درخت حوزه‌های تخصصی

Biotechnology as a modern-day phenomenon has had profound effects in various fields such as agriculture, health, and the environment. However, there are some concerns among scientists about the potential impacts of products resulting from the technology of living modified organisms (LMOs) on biodiversity and human health. This has led to the development of a set of rules and regulations known as biosafety to ensure the safety of these products under the Cartagena Protocol to the 1992 UN Convention on Biological Diversity. Biosafety can be considered as an approach to protect biodiversity and human health from potential threats while benefiting from the benefits of biotech products. From a human rights perspective, there seems to be a direct link between this field and biosafety, and there are many common concepts in both areas. The article seeks to examine the role of biosafety in human rights protection and examines how human rights can be protected to answer this question. In this analytical study, through studying the literature and primary sources, the role of biosafety in the protection of human rights has been analyzed and criticized from different aspects. The results show that biosafety can be considered a way to balance between different human rights and socio-economic considerations and the way of applying the precautionary principle have an important role in achieving this goal.

The importance of investment and the necessity for its legality, alongside the occurrence ofcorruption due to the involvement of multiple actors in the investment process, render itsexamination - especially in arbitration - unavoidable. Corruption may manifest through foreigninvestors and pressures from their home states or affiliated intermediaries, taking the form ofbribery and collusion with domestic officials of the host state or through threats against them.Furthermore, the emergence of corruption may stem from structural weaknesses or corruption-laden processes within the host state’s system. At times, a combination of all the aforementionedfactors, alongside the involvement of third parties, can create a corrupt and illegal investmentprocess. Given the private nature of arbitration, the primary question arises: does an arbitraltribunal possess the jurisdiction and authority to examine and determine the liability of each ofthe aforementioned actors? Through an analytical and documentary investigation, this articleestablishes that, firstly, arbitral tribunals generally do not have the power to investigate criminalbehavior and related inquiries; secondly, due to secrecy and threats against witnesses, collectingand maintaining the security of evidence within the sovereign territory of the host state ischallenging; thirdly, ICSID tribunals often rely on the “balance of probabilities” and significantlyon “red flags” and reports from anti-corruption organizations. Fourthly, the consideration of theinitiating factor of corruption, the degree of influence of participating actors (the prevalenceof corruption in the host state and the level of the host state’s involvement in the occurrenceof corruption), as well as the circumstances of “duress” and “hostage” situations and thenature of the bribe (transactional / variance), may lead, depending on the case, to the completecondemnation of the investor ( and a finding that the investment is unjust) or a reduction ofliability or immunity for the host state.

Postmodernism in the contemporary world asserts that there is neither a dominant nor an ideal marriage form as monogamy or even a classical family type. Unlike modernists who sought human issues as permanent entities, postmodernists believe in everything to be of a transient nature. In the same vein, they argue that love and law are ephemeral rather than eternal entities. Mariage blanc has increased in many aspects corollary to this ideology. In a world of no restrictions, postmodernists indulge in short and diverse satisfactions, whereas the classic world believed that long-lasting personal relationships are more important to personal fulfillment and happiness. Therefore, attitude toward marriage for a durable satisfaction is subdued to having a serious relationship. It seems, however, that quality in the relationships is superseded by quantity in the postmodern era.

In the past several decades, Islamophobia has emerged as a significant term in both popular and technical discourse. This term, regardless of its original meaning, is a construct that involves a variety of concepts such as “discrimination against Muslims” and “hostility toward Islam”. This article attempts to explore various aspects and manifestations of Islamophobia in the framework of human rights. The first part of this paper examines the historical background of the term as it was developed in the Human Rights agenda of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) to comprehend the legal aspects of Islamophobia. The second part focuses on the conceptual analysis of Islamophobia, distinguishing between two distinct forms of the term in the context of human rights. Defining Islamophobia and demarcating its manifestations in a human rights framework would facilitate a better understanding of both the term and its conceptual boundaries in relation to similar terms and concepts. The author concludes that the United Nations resolutions, OIC standards, and European Union initiatives recognize the importance of responsible expression and realize the need for legal frameworks to combat all forms of Islamophobia. In comparison to other associated terms employed in UN and OIC human rights instruments, Islamophobia represents an inclusive term that can provide a acceptable legal framework for all stakeholders.