معاهدات بین المللی

International laws that protect women refugees are not in good shape. Expectations from the normative scope of the law are often not met in the complex and difficult world of refugee women due to instrumental politics, power and conflict. The ambition within the framework of the international system is to guarantee a wide range of protections for all refugee women in the field of legislation. The purpose of this article is to investigate the legal deficiencies in the international system in supporting refugee women. According to the results of the research, there are currently two categories of treaties in the legislative field to protect refugee women. The first category is the international treaties, the most important of which is the Convention on the Protection of Refugees, and these documents have not been able to establish a comprehensive system of protection for refugee women, and even the status of asylum seeker has not been accepted as an independent status. The second category is some regional treaties, some of which provide more appropriate protection for refugee women. Protecting refugee women against crime, rape, and violence requires that asylum seekers be accepted in a comprehensive treaty and that the principle of non-refoulement be applied absolutely to refugee women.

International treaties are one of the important necessities in the international life of states and important elements in the relations between states, the subject of this article is what is the nature of international treaties; to distinguish between them, three theories can be examined: unilateral obligation, contract, and law. determining the nature of the treaty has many benefits and effects, in a way that will lead to a correct view of those affected by the treaty and the holders of the rights and obligations arising from the treaty, as well as other issues such as resolving the conflict between the provisions of the treaty and the law and determining the level of obligation resulting from it in its nature can be detected by the beam. In the present study, international documents, jurisprudence, and Iranian and Iraqi laws are the basis of analysis.the research method is library-based; after studying sources including related books and articles and examining The data in an analytical-descriptive manner, the results are as follows: Some have attributed the treaty to be of the nature of a contract, some to law, and others to be of one of the two based on its bilateral or multilateral nature. Based on the shortcomings of the aforementioned opinions, the hypothesis of the difference in the nature of the treaty is from two aspects, domestic and international; It has both contractual and legal aspects at the same time, in short, this research concluded that Firstly, the contractual nature of the treaty is ruled out due to the non-acceptance of unilateral obligations, the exclusiveness of unilateral obligation to specific cases, and the reciprocal and bilateral nature of treaties. Secondly, the nature of international treaties should be determined from two perspectives, domestic and international, and on the other hand, its international aspect should also be based on the type of treaty; in such a way that "treaty-law" should be considered as having the nature of law both from the domestic and international point of view, but the treaty-contract has the nature of law from the domestic point of view (within the member states) and from the international point of view (against the government treaty members) has a contractual nature.

Considering the essential role of national authorities in the implementation of treaties, it is important to study the process of determining them. In this article, in order to identify the weaknesses and strengths of the Iranian executive branch's procedure in determining national authorities, we have analyzed this procedure in a descriptive-analytical way. The result is that the authority of the government in this field is basically based upon assigning this authority by the legislature, which has been achieved in: 1- Determining the national authority in an Act and granting the authority to change it, 2- Not specifying the national authority in an Act and granting the authority to determine and change it. If the legislature is silent about the national authority, the government can determine the national authority by referring to Principle 138 of the Constitution for ensuring the implementation of the law ratified a treaty. In addition, in the case of ratification of a treaty by the government or determination of a national authority in the text of a treaty, the authority of the government is not based on the will of the legislature. One of the important criticisms of the government's procedure in this field is citing incorrect bases for determining some national authorities, especially in the wrong reference to the Act of adding two notes to the Act of membership of Iran in international organizations and institutions of 1370 and citing the principle 138 instead of the Act assigning the authority to determine the national authority.

Many international treaties explicitly or implicitly require the determination of national authorities by the contracting parties in order to implement all or part of the treaty obligations, and therefore, it is important to study the process of determining national authorities. In Iran, only the legislative and executive branches have played a role in determining national authorities; In this article, in order to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the Iranian legislature's procedure in determining national authorities, we have analyzed this procedure in a descriptive-analytical way. The result of the study is that due to the silence of the Constitution regarding national authorities, the legislature has, based on the general competence of legislation, the authority to determine national authorities for all international treaties and institutions. Despite this, in many cases, the legislature has left the determination/changing of national authorities to the executive branch, which is critical, especially considering that some of these national authorities are non-executive. Anyway, comprehensive knowledge of the treaty, which is required to determine a national authority, is generally obtained for parliamentarians at the time of ratification of a treaty, and therefore, the most appropriate tool for determining the national authority is the Act ratifying the treaty, but the legislature in rare cases has used these Acts to determine national authorities. Meanwhile ratification of a treaty by the executive branch, which is allowed in some cases, and determination of national authorities in the text of the treaties, have limited the power of the legislature to determine national authorities.

The ratification of treaties in Iran is the scene of confrontation between two distinct legal systems. In this conflict, any inconsistent interpretation of the foundations of these legal systems results in different legal effects. In fact, the dichotomy between Sharia law and the constitution with the principles of international law, which can be seen in treaties, imposes certain legal requirements on the executive and legislative branches, and the recognition of these requirements depends on the opinions of the guardian council in reviewing international instruments to complete the country's foreign policy in the field of international agreements. The main question of this research is to examine the legal requirements governing bilateral or multilateral agreements, which is written in a descriptive-analytical method. From the total opinions of the guardian council, two substantive and structural rules can be taken in the review of the approvals, which narrate the procedure of this council in examining the emerging issues of international law, which ultimately led to the protection of the people's rights.

Transferring convicts to prison is oneof the almost new forms of judicial cooperation.The ever-increasing communication has doubled the need to use this institution.Iran also paid attention to this matter by concluding the treaty on the transfer of convicts with Azerbaijan in 1378.Although the process of concluding these treaties is increasing in the country today,there is always the question of whether the approval of a special law in this field is not necessary.And if there is a law, wouldn't it be easier to solve the problem of transferring Iranians sentenced to prison in other countries and vice versa? Using the descriptive-analytical method and library tools, the upcoming research, in addition to examining the reasons why legislation is not necessary,also explains the reasons for its necessity.The result is such that the adoption of a special law in this field is not useless,because it can help in the process of transferring convicts and their procedure.However, considering the serious obstacles in the way of this legislation, the least action can be the creation of a model document by the country so that it has the necessary policies in mind before entering the stage of creating rights and obligations in the field of treaties.

The purpose of this article is to review the protocol for dealing with illegal actions against oil platforms in the continental shelf region in Iran's criminal law. This article is descriptive and analytical. Materials and data are also qualitative and data collection was used in collecting materials and data. In this article, the originality of the texts, honesty and trustworthiness are observed. Despite international law dealing with the crimes against these facilities as terrorist crimes of international importance, the Iranian legislature has not taken any action regarding the criminalization of the crimes that are the subject of this protocol, and even after the escalation of terrorist crimes committed against these facilities in the last two decades. It has also refused to join the 2005 amendment protocol that describes new crimes against these facilities. The lack of description of punishment against oil platforms has not only caused the inefficiency of the domestic legal system in dealing with these crimes, but has denied the possibility of convergence of regional countries in dealing more effectively with common terrorist threats against these facilities.

The Iranian legal landscape is deeply rooted in Islamic principles, with the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran enshrining many principles that affirm the integration of the legal system with Islamic norms. This integration is explicitly emphasized in the constitutional provisions, notably article 1, clause 12 of article 2, and particularly article 4. However, the practical implementation of Islamic laws in the Islamic Republic of Iran is entrusted to various legal and executive systems, with the Guardian Council holding a significant role. This council, in accordance with articles 4 and 96 of the Constitution, assumes the responsibility of ensuring that the legal and executive systems align with Islamic principles.
In every legal system, there exists a hierarchy of norms, necessitating the alignment of domestic regulations and laws with fundamental principles at the top of the legal hierarchy. In the context of the Islamic Republic of Iran, this alignment is particularly crucial when considering the approval of international treaties. The approval of such treaties in the country sets the stage for a confrontation between domestic and international legal systems. Any discordant interpretation of the foundations of these legal systems leads to distinct legal consequences for the nation. Therefore, understanding the relationship between domestic and international law in the Iranian legal system requires an examination of the Islamic perspective on the interaction between these two legal systems.

Research Question:

This study seeks to address the following central question: How does the Iranian legal system, guided by the Islamic perspective, manage the relationship between domestic and international law in the context of the approval of international treaties?

Research Hypothesis:

The hypothesis guiding this research is that the Islamic legal principles, as interpreted by the Guardian Council, emphasize the unity of domestic and international legal systems. Unlike contemporary legal systems, where distinctions between domestic and international laws are shaped by practical considerations, Islamic jurisprudence tends towards a unified legal system. This hypothesis is rooted in the understanding that the Islamic conception of state and governance differs significantly from modern concepts, resulting in a more unified legal framework.

Methodology & Framework, if Applicable:

This research employs a descriptive-analytical approach, utilizing library-based data collection methods. The focus of the study is on examining the legal framework governing international treaties in the Islamic Republic of Iran, with specific attention to the perspectives articulated by the Guardian Council. By delving into the Council's interpretations of international treaties, this research aims to shed light on the compatibility of these treaties with Islamic legal standards. The chosen methodology allows for an in-depth exploration of the legal and religious foundations that influence Iran's approach to international agreements, emphasizing the importance of ensuring conformity with Sharia principles.
In summary, this paper aims to elucidate the Guardian Council's role in evaluating the legal implications of international treaties in Iran, offering insights into how Islamic principles shape the nation's approach to both domestic and international legal frameworks.

International treaties and agreements, while fundamentally serving international interests, require integration and coherence with domestic laws according to each nation's legal system. In the Iranian context, international agreements remain independent until approved by the competent authorities in accordance with domestic laws. However, the shadow of their obligatory effects persists due to elements of international customary law, placing the nation's international commitments under its influence.
     Aligned with the principles of the Islamic Republic of Iran, where the sacred Sharia and the Constitution occupy the top tier of the legal hierarchy, ordinary laws and other domestic regulations occupy lower levels. Given the adherence to both domestic and international legal systems in the country's laws, international agreements cannot be exempt from this hierarchical structure. According to the Guardian Council's theories and its practices in reviewing international agreements, it emphasizes the necessity for international agreements to align with Sharia principles, akin to their conformity with ordinary parliamentary resolutions.
     Understanding these principles becomes doubly crucial when the subjects of international treaties concern private individuals subject to national laws. This is prominently observed in numerous judicial cooperation agreements, often incorporating criticisms and Sharia-based regulations from the Guardian Council in the examination of international documents.

In conclusion, international treaties and agreements in the Islamic Republic of Iran are subject to a meticulous evaluation process, guided by the principles articulated by the Guardian Council. The integration of these agreements with the domestic legal hierarchy underscores the unified approach that the Iranian legal system endeavors to maintain. The Guardian Council, guided by principles such as The “Negation of Domination” Rule [Nafy-e-Sabil], prohibition of referring to unjust rulers, rejection and acceptance of non-Islamic foreign laws, prohibition of usury, and the Sharia compatibility of pre-revolution treaties, has established a consistent pattern in its decisions.
     The study highlights the enduring significance of the Guardian Council's role in shaping Iran's international engagement, emphasizing the ongoing impact of its interpretations on various facets of international relations. As the Islamic Republic of Iran continues to navigate the global stage, the non-changing methodology of the Guardian Council in the realm of international documents signifies a steadfast commitment to its established approach. The study encourages ongoing scrutiny of the Guardian Council's influence in international agreements, anticipating that its decisions will continue to shape the nation's standing in the international arena for the foreseeable future.

According to Article 167 of the Constitution and Article 3 of the Civil Procedure Act, the judge is obliged to issue a judgment based on the law. That is, the legal basis of a judgment rendered by the court must be the law, and in cases where the law is silent, refer to authentic Islamic sources or authentic fatwas or general legal principles. In the meantime, the question is whether international instruments and treaties can also be relied upon as a basis of judgments and if the answer is yes, under what condition or conditions these international documents and treaties can be relied upon as the basis of judgments and in which category and these instruments are included in which category of cases listed in Article 167 of the Constitution and Article 3 of the Civil Procedure Act? In accordance with Article 77 of the Constitution, treaties, protocols, contracts and international agreements must be approved by the Islamic Consultative Assembly and in accordance with Article 9 of the Civil Code, the provisions of the covenants concluded between the government of Iran and other countries are tantamount to law. Therefore, the treaties that Iran has joined in compliance with the formalities of the conditions contained in the Constitution, are tantamount to domestic laws and can be relied upon like domestic laws. In this report on the critique and analysis meeting, two judgments, one on the subject of the acquisition of Iranian nationality for an Afghan national and the other on the issue of requiring the defendant to divorce his wife, have been examined, and the method in which the court relied upon international treaties has been critiqued in terms of the degree of compliance with the principles of rendering judgment and the fact that judgments must rely upon the law.

The clear manifestation of the country's treaty system is reflected in the opinions and decisions of the Islamic Consultative Assembly or the Guardian Council in accepting or rejecting international agreements. In this perspective, several ambiguities in the issue of constitutional law can be seen as a threat to the national security of the Iran. On one hand, international treaties can forcefully impose their effects on Iran's transnational obligations without being considered by the parliament and the Guardian Council, while on the other hand, due to the lack of a monitoring mechanism, it is possible to change the approved internal and external documents. What was discussed in this study is the need to formulate a system of claim and counterclaim in the international practice of Iran and also to prepare a special mechanism to inform the competent institutions about the post-ratification process of treaties

One of the most significant sources of Public International Law is the Peremptory Norms (jus cogens); According to Article 53 of the 1969 Vienna Convention: "the Peremptory Norm of General International Law is a norm accepted and recognized by the International Community of States as a whole as a norm from which no derogation is permitted and which can be modified only by a subsequent norm of General International Law having the same character." Nowadays, the Famous viewpoints of lawyers are that: Fundamental Human Rights became part of the Peremptory Norms of International Law (jus cogens). According to article 4, paragraph 2 of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1966 (ICCPR), Fundamental Human Rights are those rights, under any circumstances, States cannot violate or restrict them.This article explains the characteristics of both categories (Peremptory Norms of International Law and Fundamental Human Rights Norms) and makes it clear that the Peremptory Norms of International Law are changeable and can be modified by a subsequent norm of General International Law having the same character, contrary to the fundamental human rights. Therefore, the relation between these two categories of norms is kind of "Generality and peculiarity in some respect" Considering the characteristics of both of them, modifying the Fundamental Human Rights into Peremptory Norms are incompatible with the nature and essence of Fundamental Human Rights. Therefore, instead of putting Fundamental Human Rights in the position of Peremptory Norms, it would be better if they were seen as their immutability position.

Extensive risks and dangers at sea lead to great losses to many maritime activists, including merchants, vessel owners and governments. The financial ability of any of the activists in this field to compensate the damages is very limited or may even lead to irreparable damages such as environmental pollution that cannot be compensated by money alone and has negative side effects. Therefore, nowadays, the issue of obtaining marine insurance is very important and has legal and international requirements, regardless of the rational benefit and commercial needs. by investigation international conventions, it was determined that due to the importance of the issue and in order to reduce the risk marine activists, various types of marine vessels insurance, including protection and compensation insurance, hull and machinery, cargo, etc. were predicted and the principle of compulsory insurance at sea is mainly designed to ensure the payment of debts and compensation by vessel owners. Therefore, obtaining marine insurance coverage is not only a commercial need for maritime activists, but this issue has become a legally binding rule in the international relation. However, obtaining vessel insurance is not included in domestic law and the basis for action is only some of the multilateral international treaties to which the Iranian government has acceded.

The legislative power of the Islamic Consultative Assembly is within the framework of the principles of the general constitution and in line with the principle of separation of powers in general matters, it can enact laws within the limits prescribed by the Constitution. It is not superior and is considered the rule of ordinary law. Accordingly, in this study, the question arises as to why the ratification of treaties and the monitoring of nuclear activities fall within the competence of the Islamic Consultative Assembly? The method used in this research is documentary-library and the type of research is descriptive-analytical. Based on the results of the research, it can be said that one of the most important special features of the parliament Such treaties, treaties, agreements and international agreements, which are, of course, acts of commitment between States which are the exercise of their powers, must be ratified by Parliament. Iran's nuclear activities are one of the most important parts of the foreign policy of the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, which in fact determines the type of policy that the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran as an output to the input and environmental demand of society between International updates.

The states whose national security is threatened sometimes violate international law by seeking to maintain their national security. Thus, the treaty system took national security into account. Examining the provisions of the treaty system on the invocation of national security, the rule of recourse to national security was not inferred, but by analyzing the exceptions of national security in the treaty system, the two concepts of national security protection and national defense security were invoked. "Protective national security exception" is a set of rules that have been formulated to protect individuals against governments' self-centeredness in the field of human rights, and "national security defensive exception" is the authorization that international law allows countries to resort to national security. It gives self-defense against acute threats. The purpose of this research is to answer the question whether countries can ignore international law in a limited and temporary manner citing their national security. It can be confirmed that Governments can violate international law in a controlled manner without being held accountable for their self-preservation, and this violation may occur against any international entity. The sum of these two mechanisms expresses the concept of the exceptionalism system of national security. Implicit and explicit exceptions to states' recourse to national security (exceptionalism) can be summed up under the legal regime of national security.

Acceptance of international intellectual property treaties, such as; Paris, Bern, Washington, Rom and Trips by many countries can be considered as a means of international protection of intellectual property rights. The important of these principles are: national treatment, most-favored-nation, minimum wages, prohibition of unfair competition and prohibition of abuse of rights. Due to the effective role of these principles in interpreting the rules set forth in international treaties and determining the scope of international protection in intellectual property studies are important.

Method of studying is descriptive-analytical, based on the information of libraries and scientific sites.

Governments should join to the international treaties to protect their citizens' intellectual properties rights against other states. The result of these actions is the acceptance of the principles of the treaties, that leads to provide international support of the owners' rights of some intellectual properties.

 

This article respected of the intellectual property rights of the authors whose works have been exploited.

Considering the persistence, acceptance of the principles {National behavior, Most-favored-nation, Minimum wages, Prohibition of unfair competition and Prohibition of abuse of rights} by contracting states and the unity of the criterion of section 1 (1) of article 38 of the international court of justice in the Hague, the theory can be proposed to accept these principles by civilized nations such as the contracting states. The general principles of international intellectual property law are called.

In spite of the silence of the Constitution and the Guardian Council's Regulations regarding the Council's authority to oversee the compatibility of Persian and non-Persian texts of treaties, the council has returned some approved treaties to the parliament because the texts are inconsistent. The question that arises in this regard is to what extent the action of the council has been able to correct the Persian text of the treaties?According to a preliminary study, the above action of the council resulted in the declaration of ambiguity in the parliament's enactments. Therefore, in this article, the council's declarations of ambiguity in regard to the compatibility of Persian and non-Persian texts of the treaties were examined and it turned out that out of 852 treaties reviewed by the council until the end of 1399, 12 treaties faced such ambiguity and the factors of ambiguity were: 1. Lack of treaty annexes, 2. Obscurity of some articles of the treaty, 3. Existence of provisions contrary to legal principles, 4. Editing, phraseology, spelling, and translation errors. These cases have been examined and most of them were found to be correct, so the parliament has corrected the enactments as a result of the errors raised by the council.However, the council's worthy role was not without flaw in this respect, since in some cases its declaration of ambiguity did not hold true, and in other cases, despite the contradiction between the Persian and non-Persian texts of a treaty, the parliament's enactment was approved by the Guardian Council.