امیررضا محمودی

Background: While vocabulary acquisition models have been widely studied, the comparative role of Laufer’s frameworks in digital environments—particularly their effects on learner engagement and perception—remains underexplored. This research addresses this gap by examining how these models mediate vocabulary learning outcomes among Iranian EFL learners. Aims: This study aimed to investigate the impact of Laufer’s Three "I" model (Input, Instruction, Involvement) and the extended Five "I" model (adding Interaction and Interpretation) on Iranian EFL learners' deliberate and incidental vocabulary learning engagement in digital contexts. Methods: The study employed a sequential mixed-methods design with 93 intermediate-level male EFL learners (aged 16–20) selected via convenience sampling from private language institutes in Tehran. After homogeneity screening using the Oxford Quick Placement Test (OQPT), 60 participants were randomly assigned to experimental (digital-based instruction) and control (traditional face-to-face) groups. Data were collected through vocabulary tests, engagement surveys, and semi-structured interviews, analyzed using SPSS (v.26) for quantitative data (ANOVA, t-tests) and thematic analysis for qualitative responses. Results: Results indicated that the Five "I" model significantly outperformed the Three "I" model in both deliberate (p< 0.05, d= 0.85) and incidental (p< 0.05, d= 0.72) vocabulary learning. Qualitative data revealed enhanced engagement, reduced anxiety, and improved metacognitive awareness among learners using the progressive model, particularly through its Interaction and Interpretation components. Conclusion: The findings suggest that Laufer’s expanded Five "I" model offers a more effective framework for digital vocabulary instruction by integrating social-interactive and interpretive elements. Educators should prioritize structured yet interactive digital activities to maximize lexical acquisition and learner motivation in EFL contexts.

Boycott, historically conceived as a coercive instrument in international law, has evolved into a multifaceted phenomenon at the intersection of economic regulation, state sovereignty, and human rights. This study reassesses the legal status of boycotts by situating them within both the coercive practices traditionally used by states and the emerging human rights discourse shaping contemporary international relations. Employing a descriptive-analytical method, the article explores the conceptual contours of boycott, its distinction from embargo, and its normative evaluation under the United Nations Charter, World Trade Organization rules, and customary international law. Particular attention is given to the principles of proportionality, necessity, and non-discrimination as determinants of legitimacy, as well as to the jurisprudence of international bodies that have addressed boycott-related claims. Through historical and contemporary case studies, the paper demonstrates that while boycotts can serve as lawful non-military coercive measures, their effectiveness and legitimacy ultimately depend on conformity with international agreements, human rights standards, and diplomatic considerations. The findings underscore the need to reconceptualize boycott not only as a coercive practice but also as a tool embedded in broader transnational debates on accountability and human rights.

Background and Theoretical Foundations: Water is a fundamental necessity for life, underpinning public health, social well-being, and sustainable development. Over the last decades, the international community has progressively recognized access to safe and sufficient water as a human right, formally acknowledged by the United Nations General Assembly in Resolution 64/292 (2010) and further elaborated in General Comment No. 15 of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. This right encompasses not only physical access to adequate water for personal and domestic uses but also its quality, affordability, and non-discrimination in distribution. The theoretical framework for understanding the right to water draws upon human rights law, environmental law, and principles of sustainable resource management. It also requires balancing individual rights with collective stewardship of a finite resource in the face of population growth, climate change, and competing sectoral demands. Methodology: This study adopts a qualitative, comparative, and normative approach. Primary legal instruments, including international treaties, soft law instruments, and national constitutions, were analyzed alongside secondary literature on water governance and human rights. A doctrinal legal analysis was employed to interpret the scope and content of the water right. At the same time, a comparative policy review examined regulatory models from selected jurisdictions representing different water management traditions. Case studies from South Africa, Brazil, and Spain were used to illustrate diverse legal and institutional mechanisms. The research also integrates perspectives from development studies, public policy, and environmental economics to assess regulatory effectiveness. Finding: The analysis reveals that, although the water right has been normatively affirmed, its implementation varies significantly across different legal systems. Effective realization depends on three interrelated factors: (1) constitutional or statutory entrenchment of the right, (2) robust regulatory institutions with clear mandates, and (3) adequate financial and technical capacity to manage supply and quality. Countries that embed the right to water within broader water resource management strategies tend to achieve more equitable and sustainable outcomes. Conversely, where water governance is fragmented or overly market-driven, disparities in access persist, especially for marginalized populations. Policy coherence, participatory decision-making, and transparent monitoring mechanisms emerge as critical drivers of success. Conclusion Recognizing the right to water as a human right is a necessary but insufficient step; its realization demands an integrated regulatory framework grounded in equity, sustainability, and accountability. States must align water policies with human rights obligations, invest in infrastructure, and ensure inclusive governance processes. As climate variability intensifies and water stress increases, the legal and policy architecture protecting water rights will be central to safeguarding health, livelihoods, and environmental integrity. International cooperation, knowledge-sharing, and innovative financing will be essential in bridging the gap between normative commitments and practical outcomes.