درخت حوزه‌های تخصصی

During its historical life, the Caspian Sea has always been a safe place for many races, people, and governments. Unfortunately, humanity does not appreciate this valuable water zone and steps away consciously or unknowingly on the path to its destruction and demolition. Taking the path in this way is equal to obliterating the roots of the present generation and future generations. With the aim of evaluating the environmental security structure of the Caspian Sea, this research examines a new legal framework for this water zone. Moreover, the research also argued that the Caspian requires effective political and legal decision-making to achieve its ideal state both environmentally and economically or socially. Until the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the Caspian Sea was dominated by the two governments of Iran and the Soviet Union. The intense asymmetry between power and resources between the two countries led to the unofficial and actual control of the region in the hands of the Soviet Union.

European court of human rights was established in 1959 as an independent court of Council of Europe in order to deal with alleged violations of human rights which has been enumerated in European Convention on human rights. Obviously, protection and evolution of human rights obligations is considered as one of the most significant concerns of this court. In addition, the protection of human rights and public interest together Are required for an efficient society. As a result, European court of human rights must use a mechanism by which it can have a reasonable and balanced operation to realize these two fundamental values. In order to approach this aim, the court uses the proportionality test, consisting of three principles of legitimacy, appropriateness and necessity. Despite its efficient results for the Court, the application of this test has its deficiency in keeping a balance between human rights and public interest. This court authorized the member states to evaluate the legitimacy of an aim by themselves, however it should be the court’s task to pass three steps of proportionality test independently. This research mainly concentrates on the evaluation of the European court of human rights from the doctrine of margin of appreciation perspective.

On 15 February 2012, two Indian nationals aboard the St. Antony, an Indian fishing ship, were killed allegedly as a result of gunshot wounds following a confrontation with the Enrica Lexie, an Italian merchant ship, in international waters, off the Indian coast. The nature of the confrontation has been in contention. Enrica Lexie was traveling from Singapore to Egypt accompanied by six Italian navy marines. Enrica Lexie began firing at India's Exclusive Economic Zone because they thought pirate boats attacked them. Indian Navy detained the Enrica Lexie and two Italian navy Marines were arrested on charges of murder of two Indian fishermen. This incident caused the dispute between India and Italy over criminal jurisdiction, functional immunity of Italian navy marines, and the practice of arming merchant ships. They refer this dispute to arbitration and finally, Tribunal issued its award. This paper via the descriptive-analytical method, exploring existing documents, conventions, and customary international law shows that criminal jurisdiction over Italian merchant ships at EEZ belongs to the flag state. Most countries permit and even force to arm their flag merchant ships to fight against pirates, so this practice becomes a rule of customary international law. As a result, actions of these Italian marines are attributed to Italy as a governmental act, and state officials are entitled, in principle, to functional immunity from foreign jurisdiction regarding their ‘official’ acts, i.e., when acting in their official capacity.

Industry of navigation is one of the most important pillars of world’s economy so that According to statistics More than 90% percent of the world’s goods are transferred by merchant ship lines .According to the latest statistics of 2105, 10 billion tons of goods, equivalent to $ 4 trillion, have been transferred by sea and the global economy is dependent on maritime transport, and the lack of it is causing countries to face the crisis. Therefore the establishment of decent work in environments of merchant ships for seafarers has fundamental importance and inevitable effects on economic in national and international level. Merchant ships of the world that are registered in more than 150 countries employed approximately more than 1.5 million of seafarers and this industry also has 10,000 seamen In Iran that in general they considered as marine workers. This study using analytical – descriptive, consider the International Labor Standards and Decent Work factors with glance of maritime security and safety and IMO standard for People at sea.Findings of this study show that marine works are very hard and chore in terms of physical and mental effects. In fact the convention express fundamental rights and principles those seafarers faced in relation to condition of work and living on board of ship.Therefore seafarers have rights that should observe by ship owners and the state flag should confirm the situation of ships with the requirement of the convention. In principles as the skilled and experiment crew is one of the requirements of successful operation in modern ships the process of shortage and unsatisfied crew can hard effects on this industry especially on the secure operation of ship. In decent work, in addition to having a job, you will be entitled to the right Fundamental work, social support and social discourse are also discussed. In other words, the merit of a job is not only about having a job, but also a number of other factors in the work's competence, including the right to form civil formations of labor relations, the prohibition of discrimination in employment, the observance of the minimum age, the prohibition of child labor, the minimum wage proportional to the minimum subsistence The existence of social security, unemployment insurance, rehabilitation, empowerment of women through the acquisition of appropriate job opportunities and the existence of social dialogue between the employer, the employer and the government are also mandatory.

The southern part of the China Sea has been the site of one of the most important maritime disputes in five decades. Tensions are so high that some predict World War III will break out in the region. The Philippines's referral for arbitration in respect of some of its disputes with China resulted in the issuing of a 2016 arbitration award. The legal and political significance of this Award has caused debates among scholars. The legality of the Award and the validity of the court's arguments in various positions are among the topics of these discussions.  In this study, our main question is how much this award has contributed to resolving and clarifying the legal aspects of the maritime disputes between the parties. Our secondary question is the impact of this Award on regional and international peace. The findings of this study indicate that the arbitral tribunal's approach has a significant impact on understanding the concept of "historical rights" as well as the explanation and interpretation of marine environmental protection provisions in the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea. In the tribunal's view, by joining the Convention on the Law of the Sea, the rules concerning maritime zones, except in rare cases, override the historical rights of States. It also played an important role in defining and explaining various maritime features; including islands, rocks, and low-tide elevations. However, the effect of the award on reducing tensions in the southern part of the China Sea, Chinese government policies, and Regional peace is in doubt.

In traditional international law,"Effective Authority" has been the applicable criterion in recognizing the legitimacy of governments and their recognition by other states. The United Nations also took note of this criterion in accepting representatives identified by governments. However, after the Cold War, a new criterion, the "Democratic Legitimacy," was introduced to recognize the legitimacy of new governments. Increasing attention to human rights and adherence to democratic norms in governance has strengthened this theory among jurists. The main question of this article is what is the applicable criterion in examining the "legality of governments" in international law? In this article, which is written by descriptive-analytical method and by studying books and articles, we examine the application of the theory of democratic legitimacy in the recognition of governments. By studying the change of governments after the adoption of the UN Charter until 2020, we conclude that the theory of democratic legitimacy was applied only in response to military coup d'état against democratically elected governments after the end of the Cold War. In other causes of regime change including revolutions and civil war; The New Government is recognized by the international community and credentials of its representatives accredited to the United Nations on the basis of the traditional criterion of effective authority. However, there are few exemptions such as Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan.

Over the past few years, two events have radically transformed American identity and global perceptions of America with respect to human rights. The first of these is the detention of “enemy combatants” at Guantanamo Bay and the second is the abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. This paper considers how Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib have altered the intellectual and popular perceptions of human rights in America and abroad. The paper argues that the very different reactions to these events in the US and abroad suggest a move toward a relativist view of human rights in the US, limited by necessity and legality, but a universalist approach to human rights abroad. Moving toward a common global understanding of necessity and legality is critical to the pursuit of universal human rights. The reactions to Guantanamo indicate a growing acceptance in the United States of a relative conception of human rights. In the winter and spring of 2003, United States military forces at Abu Ghraib prison committed a range of often gruesome violations of Iraqi prisoners.

The conflict between sovereignty over parts of the sea and the necessity of "innocent passage" concept has been the most contentious field in the law of the sea." Two hypotheses in this field have collided in the history of international law of the sea. The first hypothesis is that every human possesses the seas together. "Navigation" and other operations are also allowed for all. Under the excuse of owning the sea, no state has the right to restrict other people's use. However, the second theory says that the sea is owned by someone who controls part of it, and its use can be limited. In international law, the "innocent passage" by foreign vessels from the territorial sea of a country is widely recognized. However, in some territories, the requirements for the "innocent passage" of military vessels include the need for prior notice or the coastal state's permission. Most forces, led by the US, believe in absolute freedom of the military vessel's "innocent passage." However, most Asian countries, including Iran, assume that they can prior notification or approval for a foreign military vessel passage. This activity was often resisted in operational as well as diplomatic phases by naval forces such as the United States.