laws Against Administrative Corruption in Iran,” Karimian (2021) addresses the issue of corruption and anti-corruption. In “An Introduction to Administrative Human Rights,” Hosseini and Khosravi (2020) focused on the promotion and protection of human rights in administrative settings. The study by Salmani et al. (2022), titled “Challenges of Citizenship Rights in the Iranian Administrative System in Light of Good Governance,” examined increased accountability, improved efficiency and effectiveness of processes, and the optimization of relationships between citizens and public administration. Moreover, the article “Identifying and Prioritizing Elements of Organizational Democracy in the Public Sector Using Fuzzy Delphi and Network Analysis Process (ANP)” (Rangriz & Khamoie, 2020) focused on strengthening meritocracy and promoting the democratization of organizations. In a rather different fashion, the current analysis picked up an inherently non‑legal concept of pleasure to develop a framework aimed at addressing the decline in overall life satisfaction due to daily encounters with administrative processes. 3. Materials and Methods The present study adopted a descriptive–analytical method. First, Bentham’s theory of pleasure was described within the context of existing theories. Its main features and components were then aligned with the requirements of administrative law in order to derive indicators based on these components. These indicators were ultimately used as guiding principles for administrative reform. 4. Results and Discussion The pleasures in Bentham’s framework include the pleasures of sense, wealth, skill, amity (friendship), a good name, power, piety, benevolence, malevolence (pleasure derived from another’s pain), memory, imagination, expectation, as well as pleasures arising from association and relief. Correspondingly, pains include those arising from privation, the senses, awkwardness, enmity, an ill-name, piety, benevolence, malevolence, memory, imagination, expectation, and pains dependent on association. These concepts take shape within the interactive sphere of human relationships. The components of pleasure in Bentham’s framework can be aligned with administrative matters through the following indicators. These indicators are framed within the general principles of administrative law, ensuring that their implementation does not require changes to the existing legislative system. First, the component related to preventing pain and arbitrary action is supported by the principle of prohibiting decision-making based on caprice. This is put into practice through the principle of demanding minimum documentation, the principle of the validity of any request, the principle of prohibiting excess caution within the framework of the law, the principle of prohibiting the narrow interpretation of legal authority, the principle of transparency in administrative approvals, and the principle of granting job-related privileges to employees. Second, the component of possession is addressed by the principle of exercising authority in accordance with the will of the applicant. Third, the component of skill corresponds to the principle of meritocracy and the principle of professionalism. Fourth, the component of amity is reflected in the principle of aligning the private interest of the applicant with the public interest, which guides the transition from strict formal justice to administrative fairness, also known as the principle of fairness-oriented administration. Fifth, the component of a good name is upheld by the principle of comprehensive protection of citizens’ dignity within the administration, the principle of confidentiality, and the principle of anti-corruption. Sixth, the component of benevolence is represented by the principle of equality alongside the acceptance of others. Seventh, the component of expectation is preserved through the principle of not delaying administrative processes, the principle of result orientation, and the principle of access to administrative information. Finally, the component of relief is realized through the principle of fully compensating for all administrative damages and ensuring reparability for those caused by violations of ethical codes. 5. Conclusion Since the late twentieth century, anti‑corruption initiatives have been central to efforts aimed at improving the relationship between public administration and citizens. Human interactions between officials and citizens have often been viewed as potential sources of corruption and have therefore frequently been evaluated in negative terms. Nevertheless, public administration remains an unavoidable arena for human interaction. Over the years, many proposed reforms of administrative systems have prioritized anti‑corruption measures by seeking to limit or control direct human interaction. As a result, electronic governance was introduced as a mechanism for implementing various anti‑corruption initiatives. In practice, however, the shift to electronic governance has often merely relocated corrupt interactions from administrative offices to external settings rather than eradicating them. Administrative corruption has therefore persisted despite these efforts. Living a life characterized by pleasure and free from pain is a core element of the public interest. Because the public administration is obligated to act in the public interest, it must ensure that its actions do not diminish citizens’ pleasure or inflict unnecessary pain. Any failure to uphold this duty must be met with proportional sanctions. Guaranteeing these elements of pleasure, and ensuring the practical application of their components within public administration, requires several measures: legalizing the category of pleasure, integrating pleasure and its components into administrative codes of ethics, formulating general legal principles related to pleasure, providing targeted training and administrative supervision, and encouraging the creative implementation of these principles by public employees.

Abstract 1. Introduction The theory of state neutrality, grounded in secularism and the separation of public and private affairs, provides a favorable basis for the flourishing of the public sphere. These two ideas share important affinities, including freedom, equality, and pluralism. However, fundamental conflicts also exist between them, raising challenges for the realization of public discourse in a democratic context. Jürgen Habermas identifies two main challenges: (1) the conflict between solidarity and individualism and (2) the conflict within the concept of autonomy, namely between private and public autonomy. The present study aimed to examine these conflicts, particularly within the frameworks of liberalism and neoliberalism. The research question is as follows: Which inconsistencies between the theory of state neutrality and the idea of the public sphere have undermined the realization of public discourse in a democratic context? 2. Literature Review Many studies have examined the public sphere, predominantly from a sociological perspective. However, only a few have addressed this topic in the fields of law and political philosophy. For example, in “Public Sphere and Perfectionism in Fundamental Rights: The Case of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran,” Mohammadi and Mashhadi (2025) explored the relationship between the public sphere and perfectionist theory within the framework of Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Mashhadi (2015) also addressed the topic in the article titled “From Privatization of Public Law to Publicization of Private Law: Legitimacy and Intervention of Liberal Capitalist State in the Thought of Habermas.” Nevertheless, none of these studies has examined the fundamental conflicts between the public sphere and the theory of state neutrality within the context of liberalism in Habermas’s thought. 3. Materials and Methods The present research adopted a critical–analytical approach. It first clarified the concept of public sphere and the theory of state neutrality on the basis of the ideas of Habermas and other liberal theorists. The study then examined the fundamental conflicts between these two theories, including the conflict between solidarity and individualism and the conflict between private and public autonomy. 4. Results and Discussion Although the theory of state neutrality provides a favorable ground for the flourishing of the public sphere and shares important affinities with it, it also gives rise to significant conflicts that hinder the full realization of the public sphere. The first challenge is the conflict between solidarity and individualism. Centered on individualism, the theory of state neutrality emphasizes the protection of private interests. Habermas, however, argues that this overemphasis on individualism weakens the solidarity necessary for advancing public interests. These challenges are further intensified in the context of neoliberalism, with its strong emphasis on free markets and competition, which undermines the foundations of Habermasian solidarity. For this reason, Habermas rejects absolute secularism and regards the presence of religion in the public sphere as necessary for fostering solidarity, while still insisting on the complete separation of state and religion. The second challenge concerns the conflict within the concept of autonomy, namely between private and public autonomy. The theory of state neutrality places primary emphasis on private autonomy, whereas Habermas regards both forms of autonomy as equally important. In a Hayekian or neoliberal state, private autonomy may come to dominate public autonomy, thereby disrupting the balance necessary for the legitimacy of law and the dynamism of the public sphere. To address this dilemma, Habermas proposes a system of five fundamental rights in which private and public autonomy are interrelated, and both private and public interests are realized through the processes of public discourse and lawmaking. The conflicts between the theory of state neutrality and the Habermasian public sphere, particularly in the context of neoliberalism, pose serious challenges to democracy and to the formation of the collective will. An excessive emphasis on individualism and private autonomy can weaken social solidarity and public participation. Habermas’s attempt to balance private and public autonomy, together with his recognition of the constructive role of religion in strengthening solidarity, offers important ways of addressing these challenges and reinforcing both the public sphere and democracy. 5. Conclusion In sum, despite the theoretical affinities between the theory of state neutrality and the public sphere, fundamental conflicts arise in practice that hinder the full realization of public discourse in democratic societies. These conflicts, particularly those concerning solidarity and the concept of autonomy, are profound and are further intensified within neoliberalism. Habermas’s proposed solutions, including a redefinition of solidarity and a balance between private and public autonomy, appear essential for addressing these challenges and strengthening participatory democracy. To achieve a dynamic and effective public sphere, these conflicts must be taken seriously, and strategies must be developed to establish the necessary balance between individual freedoms and collective interests.

Abstract 1. Introduction The development of human rights standards has made the treatment of prisoners and other persons deprived of liberty an important indicator of a government’s commitment to human rights and good governance. It also serves as a benchmark for assessing the legitimacy and credibility of governments in the international arena. One clear sign of humane treatment is the application of control measures and the use of instruments of restraint, particularly during the transfer of prisoners and detainees from prisons and detention facilities. Instruments of restraint, such as handcuffs and leg irons, are applied to the body to impose restrictions that partially or completely limit the movement of prisoners and other persons deprived of liberty. Like many other coercive measures, such restrictions inherently affect the human dignity of those subjected to them. Using two key indicators of respect for human dignity and the prohibition of torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment, the current study aimed to examine whether Iran’s domestic laws and regulations governing the use of instruments of restraint on prisoners and other persons deprived of liberty are consistent with human rights standards and established international criteria. The use of restraint instruments and the question of their necessity were the primary focus of the current inquiry. The analysis also examined the most commonly used instrument (i.e., handcuffs) along with other prohibited devices specifically identified in human rights documents and related sources. Finally, it considered the factors that must be taken into account in relation to vulnerable individuals and certain groups. 2. Literature Review Regarding this topic, only scattered references can be found in Persian-language scholarship. However, it seems no study has specifically examined the use of instruments of restraint on prisoners and other persons deprived of liberty, nor has any research addressed the permissibility or prohibition of such practices. In addition, Iran’s domestic laws and regulations have not been critically analyzed for their compliance with human rights standards and international norms. 3. Materials and Methods The present research used library and documentary source to analyze the conditions under which the use of instruments of restraint may amount to inhuman treatment or even torture. The study began by outlining the issue and then descriptively and analytically examining the declarations, resolutions, and other instruments adopted by international organizations, particularly the minimum standards for the treatment of prisoners as reflected in two key documents: the Bangkok Rules and the Nelson Mandela Rules. Drawing especially on the reasoning set out in numerous judgments of the European Court of Human Rights, the study identified, evaluated, and analyzed the relevant human rights standards. Finally, the analysis critically examined Iran’s domestic laws and regulations in light of those standards. 4. Results and Discussion Preventive measures and the use of instruments of restraint inevitably affect prisoners’ human dignity and, in particular, raise concerns under the principle prohibiting torture and other inhuman or degrading treatment. At the same time, prison authorities may be required to use such measures during prisoner transfers and emergency situations in order to prevent prisoners from harming themselves or others. Consequently, human rights instruments have, in limited circumstances, recognized the permissibility of their use. The Nelson Mandela Rules establish a broad standard prohibiting the use of instruments of restraint that are inherently degrading or painful, while permitting the use of other instruments provided that this principle is respected. This standard is too broad and, apart from the specific prohibition on chains and irons, is not framed through an exhaustive list of prohibited devices. Nevertheless, human rights instruments and international institutions have identified and prohibited particular methods and devices in light of their nature and effects. These include leg cuffs; devices that immobilize the hands, feet, or fingers; instruments that secure a prisoner to a wall, ceiling, or fixed location; cages and other enclosed structures; and restraint chairs and boards. The primary basis for prohibiting the instruments of restraint has been their incompatibility with states’ obligations to prevent torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment. Bodies such as the European Court of Human Rights, the U.N. Committee Against Torture, and the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture have frequently emphasized that the use of such restraints in prohibited circumstances is inhuman and degrading, while only rarely finding that it reaches the threshold of torture. Whether that threshold is met is a relative assessment, depending on factors such as the physical and psychological effects of the restraint, as well as the victim’s gender, age, and state of health. Therefore, the use of instruments of restraint on vulnerable groups—including children, women, and sick prisoners—carries a significantly greater risk of amounting to inhuman and degrading treatment or even torture. Hence, human rights institutions, particularly the European Court of Human Rights, have repeatedly emphasized the importance of adhering to the principle of proportionality, carefully assessing each individual’s particular circumstances, and recognizing the heightened obligation of states to protect vulnerable persons. In practice, this has led to the development of a form of enhanced protection for such groups. By adopting a substance-based approach, the European Court of Human Rights has not confined the scope of the prohibition under Article 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights to conventional forms of restraint. Rather, it has interpreted that prohibition as extending to any restraining measure that is, in substance, degrading, inflicts severe pain or suffering, or violates human dignity. This broad interpretation is not only consistent with the underlying philosophy of the European human rights system, which is founded on the protection of human dignity, but also fully aligned with the principles set out in the Nelson Mandela Rules, particularly Rule 47, which prohibits the use of inherently painful or degrading restraints. 5. Conclusion The legal basis for prohibiting the use of restraining devices in unauthorized circumstances lies in the violation of states’ obligations to prevent torture and other forms of inhuman or degrading treatment. Moreover, the European Court of Human Rights has addressed the use of such devices in prohibited circumstances under other legal grounds, including violations of the right to privacy. Nevertheless, both prevailing public opinion and relevant legal instruments suggest that the principal rationale for this prohibition is the characterization of such practices as inhuman and degrading. Given the prominent status of human rights in Europe and the continuing development of more humane standards, it is likely that the Strasbourg Court will establish more precise criteria for assessing the conditions under which instruments of restraint may be used and possibly impose stricter scrutiny on the treatment of persons deprived of their liberty. As methods of control and supervision have evolved alongside technological progress, courts may also consider less restrictive alternatives and encourage governments to adopt such technologies. Ultimately, the European Court is likely to continue promoting the principles of human dignity and the abolition of unnecessary or disproportionate restrictions, while seeking to strike a balance between individual rights and security. Iran’s criminal justice system has taken into account the principal considerations and practical criteria necessary to respect prisoners’ human rights. However, it is essential to adopt measures that further restrict the use of restraints. These measures should include prohibiting inherently painful or degrading restraint devices, banning the use of handcuffs on persons under 18 within correctional facilities, and prohibiting the use of restraint devices on women during childbirth and the postpartum period, as well as on patients undergoing surgical procedures.