reza mousazadeh

According to Article 2 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, all children within a country's territory are entitled to the rights outlined in the Convention without discrimination. This means that no country can deprive children of any rights or impose restrictions on their exercise based on their legal status. One such crucial right is the best interests of the child, which is underscored in Article 3(1) of the Convention as follows: "In all actions concerning children, whether carried out by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities, or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration.
However, in 2018, the Israeli Knesset passed the Israel Nation-State Law, which the Israeli Supreme Court recognized as part of Israel's constitutional rights in 2021. Given that Israel is a party to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the critical question arises as to whether the best interests of Palestinian children have been upheld under this law.
Since the enactment of the nation-state law, an increasing number of Palestinian children living under occupation have faced death and endured mass violence and persecution. Statistics reveal that in 2018, the year of the law's approval in the Knesset, 57 children were killed in the occupied territories, compared to 7 Palestinian children killed in 2021, the year the law was acknowledged as a fundamental right. This indicates a clear violation of the right to life following the adoption of Israel's nation-state law.
Furthermore, by exclusively recognizing the right to self-determination for the Jewish nation, the law overlooks the national identity rights of Palestinian children, often derived from their citizenship. This exclusive right for Jews effectively renders Palestinian children as foreigners in their own ancestral land.
Moreover, the nation-state law promotes Israeli settlement in predominantly Palestinian areas, considering it a national value. By encouraging such settlements, Palestinians face land confiscation, severe movement restrictions, and reduced access to resources. This has led to a decrease in available land for Palestinian housing and infrastructure development, resulting in forced evictions and displacement of Palestinian families and communities. In 2021, the Human Rights Council reported over 70 families in the Sheikh Jarrah region experiencing forced eviction. The escalation of violence following the law's enactment has further compelled Palestinians to abandon their lands, with 410 attacks carried out by Israeli settlers against Palestinians in the first ten months of 2021 alone, making life in the occupied territories nearly untenable.
Beyond displacement, the nation-state law has had detrimental effects on the health of Palestinian children. Growing up amidst violence not only directly harms children but also leads to mental health issues such as anxiety, distress, separation anxiety, hypervigilance, and PTSD, as evidenced by a 2021 study on Palestinian children living near Israeli settlements. Exposure to violence and mental trauma exacerbates the conflict and increases child mortality and health issues.
Additionally, the right to education of Palestinian children is compromised by the nation-state law. Settlement construction impedes access to educational facilities, and children face additional obstacles such as Israeli military checkpoints, resulting in missed classes due to lengthy journeys. Furthermore, schools in the occupied territories are subject to harassment, including stone-throwing and gunfire, contributing to learning disorders among Palestinian children.
As legislative bodies are obligated to prioritize the best interests of the child in all actions, the Israeli government was duty-bound to consider the best interests of Palestinian children when approving the nation-state law. However, by violating their right to life, identity, health, standard of living, and education, Israel has clearly failed to uphold their best interests, which are intrinsic to their rights as children.

The topic of this research is about the powers of the Islamic government in regulating capital transactions (with the study case of gold). The main question of the article is what powers the Islamic government has to regulate and make policies in capital transactions. The range of powers of the Islamic government is very wide, one of which is to intervene in the field of decision-making related to capital transactions and its regulation. Today, the changes in the nature and tools of gold transactions in the world, especially in Iran, are such that the speed of passing laws in legislative processes is not enough to adapt and modernize them, and there is a need for more legislative and policy-making adaptations. In general, transactions in this field can be justified and complied with in the form of Article 10 of the Civil Law. The hypothesis of the article is that policy-making for the regulation of gold transactions requires governance tools that can study them through the rules of public law. The results of the research have shown that public law and Islamic government jurisprudence have a very suitable capacity to regulate the fields of capital transactions, such as the market and the gold exchange. The method of the article is descriptive-analytical and the data has been collected in a library form.

There is an important difference between the international responsibility of States in formulating a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of a human rights treaty and other types of international responsibility. The difference is that such a violation makes the reserving state responsible not only to the objecting members, but also to the international community as a whole. The main question of this descriptive-analytical research is what distinguishes the international responsibility of states in formulating a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of a treaty from the acceptance of such a reservation - especially in human rights treaties.

The result of the present research shows that the responsibility of states in formulating a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of a human rights treaty can be seen through the flexible structure of Articles 19 and 20 of the International Convention on the Law of Treaties. While Article 19 prohibits states from formulating a reservation incompatible with the object and purpose of the treaty at the stage of signing, ratifying, accepting, approving or acceding to a treaty, Article 20 does not take this prohibition into account at the stage of acceptance of the reservation by other states.

After the Second World War, human rights greatly affected the international law. Among the structural changes resulting from the emergence of human rights was the major change in the system of international responsibility of states. Traces of these changes can be found in the decisions of international courts and the Draft Articles on the Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts adopted in 2001. By examining these sources, three categories of changes in the system of international responsibility can be discerned: first is change in the elements of international wrongful act; the second is change in the relationship between offending and aggrieved states; and third is countermeasure by non-aggrieved states. In the first case, the mere breach of an international obligation was sufficient to establish an “internationally wrongful act” and on this basis “material damage” was removed as a constituent element of a wrongful act. In the second case, the mutual relationship between the offending and aggrieved states, in some instances, gave way to the relationship between the offending state and the international community as a whole. In the third case, following the disappearance of the first two, the right to “countermeasure by a non-aggrieved” emerged

Regarding increasing practices of the United States in exercising unilateral sanctions against targeted States and also the third States, the study on special kinds of sanctions named" secondary sanctions", seems to be absolutely necessary.The United States, by its secondary sanctions, affected the principles of international relations such as the independence and the political and legal sovereignty of States and blemished the primary rules of international law in different fields including the international economy and trade. According to American secondary sanctions, the third international entities especially the big commercial companies which do trade in American territory, are not allowed to do business with sanctioned countries. In case of non-obedience that company will be under heavy sanctions of the American domestic law.

The present study was conducted by descriptive and analytical methods.

This research intends to study the legality of secondary sanctions from the international law perspective. For this purpose, the compatibility of the international customary and conventional rules were studied and analyzed. The output of the research demonstrates the fact that the secondary sanctions of the United States against I.R of Iran are baseless according to the international customary and conventional rules and lacks international legality. The EU practices on limiting secondary sanctions effects shows that American sanctions has not approved by States practices.

One of the issues incorporated in the International Law Commission agenda is “Unilateral Acts of States”. In recent decades, states have had many unilateral acts in the international level. Absence of rules for identification of unilateral acts of states and their components according to international law, on the one hand, and importance of codification for such acts, on the other hand, have led to a prolonged analysis of them in the International Law Commission for one decade. Questions such as whether unilateral acts of states only have legal aspects or also incorporate political acts; or what the elements of independent unilateral act in international law are; or what is the relationship between unilateral acts and other rules of international law such as the Law of Treaties; were discussed in the Commission; and eventually, after ten years of study and analysis, the Commission succeeded in codification of guidelines for this issue, which includes some challenging points.

The International Law Commission (ILC) which itself codified and developed peremptory norms, has adopted a flexible approach in its recent reports to the doctrine developed by legal scholars and judicial bodies over the years. On the one hand, under Article 53 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, the Commission has based jus cogens on the acceptance and recognition of the international community of states as a whole and the will of States. On the other hand, the Commission has recognized peremptory norms the have features such as universality, superiority, and protection of fundamental values of the international community which can impose restrictions on the will of States. This paper will analyze the ILC and its special rapporteur’s report in 2016 addressing this important question: on which theoretical foundations are jus cogens based and what are the core elements of these rules? The difference between this article and other papers published in Persian is analyzing and critiquing the latest ILC report from a new perspective considering theoretical evolutions on the topic since 1969.

This essay examins the relationship between international standards of welfare and genderism, the share of needy women and girls from benefits of social security round  two cores of value-base and need-base in this view that  its fair development has been paved to protect the honorable life of the poor people and fulfilling their legitimate demands indiscriminately. the present writing upon international documents and procedures of the public law of governments have tried to states the process of change in the 21st century social demonstrate social security law, along with the generational transition, the demographic revolution, and escalating growth of injuries from factors and dynamics that affect to determination of the vulnerable people. indespite differences opinions in universal cultural understandings,the gender justice is a supportive base for everyone in the domestic policy-making process for accessing  to capacities and opportunities in both the employment-based  and  protection-based of the social security. The conclusion of the study indicated the fundamental usage of gender justice in eliminating the difference between the poor people and the lack of fair and up-to-date welfare indexs the social systems.

The Singapore Convention on Mediation is a multilateral treaty established by the International Trade Commission (UNCITRAL) that provides a uniform and efficient framework for the implementation of settlement agreements on mediation.The study of the mechanism envisaged in the Singapore Convention for the identification and implementation of mediation agreements, together with a description of the scope and implementation of those agreements, as well as the grounds for refusing to grant relief to implementation within the Singapore Convention, suggests that the Singapore Convention and the Model Law on Mediation are a response to concerns about insufficient guarantees of the implementation of settlement agreements on mediation. First, the courts recognize and enforce dispute settlement agreements without the need to sue for breach of contract. Second, eligible agreements are deemed to have been judged under the Convention. It is also appropriate for countries that do not have a mediation law like Iran to ratify the Singapore Convention along with the 2018 Mediation Law or similar provisions.

Following the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty, European Human Right Charter was recognized as part of the Union's primary law. As a result, all the bodies of the Union, including Court of Justice of European Union, placed human rights at an elevated position. According to the treaty constitution of the union, CJEU as the judicial pillar of the union has the duty to protect the constitutional law of the organization, and the CJEU itself in many of its cases stipulates on this matter. Taking the background, objectives and foundations of the union into consideration, this organization started its activities with the domination of economic issues, and thus its basic rights were formed on the basis of the very economic-oriented nature. Over the past two decades, cases have been brought before CJEU wherein human rights conflicted with the economic principles of the union. On the one hand, in these cases, the Court was obliged to maintain the framework of the economic-centered constitutional law of the Union, and, on the other hand, the Court found itself committed to its aspiration of defending human rights. For that reason, the Court had to choose one of these two. Describing the process of entering the Court into human rights cases, the present study also investigates the cases of the mentioned conflict.

Islamic Revolution in Iran has had significant implications for Iran’s diplomatic relations with other countries, especially Middle Eastern countries. These practical and theoretical reflections have directly and indirectly influenced Islamic Republic of Iran’s law enforcement diplomacy. Moreover, coordination between international police of NAJA as the responsible authority for law enforcement diplomacy and the ministry of foreign affairs as the responsible authority for classic diplomacy seems necessary. This article tries to address this main question that what is the optimal model for utilizing law enforcement diplomacy for Iran? Therefore, redefining Iran’s law enforcement diplomacy doctrine based on the goals and causes of Islamic Revolution in Iran and discussing its implications are the main purposes of this article.

the purpose of this research is practical and its methodology is descriptive-analytical. Data gathering method of this research is a combination of library-based and documentary studies.

law enforcement diplomacy is a channel through which law enforcement capacities of other countries is being utilized. In law enforcement diplomacy, building trust is not only a desired goal but also is an ultimate goal which is cooperation between states. International police of NAJA is a connecting bridge between Islamic Republic of Iran’s military, law enforcement, and security agencies and Interpol. In fact, International Police of NAJA as the responsible authority for law enforcement diplomacy tries to coordinate and implement the decisions in international arena.

Respect for human dignity, especially the elderly and the degradation of their status and the need to help vulnerable groups has led to While social security is one of the vital, main and comprehensive needs of human beings, its value and position in the context of social mysticism discourse and its spiritual validity should be increased. In their research, the authors of the article, using the analytical-descriptive method and using library studies, intend to explain the issue of serving the poor in the framework of mystical and moral understanding. Research findings indicate that the mystical understanding of social security is strategic in order to pay more attention to helping the needy and setting related goals in the field of international welfare law. At the end of the discussion, the present article intends to address the issue of mystical capacities and teachings by referring to the establishment of sustainable social security. Because the establishment of justice and the establishment of mental well-being of the poor and the prevention of the grief of the elderly and their assistance introduces a part of the historical missions in the field of social mysticism in the world today.

Following the adoption of the Responsibility of Protection (R2P) in the heads of States Summit in the United Nations General Assembly in 2005, the Security Council which was eager to expand its powers after September 11, 2001 in international sphere, tried to justify some of its actions by this doctrine .The R2P, can be used as effective tool for protecting nations from the oppression and international crimes to which SC may refer in some situations. Regarding the practie of SC, it seems that SC normally takes the interests of P5 into consideration, while in some cases e.g.Lybia, Ivory Coast and Darfur it actively applies R2P, in some other urgent cases e.g.Yemen, Syria and Bahrain simply ignores it.

This paper set out to this question that the amendments to the rules of deprivation of nationality after the ISIS terrorist attacks and the emergence of the phenomenon of foreign fighters in UK, France and Belgium, are to what extent conformable with the international law provisions. Hence, the common grounds for deprivation of nationality and the international law governing it were initially analyzed alongside an inquiry into the concept of deprivation of nationality, followed by a review of recent terrorist attacks in these countries (2012-2016). Finally, the amendments made to the laws of deprivation of nationality and their legal nature were evaluated. The three aforementioned countries have implemented reforms to expand the powers of deprivation of nationality. However, these countries have taken different paths in their reforms and, therefore, their compliance with the provisions of international law have not been the same. UK and France, while expanding powers of deprivation of nationality, have tried to observe the principle of avoidance of statelessness, unlike Belgium which has made no provision to guarantee the avoidance of statelessness in its reforms.

One of the Asylum seekers children’s essential rights is the right to health, which is interpreted as the highest physical and mental standards. This right may include comprehensive medical and healthcare services, proper food and housing, proper health educations and also healthy environment. Accordingly, the governments are required in convention on the rights of child to spare their utmost effort to realize this right. At the time being, considering the large number of asylum seekers heading from the West Asian countries towards Europe, the European countries’ commitment to ensuring the asylum seekers children’s right to health is critically important. By comparing the Convention on the Rights of the Child and its General Comments with Common European Asylum System, Apparently, despite of the fact that the European Union has been successful in legislating for the asylum seekers children, in some cases, the fulfillment of children’s rights is subordinated to the domestic conditions of members of the EU, that it’s contrary to their obligations.

The right to nationality is the basic and fundamental human rights and it may be interpreted as the right to have rights. Nowadays, the fact that each State determines the conditions of acquisition or loss of its nationality according to its own laws has become an internationally accepted principle. With the increase in terrorist attacks in recent years and the subsequent legislation on the laws of deprivation of nationality aimed at punishing such actions, including in France, as well as the government of Bahrain’s actions in deprivation of the nationality of its political opponents, the present article seeks to answer the question of whether the ban on deprivation of nationality is legitimate under international law? Deprivation of nationality is legitimate if it abides by the three rules of customary international law including the prohibition of arbitrary deprivation of nationality, non-discrimination and avoidance of statelessness and in case of violation of these rules would be illegitimate. Bahrain's government action is illegitimate due to its arbitrary and discriminatory nature. States practice for unwillingness toward the deprivation of nationality as a punishment is changing.

Particularism is a condition under which a state or an active entity in international law, in order to implement its values ​​and pursue its goals, repeatedly and purposefully takes actions contrary to the general rules of international law. In this paper, while explaining the reasons for the emergence of legal particularism, have been studied the features such as repeated and systematic violations of international law, the emphasis on duality and sovereignty as particularistic behavioral attributes.
The present paper, after addressing the above-mentioned methods, addresses the issue of the split of international law as a result of legal particularism and finally provides suggestions for policy makers of the Islamic Republic of Iran’s state regarding this issue. It is imperative that national legal and diplomatic institutions, while gaining a proper understanding of legal particularism, play a proactive role in leading and directing the presentation of expert literature and the production of legal literature in this field

Universalism is defined as applying the rules of International Law equally for all States or entities, while particularism is defined as a situation wherein a State or an entity seeks applying its particular values and norms even if they are assumed against or inconsistent with the universal rules. The particularistic States or entities seek to find the means and methods through which they can have the possibility of escaping the dominance and rules of international law wherever they find the international law against their interests and values, or at least they can bring it to their own accord. As two key actors in the international politics and relations, the EU and the US government by adopting positions and practices that differ from the universal rules have institutionalized a particularistic approach to international law. The US and the EU take advantages of similar practices in their own particularistic approach. Applying double standards, using alternative interpretations and unilateralism are some examples of such practices. American particularism is based on sovereignty and the reliance on military power, and this has led the US particularistic approach suffer from the exemptionalism. In contrast, the European Union has displayed a sensible, purposeful and moderate particularism.

Non-Refoulement is one of the most basic rights known for asylum seekers, which means that no asylum seeker should be returned to the country where there is a reasonable fear that the person would be harassed. This principle, which is non-violable and a jus cogent rule, is mentioned in many international instruments, and many countries respect this right; the European Union, both due to the accession of all its members to the international instruments accepting non-refoulement and because of its own instruments, is obliged to adhere to such a principle. However, in practice and when confronted with the flood of Syrian asylum seekers, the EU has entered into an agreement with Turkey and, based on the first paragraph of the treaty, EU returns all Syrian asylum seekers to Turkey, assuming Article 38 of the instruction on admission conditions as the legal basis for its action. However, since Turkey is not considered a safe place for asylum seekers, Article 38 of the instruction does not apply to it; consequently, the right to non-Refoulement of asylum seekers is violated by this agreement.

The relationship between the United States and the International Criminal Court is a combination of confrontation and tension in various aspects, including legal considerations, political, national and security concerns and strategic interests. The existing tensions in relationship with the International Criminal Court have accentuated at some points and the United States has actively challenged the Court's existence. However, the challenges didn’t last for a long time, and at the end of George W. Bush’s presidency– recognizing the inherent values and potentialities of creating an International Criminal Court and the necessity to keep it– confrontations and tensions faded in favor of a constructive interaction. In the years which passed– especially during the administration of Barack Obama– the attitudes and the positions of the US towards the International Criminal Court have experienced a fundamental and comprehensive change and the United States is trying to compensate for the past measures, and to increase the interactions and cooperation with the International Criminal Court and to recognize its existence and capacity as an important international judicial institution in prosecuting the international violent crimes and to restart the relations with the International Criminal Court.

According to Article 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights the notion of “Fraternity” is recognized as a human duty and as it stipulates: “All human beings … should act toward another in the spirit of brotherhood”. While The Declaration is partially influenced by religious terms such as “Fraternity”, most of its concepts are based on Western individualistic philosophy which suits the social and economic structure of liberal societies. This paper is an attempt to find whether the notion of Fraternity which requires “to be responsible toward others”, “sense of human unity”, “generosity” … could be applied in liberal societies and accepted as moral values. For this purpose, it studies the concept from three different perspectives: Philosophical, Ontological and Values of the liberal societies.

Recent developments in Arab countries started in December 2010 with popular protests by Tunisian people against the country’s dictatorship and soon spread to other countries like Egypt, Libya, Yemen, Bahrain, Syria, Jordan, Morocco, and Saudi Arabia. In Egypt, Libya and Yemen, they overthrew dictators in those countries. In other countries like Bahrain and Syria, the conflicts are still going on. This phenomenon can be viewed from various political, social and legal aspects. The present research aims to study measures taken by the United Nations Security Council vis-à-vis developments in Libya, Yemen and Bahrain from a legal standpoint. The researchers believe that the Security Council has adopted double standards in its treatment of those countries in line with the interests of big powers. This issue will become clearer through comparative study of the world body’s performance with regard to developments in those countries.

Despite the formation of International Criminal Court and entering into force of its Statute, There is Some Ambiguity on Certain Fields of its Activities. One the most important ambiguity is about the subject matter of the jurisdiction of the Court on the crime of aggression. This ambiguity is due of the political and legal nature of the crime of aggression and insufficient agreement of the international community on the definition of this crime. Notwithstanding of the recognition of the legality of the crime of aggression and the criminal responsibility of its perpetrators, the Rome Conference agreed the above crime and its definition, elements and the conditions of its exercise should be defined in the Review Conference of itsstatute. The Review Conference held in Kampala in 2010 and issued a resolution on the definition and the conditions of the ICC jurisdiction on the aggression but expressly delayed the exercise of that jurisdiction till next Review Conference on 2017.The main issue on the exercise of the jurisdiction of the Court on aggression is the kind of relationship between the ICC and the security council of the United Nations and the determination of this crime by those bodies.

Genocide is a serious crime, firstly defined in Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide and adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on 9 December 1948. Article 2 of the Convention defines genocide as any of the following acts committed with the intention to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethical, racial or religious group, such as:a) Killing members of a group;b) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of a group;c) Deliberately inflicting on a group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within a group;e) Forcibly transferring children of one group to another;Genocide is considered the most serious international crime included in International Criminal Court Constitution. It is among those types of crime whose committing condition, types of victims and its proof is complex. As a matter of the fact, there rarely are cases that have reached verdict of genocide in international courts. Identifying under protection groups or victims of this crime is considered another the complexities of genocide crime. According to the International Criminal Court Constitution, only four groups such as a national, ethical, racial or religious could go under prosecution. Modification and features of each group may be quite different on international and internal levels. As a result, knowing under-protection groups and their characteristics in the view of law assists governments, by taking into account internal laws and social and political contexts of our country, to adopt appropriate position to joining the International Criminal Court Constitution.