درخت حوزه‌های تخصصی

In today's world, countries choose to pursue their own interests in foreign policy, the most common and least cost of which is diplomacy, which, as an independent tool, is widely used in intergovernmental relations. In the discussion of environmental problems and protection of the marine environment, diplomacy is also considered a tool to advance the goals and interests of governments. In this article, the descriptive and analytical method of environmental diplomacy from conflict to cooperation is studied and analyzed. This research seeks to explain the pattern in the context of environmental diplomacy from conflict to cooperation. The findings of this study indicate that environmental challenges both on land and in the seas and oceans arise from climate change, changing rainfall patterns, expanding industry and agriculture, population growth, reducing resources, and increasing conflicts over natural resources and foundations. Biological, exploitation of natural resources in the form of deforestation, Desertification and uncontrolled marine hunting, use of various toxins to combat plant and animal pests to disturb the ecological balance and degradation of the aquatic and terrestrial environment on a local, regional, national, regional and global scale. Therefore, the need for environmental diplomacy to identify common threats and dangers to the global environment and efforts in the form of common commitments and to deal with these threats and dangers and to protect the environment and resources on Earth, the need for environmental diplomacy is inevitable. Environmental protection is also essential for the sustainable development of the seas. From this perspective, maritime and environmental diplomacy complements macro-diplomacy and provides policymakers with a wide range of tools and options. Finally, the activation of maritime and environmental diplomacy is an effective step towards sustainable development, especially sustainable maritime development in coastal countries.

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 “Black Lives Matter” civil rights movement has left profound effects on the international approach of the US government toward human rights. This movement reached its peak in 2020 and profoundly affected culture, politics, and policy making in the US. The two major parties reacted differently – the Democrats showed support but Republicans opposed it. These reactions help us analyze the US international policy toward human rights. US human rights policy has been embedded in the theory of “American exceptionalism”, which considered US the best incarnation of human rights and its interests as a superpower equal to its protection. But the Black Lives Matter movement challenges this narrative and claims that human rights violations are an untold part of this story. The Democrats have adopted a new approach to American exceptionalism in response which considers The US to have an exceptional potential to embody human rights values but this potential is yet to be realized. Joe Biden has also prioritized human rights more than his predecessors since 1980s by criticizing the US and also adopting harsher policies toward US allies that violate human rights. It can be predicted that the Democrats will adopt a more normative approach toward human rights in the future.

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. 

The sea pathways are extensively considers as a way to reach a safe zone for the forced people, who their lives are threatened for many reasons. A large number of the irregular migrants, asylum seekers and refugees are drowned daily in the sea, particularly in the Mediterranean Sea. The numbers of the deaths are worrying and alarming. It requires urgent and effective actions by States to prevent this disastrous human crisis. This paper through descriptive and analytical research method through a qualitative research examines the international legal framework for the protection of irregular migrants, asylum seekers and refugees’ rights and focuses on two essential rights of their rescue at sea and its related right of non-refoulement. The paper concludes that the security and military ironic measures of the coastal States, particularly those of certain European States, are considered as a serious risk for the rights of the people trafficked through the sea in order to be moved from the place of danger to a safe zone. Accordingly, States must play a more responsible role in assisting and protecting the desperate irregular, asylum seekers and refugees at sea in order to guarantee their fundamental rights.

The right to attorney in judicial proceedings is one of the basic procedural rights that serves substantive rights. The question that can be raised here is “What is the meaning and characteristics of the attorney in administrative proceedings? Using a comparative and analytical method, the present article seeks to answer the above question. The findings of this article show that the British and Australian legal systems do not recognize the right to attorney in administrative proceedings as an absolute right. If the laws do not recognize the power of attorney in the administrative proceedings, it will be up to administrative courts. However, in cases where procedural fairness requires this right, the courts are sensitive to it in their judicial procedure. The procedure of the European Court of Human Rights also shows that the concepts of fairness of the proceedings and the right to attorney have been extended to administrative proceedings as well. In the Iranian legal system, the attorney is one of the basic procedural rights recognized by the Constitution and according to the approach of the Guardian Council, this right can be extended to administrative courts as well. The judicial procedure of the Court of Administrative Justice also confirms this approach and treats it as a judicial proceeding.

Maritime transport has become significant as the backbone of global trade and, consequently, globalization, which is the basis of the globalizing project of the economy, which, with an attitude of dependence on the development of countries and the international maritime trade, lends more importance to maritime trade. Securing maritime trade, with the emergence of recent insecurity as the most important concern for the countries that benefit from this, is one of the most important options for world trade due to its high transport capability, low cost and ease of transportation. As a result of the vast dependence of countries on maritime trade, there are various problems, such as piracy and environmental pollution, which, in turn, has become a global downfall. Modern piracy has new patterns. Although the nature of the crime is the very essence of this activity, the context for replacing these changes is to be considered. Piracy and robbery not only can stop the logistics chain from leading to economic consequences, but also it will lead to the loss of life, short-term and long-term health problems for seafarers and travelers; the consequences that require more analysis. In this article, we have tried to investigate the history of piracy and analyze the pathology of this global problem and provide solutions for the issue.

Environmental risks and conflicts in the framework of the relations between countries and subsequently their role-playing in interaction and collaboration or conflicts and struggles between political actors especially in the level of states have reproduced serious discussions and disputes on the environment, security, and power which are interpreted as environmental geopolitics or ecopolitics by modern political geography. Geographically, the Persian Gulf is a semi-enclosed sea that has a very low capacity of self-dredging in comparison to that of high seas; hence, it retains the pollutants for longer periods of time. Some of its environmental problems arise from the various activities of the people residing along the northern and southern shores. If the situation is exacerbated by the factors such as oil and its subsequent pollutions, militarism and its subsequent destruction, desalination of seawater, and the construction of artificial islands, one can conclude that regional convergence between the countries neighboring this body of water in the process of bioregionalism would be of an essential necessity. According to the research findings, states acting in the geopolitical region of the Persian Gulf to produce power, security and to sustain them, from one hand, and to protect this shared aquatic ecosystem in the event of sustainable development, from the other hand, should mobilize all collective cooperations and operationalize the bioregionalism in regional and supranational scales.

Today, advances in science and technology have increased human power to change the environment; This situation has endangered human survival. Sustainable development is one of the solutions to solve this challenge. The emphasis of sustainable development is on intergenerational commitment and intergenerational and intergenerational justice, quality of life and participation of individuals in the development process. Since international judicial authorities play an important role in the development of international law, it is important to address the jurisprudence of these courts in the context of sustainable development and its principles. This article analyzes some of the rulings of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea and states that in its decisions of the last two decades, the Court has made good use of the principles of sustainable development and revealed the normative element of the concept of sustainable development. The rulings of this court indicate the establishment of the position of these principles in the practice of this institution and its positive approach to the rights of future generations, while defending the interests of the current generation.