درخت حوزه‌های تخصصی

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.

An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law. Martin Luther King, Jr. Abstract The following paper will present the theory and possibilities of implication of the phenomenon of civil disobedience understood as one of the most powerful and most effective tools of democratic society when it comes to implementing the necessary and indispensable changes required for the improvement of the political domain and the social public sphere.   In the first part I will present the narrow but orthodox and widely discussed definition of civil disobedience presented by John Rawls in his Theory of Justice (1971). Given such a definition, as well as the major conditions under which the actions undertaken in the name of civil disobedience can be justified, I will focus my analysis on two major aspects of the discussed notion.   Firstly, I will discuss civil disobedience, which is in its essense an unlawful act, paradoxically expresses the highest respect for the positive law by the person performing the civilly disobedient act through one’s submission to the judgment of the law which is an object of one’s protest. This way, civil disobedience presents itself as the phenomenon which, not having a legal recognition (not being legalized), holds super-legal force required to impose the changes on the unjust legal system or on the particular unjust regulation.   Secondly, I will point out that civil disobedience, as a public act performed by the people (the subjects of the particular law), expresses the will of the people and, therefore, it can not be used (by themselves) in the ways contradictory to their best self-interest but always supported by the “the commonly shared sense of justice” (Rawls). From this premise I conclude that the universal human rights, as thier supporters claim, are one of the main ends of the political activism in the recent decade and should be advocated in the civilly disobedient manner.   In the last part I will contrast the Rawlsean definition with a much broader and more relevant understanding of civil disobedience when it concerns today’s globalizing world. In this world, the nation-states cease to be the only political actors when confronted with the transnational public sphere, and, therefore, the understanding of civil disobedience as a transversal arena of public dissent presented by Roland Bleiker (2000) is more appropriate. In this definition civil disobedience becomes, not only a political instrument of particular subjects of a particular society, but it also becomes a tool for the international mobilization of means and of people in the name of presenting and imposing the respect for the universal human rights despite the national borders and societal paradigms. 

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.

Exploiting the bed and subbed of the seas which are outside the governments’ sovereignty is always discussed since the countries severely need to these resources and the technological progress makes it possible to exploit these areas. Present study aims to respond this question that how resources of bed and subbed of the seas outside governments’ sovereignty are exploit based on law perspective, and how can analyze juridical attitude in this issue. In law perspective, according to the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Seas, these areas are the common heritage of humanity and International Seabed Authority is responsible in this field. In Islamic jurisprudence, exploitation of properties which do not belong to a specific person and freely are in access the public is named Anfal. But the bed and subbed of the seas are not included in any of the territories such as Dar al-Harb defined by the jurists, because no government have the right to claim sovereignty over these areas, and Dar al-Kofr is not in charge of these areas either. It is necessary to act based on international treaties and customary in such a situation. It means that Dar al-Islam is committed to act in accordance with existing international treaties and customary. Even if Dar al-Islam has not accepted any treaties regarding the bed and subbed of the seas, it is committed to implement international regulations based on international customary since international customary has known the bed and subbed of the seas outside the governments’ sovereignty as the common heritage of humanity.

The peaceful use of the various territories of the international community, including land, sea, air, and outer space, is one of the basic rules of international law, and the prohibition of the use and threat of force based on paragraph 4 of Article 2 of the United Nations Charter is one of the mandatory rules.None of the members of the United Nations have the right to resort to force in the seas and non-peaceful maritime activities. Although the 1982 Montego Bay, Convention on the Law of the Sea was drafted for peacetime, this does not mean that the aforementioned convention loses its validity and executive power when armed conflicts occur.In this research, using the analytical descriptive method, a review of the behavior of the United States in the peaceful use of the seas from the point of view of the United Nations Charter and the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea and the authors' analyzes has been done.The findings of this research show that the US government, according to the statements issued by this country, which have been prepared in line with the interests and oceanic policies of this sea power, has provided interpretations or perceptions regarding the maritime activities of the US in relation to the 1982 convention, which can endanger the peaceful use of the seas.The approach of the United States through the seven positions that have been examined in this brief article indicates that this country allows its military activities in order to secure its interests and is not subject to dispute resolution methods and peaceful goals. It does not consider the 1982 Convention as its legal obligation.   Therefore, the US wants absolute freedom of navigation in all sea areas. Naturally, this approach of a maritime power cannot be a suitable basis for guaranteeing the peaceful use of the seas and institutionalizing maritime diplomacy. 

With the acceptance of international trade and its expansion in the 20th century, the need to prepare a suitable mechanism to resolve disputes, especially in non-international dimensions, became one of the important concerns to maintain commercial relations and contracts. And this caused that, despite the global skepticism towards arbitration, in a short time arbitration and mediation were considered as a way to resolve conflicts, especially regarding international commercial disputes. On June 26, 2018, the Singapore Convention was approved by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) regarding international agreements resulting from mediation. And the plan of UNCITRAL was modified in the field of international commercial mediation and international settlement agreements resulting from mediation. The purpose of ratifying this convention is to establish a binding legal system and an efficient framework and legal platform for the implementation of international agreements resulting from mediation. Previously, the adoption of the New York Convention by expanding the use of the arbitration method as a way to settle disputes was considered one of the most successful international treaties in this field. In total, the present research, with an analytical and argumentative method, seeks to respond to the main philosophy of concluding and the scope of application of each of the two New York and Singapore Conventions, by examining the weak and strong points of each, it explains the position of these two treaties in resolving conflicts and disputes and discusses the similarities and differences between the New York Convention and the Singapore Convention on Mediation.