Iranian Journal of International and Comparative Law
Volume:1 Issue: 2, Jul 2023

In the past several decades, Islamophobia has emerged as a significant term in both popular and technical discourse. This term, regardless of its original meaning, is a construct that involves a variety of concepts such as “discrimination against Muslims” and “hostility toward Islam”. This article attempts to explore various aspects and manifestations of Islamophobia in the framework of human rights. The first part of this paper examines the historical background of the term as it was developed in the Human Rights agenda of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) to comprehend the legal aspects of Islamophobia. The second part focuses on the conceptual analysis of Islamophobia, distinguishing between two distinct forms of the term in the context of human rights. Defining Islamophobia and demarcating its manifestations in a human rights framework would facilitate a better understanding of both the term and its conceptual boundaries in relation to similar terms and concepts. The author concludes that the United Nations resolutions, OIC standards, and European Union initiatives recognize the importance of responsible expression and realize the need for legal frameworks to combat all forms of Islamophobia. In comparison to other associated terms employed in UN and OIC human rights instruments, Islamophobia represents an inclusive term that can provide a acceptable legal framework for all stakeholders.

Rohingya Muslims have suffered persecution and genocide in the Republic of Myanmar (formerly Burma) and have been expelled from the country by the military junta who are in power. The evidence is incontrovertible of grave human rights abuses and that the refugees have lived in diaspora with no prospect of returning home. The UN human rights investigators have compiled reports that testify to the inhumanities that they have suffered prior to their expulsion. Despite this, there has been no efforts towards redressing this problem which falls within the remit of international human rights and humanitarian law. The actions of the Myanmar authorities in using force can be considered as Non-International Armed Conflict (NIAC) and the UN intervention under the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) measure, could be activated. This can serve as a basis for arresting the responsible officials in Myanmar and prosecuting them under an international tribunal. This has not been possible because of the lack of consensus in the international community and the exercise of the veto power by some members of the Security Council. This article argues that there should be intervention in this conflict under the existing precedent by broadening the scope of intervention and then by prosecution in a specially constituted tribunal. The R2P mechanism can be activated by prescribing the genocide of the Rohingyas within the framework of an NIAC and by constituting a tribunal under the Tadic principle to try the members of the Myanmar’s regime for their breaches of IHL.

The COVID-19 pandemic made the fight against “leaving nobody behind” even more difficult, by exacerbating existing inequities and discrimination. Discrimination and inequality have no geographical bounds; they exist in varied forms in different social contexts. The widening inequality gaps caused by COVID-19 have severe ramifications for fundamental human rights, including the right to life and, most significantly, access to healthcare, education, and employment. The impacts of these inequities are already noticeable and continue to unfold in the near future. The “Coronavirus stigma,” which is based on racial, religious, and gender grounds, has also been fueled by fear and uncertainty about the pandemic. This has exposed, in particular, the vulnerability of those living in precarious situations and marginalised groups, such as individuals with disabilities, women, children, refugees, and migrants. Therefore, this paper seeks to analyse the profound consequences of these problems, propose essential steps for combatting inequality in a novel way, and recommend strategies to lessen the effects of inequality and discrimination in the post-pandemic era.

The term “legal consequences of international responsibility” covers the new legal relations which arise under international law as a result of a State’s Internationally Wrongful Act (IWA). In this context, three types of obligations can be identified: the duty (a) to perform the obligation breached, (b) to cease the wrongful conduct, and (c) to make full reparation for the injury caused. In the Certain Iranian Assets Case, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) found that the United States had breached Articles III (1); IV (1) & (2); and X (1) of the Treaty of Amity. This article seeks to explore the legal consequences of US international responsibility. Specifically, it examines these consequences in the light of the International Law Commission's Articles on State Responsibility and the relevant case-law. The study recruits a descriptive-analytical method, relying on library sources for collecting data. In the Certain Iranian Assets Case, the ICJ concluded that, due to the fact that the Treaty of Amity no longer creates obligations on the Parties, as of October 3, 2019, the US has not obligation to perform its duties under the Treaty or to cease the wrongful conduct. The Court only ruled that the US should provide reparation for the injury caused. The most important finding of this article is that the Court is likely to reach similar results in the Case of Alleged Violations of the 1955 Treaty of Amity. Consequently, the United States bears no obligation to comply with the Treaty of Amity following its termination in October 2019. Similar to the Certain Iranian Assets Case, this termination has similar implications concerning the US responsibility to compensate the damages incurred by the injured State.

The conflict between Russia and Ukraine has been dragged into political and legal fields in parallel with the battlefield, and the international community, including Iran, has been subsequently drawn into the situation. The controversial debates concerning Iran’s role in supplying Russia with armed drones prior to and during Russia’s Military Operations in Ukraine raise the question of Iran's international responsibility in the ongoing war. The provision of armed drones to Russia does not, in itself, constitute a violation of international law unless Iran knowingly and intentionally engaged in an internationally wrongful act. Evidence is not conclusive so far whether Iran's transfer of armed drones to Russia is a breach of international law. Besides, the use of the drones yielded military advantages to both sides: Russia could narrow down the impact of its attacks, respecting the principle of distinction, while Ukraine could target Iranian drones more easily than Russia’s missiles, which is compatible with Iran’s positive obligations under International Humanitarian Law (IHL).

The commission of war crimes by States in armed conflicts has become a distressingly common occurrence, resulting in devastating consequences for and profoundly affecting global conscience. In response, international jurists have sought to develop practical and appropriate solutions to minimize the occurrence of such crimes during armed conflicts. Consequently, they have succeeded in devising specialized documents which form the current international system for addressing war crimes. Recruiting a descriptive-analytical method and using library sources, this research aims to investigate the primary causes hindering the efficacy of the current system in holding perpetrators accountable. The study, also explores key international documents related to this subject matter. Findings indicate that challenges such as inadequate implementation mechanisms in these documents, the prioritization of international relations over international law by governments, the absence of participation from major military powers, and the limited use of political tools by others States against the offending States are crucial reasons behind the weakness of the current international system in addressing war crimes.

Environmental crises affect children's rights to such an extent that they can be boldly referred to as children's rights crisis. There are a variety of environmental crises, including air, water and soil pollution, destruction of ecosystems and resources, toxic pollution, the spread of infectious diseases, ozone depletion, rising greenhouse gases and so on which adversely affect various aspects of children's basic rights including right to life, right to health, right to education, right to welfare and adequate living standards, right to healthy nutrition and their cultural rights. The present paper seeks to explore the rights of children in environmental crises from the perspective of international human rights law (IHRL). Finally, the findings of this article indicates that, states and large corporations, which have the largest share in creating environmental crises, also have the greatest responsibility. Now, when environmental damage directly and/or indirectly violates the rights of children and governments are directly or/and indirectly involved in creating them, it makes sense to consider them committed to resolving environmental crises and guaranteeing children's rights. To this end, states should take effective action, including reducing greenhouse gas emissions, preventing ecosystem degradation, preventing pollution and global warming, respecting the right of children to be heard, guaranteeing the right to freedom of expression and association, and involving them in environmental decisions.

Biotechnology as a modern-day phenomenon has had profound effects in various fields such as agriculture, health, and the environment. However, there are some concerns among scientists about the potential impacts of products resulting from the technology of living modified organisms (LMOs) on biodiversity and human health. This has led to the development of a set of rules and regulations known as biosafety to ensure the safety of these products under the Cartagena Protocol to the 1992 UN Convention on Biological Diversity. Biosafety can be considered as an approach to protect biodiversity and human health from potential threats while benefiting from the benefits of biotech products. From a human rights perspective, there seems to be a direct link between this field and biosafety, and there are many common concepts in both areas. The article seeks to examine the role of biosafety in human rights protection and examines how human rights can be protected to answer this question. In this analytical study, through studying the literature and primary sources, the role of biosafety in the protection of human rights has been analyzed and criticized from different aspects. The results show that biosafety can be considered a way to balance between different human rights and socio-economic considerations and the way of applying the precautionary principle have an important role in achieving this goal.

The Turkish government has had the greatest impact on the flow of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers by implementing huge development projects through the construction of large-scale dams under the Southeast Anatolia Development Project (GAP) and this has affected the access and use of Tigris and Euphrates rivers in other countries. On the other hand, the division and distribution of the water of these two rivers have been regulated with few and basic treaty provisions. Turkey refuses to recognize the international nature of these rivers and considers these rivers as national rivers; however, Syria and Iraq consider these rivers as international rivers and this has led to conflicts between the countries on the banks of these rivers.This article focuses on the effects of the GAP project, especially the effect of the Atatürk Dam and Ilisu Dam on the Euphrates and Tigris rivers, and examines theircompliance with international law, including existing international treaty law and customary principles of international water law. The research utilizes library-documentary sources and employs a descriptive and analytical approach. It is concluded that the effects on the Tigris and Euphrates rivers are against the aforecited rules and laws. These effects lead to the violation of the principle of non-harmful utilization of territory, as well as the principle of equitable and reasonable utilization.

The study refers to the competence given to commercial courts in Poland to be guided by “humanitarian reasons” in matters regarding the debt relief for insolvent natural persons. Humanitarian reasons allow the omission of general legal standards. The general clause "humanitarian reasons" can be clarified by referring– inter alia– to the Judeo-Christian traditional concept of debt relief and philosophy. However, Poland is a secular state. In Mosaic law, the debt relief was systemic in nature due to the construction of the sabbath and jubilee years. In Christian ethics, human dignity, forgiveness and mercy have an important place. The influence of Judeo-Christian tradition in Poland on the concept of humanitarianism is a fact. Irrespective of the personal beliefs of the body applying the law and the specific addressee of the court ruling, Judeo-Christian tradition allows for the formulation of directives as to the judicial interpretation of the term "humanitarian” in a secular state.

The issue of arbitrability in foreign investment treaties poses ongoing challenges for both host nations and foreign investors. Iranian law imposes constitutional constraints on resorting to arbitration, in addition to the provisions outlined in international commercial arbitration regulations. Persistent issues revolve around the requirement of parliamentary ratification of arbitration, the timeframe for such ratification, and the applicability of pre-existing doctrines to treaties concluded prior to the ratification of the Constitution. Despite the fact that Iranian Petroleum Contracts (IPCs) are among the most important foreign investment contracts in Iran, their intricacies create additional challenges. This article examines the legal theories and practices surrounding the arbitrability of contracts in the field of foreign investment, with a specific focus on IPCs, using a descriptive-analytical approach. At the end, Findings reveal that from a domestic standpoint, parliamentary approval must precede the signing of any treaty. The same approach can also be applied to IPCs However, this paper argues that this requirement does not apply to treaties enforced prior to the enactment of the Iranian Constitution. This approach finds support in existing laws and precedents established by the Iranian Court of Administrative Justice.

The examination of traditional legal institutions is a prudent approach to ensure effective contractual remedies. "Arsh" is one such institution that predominantly arises in relation to the option of defect. This paper aims to review the perspectives of Islamic legal scholars on Arsh in order to establish it as a general theory. However, it should be noted that this review does not propose a structural alteration in the nature of Arsh; rather, it intends to conduct a jurisprudential inquiry into the subject-matter. With regard to the nature of the general theory of Arsh, it can be categorized as a form of damages and compensation resulting from a breach of contract and contractual liability. In such cases, it aligns with the relevant legal principles. The basis of damages in the general theory of Arsh also exhibits a dual nature. While it is rooted in contractual compensation, if such compensation cannot be adequately provided, civil and obligatory liability may be invoked. One of the well-established legal-historical principles in the Civil Law system is the rule of Price Reduction, which bears resemblance to the institution of Arsh (i.e., the financial difference between a defective and non-defective item that is compensated to the customer) in the Islamic legal system. It is noteworthy that the foundation of Price Reduction lies in the principle of Commutative Justice, which serves as the basis for contractual liability in the realm of contract law.

Corruption in the public sector, characterized by the misuse of public office for personal gain, has become a complex issue that has garnered significant attention since the 1990s. Recognized as a crucial component of good governance, the detrimental impacts of corruption are particularly evident in public administration, policy, and governance. Corruption not only leads to financial losses but also undermines the principles of good governance, erodes public trust in institutions, and distorts the allocation of public resources. This research aims to comprehensively analyze Iran's initiatives in combating corruption within the realms of public administration, policy, and governance. Over the past two decades, Iran has established numerous anti-corruption institutions and enacted relevant laws. However, similar to many other developing countries, Iran's experience highlights the limited effectiveness of institutionalization in curbing corruption. Reports from Transparency International indicate a simultaneous increase in the number of anti-corruption institutions and the severity of Iran's corruption ranking in recent years. To address this challenge, it is recommended that Iran focus on ensuring transparency and accountability, adhering to the principles of good governance, and empowering civil society. By embracing these measures, Iran can make significant progress in combating corruption and promoting effective public administration.

“The Legal Implications of the United States' Strike on General Soleimani, His Associates and Iran's Response” offers a comprehensive examination of the assassination of General Soleimani from the perspective of international law.  This book sheds light on the subject by delving into the various dimensions of international law, including international treaty law, international criminal law, the use of force in international law, humanitarian law, and the fight against terrorism, with a focus on elucidating the act of terrorism committed by the United States. The book's strengths lie in its emphasis on international treaties and its reflection of Eastern thought regarding the assassination of an anti-terrorism hero within the framework of international law. Furthermore, the book seeks to establish legal convergence in the Middle East regarding the assassination of General Soleimani and to counter United States’ Lawfare against Iran's authorities. However, the book falls short in failing to address certain recent developments, such as changes in foreign policy after the Trump Administration, Iran's intention to bring the case before the International Court of Justice, and the conclusion of legal proceedings concerning General Soleimani's assassination in Iran and Iraq.