درخت حوزه‌های تخصصی

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.

There is an urgent need for methods by which people and communities of faith peacebuilding and human rights development. This paper argues for a holistic understanding of peacebuilding that includes security of life, a guarantee of subsistence, and the pursuit of other fundamental human rights. This need is especially acute in countries of rising instability or post-conflict rebuilding. More and more countries face a downward spiral of instability even though many leaders and bodies seek to reverse this trend. Sadly, even among those countries that emerge from conflict, one-half revert to conflict within five years. Hence the question this paper addresses is, “How shall people and communities of religious conviction be effectively engaged in a peacebuilding and human rights process?” <br />This people factor is too little understood, even though the role of citizens in transitional states has long been acknowledged as essential for just and sustainable change. For peace accords and international conventions, in and of themselves, do not make peace or deliver human rights. Neither does the arrival of international peacekeepers nor the speeches of clerics and political leaders. While these developments are helpful stimuli, real human peace and security derives from community-based initiatives that create a “positive deviance” for peaceable, rights-oriented living vis-à-vis governments and other forces.  <br />Thus this paper will hypothesize a methodology whereby citizens engage religious institutions, governments (local and national), and international change agents to transform conflict into promising peace and rights. It will identify common peacebuilding principles operating across sectors of human development, security, and rights-oriented work. These sectors may include at least the following: health, conservation, education, security, labor, spirituality, and corporate social responsibility. <br />This paper also seeks to hone a typology of human rights and peacebuilding challenges facing countries of instability and post-conflict rebuilding. Categories may include at least the following: stages and types of conflict, fragile and failed states, overlooked populations, ethnic and racial discrimination, transnational politics and justice, natural resource and wealth distribution, and social capital.

Today, arbitration has become the most popular means of resolving maritime disputes. Arbitration as a binding dispute resolution method is proposed and recognized in the seventh appendix of the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea. One of the important requirements of arbitration is the observance of fair proceedings, which according to the New York Convention of 1958 and the European Convention on Human Rights, is under judicial supervision at the stage of identifying and implementing arbitration decisions and at the stage of protesting the arbitration decision. Considering that arbitration is a type of private judgment, it is required to observe fair proceedings, as a human right, therefore, identifying the fair arbitration and guaranteeing the implementation of its non-compliance is of great importance. Identifying the principle of fair arbitration as a human right and guaranteeing its non-compliance in various cases, in order to violate the human rights of the parties, needs to be read. In the current research, with the analytical and descriptive method and using library sources and judicial procedure and according to the basics of human rights and international documents as well as international judicial procedure, the principle of fair arbitration to It has been recognized as an inalienable human right . And it can be said: the agreement on the cancellation of the right to object to the arbitration award has no effect on the possibility of requesting the annulment of the arbitration award due to non-compliance with the principles of fair arbitration. The request to cancel the arbitrator's decision that is outside the deadline can also be accepted by relying on the principles of fair arbitration, and in case of a request to implement the arbitrator's decision, the arbitrator's decision will not be able to be recognized and implemented.

The formation and activity of naval alliances formed in the waters of southern Iran may lead to a critical situation in the region and an increase in military tension between the naval units of the Iranian army and the military units of the coalition forces. In response to this question, the current research, what roles can the Navy of the Islamic Republic of Iran play in confronting naval coalitions? This research is applied in terms of purpose and qualitative in nature. For this purpose, qualitative data was collected by using a questionnaire and through semi-structured interviews with 12 experts and specialists of the Navy, and then by using the method of foundational data theory, the data were coded through three stages of open coding. Axial and selective coding was analyzed and the result was 8 general categories, which in the form of a paradigm model include causal conditions (building power at sea and confidence building at sea), axial category (maritime geopolitical position of Iran), conditions Background (naval knowledge and naval ability), intervening conditions (diplomacy capacities), strategy (development of oceanic navy) and consequence (strengthening of Iran's naval power) were introduced.

According to Article 7 of the Rome Statute, the crime of Apartheid refers to actions, policies, and courses of conduct with the purpose of maintaining an institutionalized regime of systematic racism and racial domination. Based on this definition, the word "Apartheid" will not only refer to the historical regime of South Africa (1948-1994) but is also recognized as a crime against humanity on par with torture and slavery. Due to certain similarities in legal systems and roots of establishment, Israel and the Apartheid Regime of South Africa have been considered to be analogous in various international documents sponsored by the United Nations until 1991. This study aims to analyze the historical rationale behind this recognition and the reversal of course by the United Nations General Assembly, which was initiated with the revocation of A/RES/3379 resolution (the equation of Zionism with racism). Furthermore, in the light of recent developments on domestic and international levels, it seems several unaligned trends are gaining ground in this respect to reaffirm the previous attribution of the crime of Apartheid to Israel. Through using E-Library data and employing the descriptive-analytical method, the veracity of the said trends, their projection, and their perseverance will be further discussed in this paper.

Universality of common human values embedded in declarations and international treaties supposed to be evident in the international human rights legal system but it does not mean that there were no intellectual discrepancies behind those instruments. Universality of human rights has its roots more than anything on theories of Jhon locke's natural law and Immanuel kant's rational ethics . But one of the earliest philosophers of opposition side against unity of human nature and universal morality at the embryonic stage was Nietzsche . Bringing forth the theory of will to power by adopting a psychological genealogy method Nietzsche distinguished between two moralities: Masters Morality and Slaves Morality . He attributed human rights as slave morality. Slaves revolted with the spirit of resentment and womanish deception against masters then introduced their own qualities as standard and universal . The Rise of Christianity and the Great French Revolution are amongst two biggest examples of such slave revolt in morality. With such a presupposition, trying by any effort to reconcile human rights morals with Nietzschean views seems to be unachievable. While reviewing past philosophical challenges, this article tries to analyze necessity of co-existence both international human rights legal system and Nietzschean world from a new perspective.

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.

The naval conflict has undergone many changes due to environmental factors and various tools, as well as the increasing growth and development of marine technologies, aligned with the inclusion of new tools and methods in naval conflict and electronic warfare at sea. The procedure taken by countries indicates the acceptance of electronic warfare as one of the methods and tools of agreed warfare. However, from the perspective of international humanitarian law, the use of electronic warfare tools and methods is challenging, and international treaty law lacks a legal rule regarding this method of warfare. Indeed, the only guideline that has sought to regulate electronic warfare is the Air and Missile Warfare Directive, which imposes no legal requirements on governments. So the question we are going to answer in this brief is that, can humanitarian law be applied to electronic warfare? The purpose of this study is to explain and investigate the various dimensions of naval electronic warfare from the perspective of international humanitarian law, and proving that international humanitarian law can be applied to the methods and tools of electronic warfare at sea. The research method selected for the present paper is an analytical-explanatory method and the data collection method used is the library research method.

After dividing the sea as areas under the sovereignty and sovereign rights of the coastal states and High seas in  the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea, and as a result of the possibility of detaining some foreign vessels violating the rules governing these areas, this convention also has rules regarding the prompt release of these vessels and how Its implementation has been stated in the judicial proceedings of the Coastal Government. In this regard, cases have been introduced in the International Tribunal of Law of the Sea, whose analysis can be considered as a judicial procedure and a secondary source of the law of the sea in development. In this article, in addition to the analysis and review of the judicial procedure and the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea, Iran's internal rules have also been reviewed in this regard. This research seeks to answer the question, in addition to clarifying the various aspects of immediate release, what are the criteria for prompt release, and what are appropriate and reasonable bonds? The research method is descriptive and analytical, and materials have been prepared based on library and documentary studies.

Minerals in nature are one of the most valuable treasures on the earth, which due to the limitation of these resources on land and its heterogeneous distribution in different countries, has made human beings think about extracting the new resources. The limited mineral resources on land and the heterogeneous distribution of these substances in different countries have made human beings think about extracting and using the resources of other parts of the earth and even other planets. Deep-sea mineral resources can be considered as a reliable alternative to compensate for the limitations of land resources. The developed countries were more concerned with the use of these resources than others because, given the dependence of their economies on third-world mineral resources, the development of offshore resources could mean the liberation of their economies from this dependence. In political and scientific circles, the concept of the common heritage of humanity was gradually introduced, based on which activities related to mining in the deep sea. The method of this research is a descriptive-analytical study using library resources, the study of articles, and a review of environmental treaties and related internet resources. The result of this research shows, that none of these legal systems in the field of responsibility can respond to the challenges independently. This research tries to provide a legal solution by considering the opinions of environmental experts, an executive solution about achieving new financial resources based on combined systems of environmental responsibility.

The increase in sea traffic with commercial ships, warships, and submarines, followed by the spread of pollution of the seas in the last century, has not only led to the threat and destruction of vital resources and marine habitats but also a source of tension and conflict between units and actors. It has provided political and can be a threat to the world community. Despite Legal requirements, pollution in the seas is increasing. The sovereignty-oriented nature of marine pollution legal requirements is one of the most important reasons for governments' reluctance to implement regulations related to marine pollution because the development of rules in this field, as well as the implementation of regulations related to marine pollution, are still within the scope of governments' satisfaction. Considering the importance of protecting the marine environment, this research deals with the scope of the coastal government's competence to deal with marine pollution using a descriptive-analytical method and with the help of library data and international documents. The findings of the research show that although the instrumental use of the concept of national sovereignty has created the basis for the pollution of the seas, Recent developments in the field of international law of the sea, such as the drafting of Article 3 of the Convention on Interference in the High Seas and paragraph one of Article 218 of the Convention on the Law of the Sea, indicate the extraterritorial expansion of the jurisdiction of coastal states to deal with marine pollution, although in a limited way.