هادی صالحی

Criminal stigmatization refers to sanctions or measures, whether mandatory or discretionary for judicial authorities, that result in the shaming and discrediting of offenders and, in some cases, defendants. Historically, these measures have existed in the criminal justice systems of various countries, notably the United States. In the U.S., criminal stigmatization has become more prevalent due to significant political events and the dominance of a securitized criminal policy. In Iran, the concept of stigmatization has a considerable foundation and is currently prescribed or mandated in criminal laws, including the Islamic Penal Code of 2013 and the Code of Criminal Procedure of 2015, particularly in instances such as the publication of conviction judgments. The manifestations of criminal stigmatization in Iranian law, much like in U.S. law, align with the effects of securitized criminal policy, such as zero tolerance, risk-based criminal policy, and the disregard for fair trial standards. Given the undesirable nature of securitization, and while previous research has often analyzed stigmatization or securitization in isolation, this interdisciplinary study examines the nexus between securitization and criminal stigmatization, exploring its manifestations in both U.S. and Iranian law. The observed alignment between these two concepts raises serious doubts about the efficacy and appropriateness of criminal stigmatization. This research concludes that Iranian lawmakers have adopted a securitized approach to criminal stigmatization, necessitating a serious re-evaluation in this domain.

This paper examines the politics of human rights in Iran. It explores how the Islamic Republic reconceptualises and responds to the perceived ‘Western discourse of human rights’ and it highlights the tensions and compromises made between this discourse and Tehran’s official Islamic discourse. The main question of this article is that the Islamic Republic of Iran has faced ‘Western discourse of human rights’ and what effect has this discourse had on the human rights perspective of the Islamic Republic of Iran? This article is based on the idea that the Islamic Republic of Iran has adopted a softer and more pragmatic position in the face of Western human rights. The paper suggests that Tehran’s human rights discourse is increasingly becoming a more resilient and dextrous site of ideological gravity in the maintenance of power for the Iranian state’s elite. The concept of human rights, as fleshed out in the Republic’s politics, has Islamic and Western dimensions which interact and entwine as the expediencies of Iranian political life play out. As such, Tehran at times adopts offensive (anti-Western) values and at others defensive (pro-Islamic) approaches. This paper argues that a third thus emerging in the Islamic Republic’s human rights discourse: the politics of pragmatism and compromise. The empirical evidence drawn from interviews and official documents supports this argument that the Iranian state is increasingly capable of using human rights as a foci of ideological legitimisation of the status quo – the Republic’s institutions which regulate and monitor human rights are seen here as ‘epistemic sites’. They define the borders of legitimacy and normalcy in human rights discourse and praxis in Iran. The data of this article is the result of a series of interviews and the method of the article is critical discourse analysis and tries to present a new narrative of human rights positions of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

This study investigated the effect of collaborative learning (CL) and scaffolding strategies through the Learning Management System (LMS) on EFL students’ writing performance. Employing an explanatory sequential mixed-methods design, 180 upper-intermediate EFL learners (90 undergraduates and 90 postgraduates) from four universities in Isfahan were selected via convenience sampling. The quantitative phase used a pretest-posttest non-equivalent control group design. One experimental group received CL-based instruction via LMS, the other applied scaffolding strategies through LMS, while the control group used traditional methods. All groups attended 14 weekly 90-minute sessions. Quantitative results (one-way ANCOVA) indicated that both CL (p = .000, p < .05) and scaffolding (p = .01, p < .05) significantly improved writing skills, with CL being more effective than scaffolding (p = .02, p < .05). The qualitative phase, using thematic analysis of semi-structured interviews, revealed five key themes: digital and technological literacy, instructional quality, infrastructure, assessment, and satisfaction.

This article examines the conditions and consequences of the proposed judicial reform package on Israel’s constitutional order using an analytical and library-based research method. Within Israel’s separation of powers framework, two main currents — religious Zionism and secular Zionism — are institutionally represented in the Knesset (and the executive branch) and the judiciary, respectively. These two factions originally converged on the foundational goal of establishing a safe homeland for Jews. The judicial reform package, which authorizes the Knesset to override Supreme Court rulings by a simple majority, alters the composition of the Judicial Selection Committee, lowers the retirement age of Supreme Court justices, restricts the use of the “reasonableness doctrine,” and reduces the authority of legal advisors, effectively curtails the judiciary’s capacity to check and balance periodic majorities. Given the country’s demographic structure, the approval of this bill would allow the religious and fundamentalist bloc to gain absolute power. As a result of the erosion of constitutional safeguards based on the separation of powers, Israel would face major constitutional challenges, including a legitimacy crisis, the restriction of citizens’ political agency, the violation of minority rights, and the weakening of legal security. These developments ultimately conflict with the founding vision of the State of Israel.

Critical thinking is one of the main functions of education and it is considered as learners’ use of prior knowledge to make judgments and solve problems. This study aimed, firstly, to examine the relationship between university EFL teachers’ critical thinking tendencies and their problem-solving skills, and secondly, to explore the prediction of university EFL teachers’ critical thinking tendencies by problem-solving skills, gender, and teaching experience. The study was designed in a correlational survey method. In total, 70 university EFL teachers (35 males and 35 females), from Azad and Payame Noor universities located in Isfahan and Ilam provinces teaching undergraduate students majoring in English, participated in this research. Data were collected via the California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory and the Problem-Solving Inventory. The collected data were analyzed using descriptive statistics, the Pearson Product-Moment Correlation Coefficient, and stepwise regression analysis. The relationship between critical thinking tendencies and problem-solving skills was investigated through the Pearson Product Moments Correlation Coefficient, and stepwise regression analysis was run to determine whether university EFL teachers' problem-solving skills, gender, and teaching experience can significantly predict their critical thinking tendencies. The findings indicated that there was a positive, moderate, and significant relationship between university EFL teachers' problem-solving skills and their critical thinking tendencies, while there was no significant difference according to gender. In terms of teaching experience, the correlation coefficient for novice teachers showed a weak, positive, and non-significant relationship, yet the correlation coefficient for experienced teachers indicated a moderate, positive, and significant relationship. This study has both theoretical and practical implications for EFL teachers, practitioners, learners, and policymakers.