درخت حوزه‌های تخصصی

Background and Theoretical Foundations: Throughout history, humanity has always been involved in numerous crises, including war and bloodshed, and their undesirable consequences and effects. Establishing peace and resolving conflicts has always been of interest to scholars, and accordingly, two main views have been put forward in this regard under the headings of "the originality of peace" or "just war". Meanwhile, sea bandits or piracy, which have a very old history and are as old as the history of human domination of the sea, have become a serious threat to the security of international trade in recent years, since 2008, due to reasons such as changing the behavioral pattern of pirates who often take hostages and extort money. The crime of piracy is one of the first international crimes with global jurisdiction, and has always been the subject of discussion among scholars of various legal systems. One of the important issues in this regard is how to establish peace or a just war with this phenomenon. Methodology: In this research, which uses a descriptive and analytical method, piracy was studied in a comparative manner from the perspective of just war theory in Islamic jurisprudence and international law. The data collection tools in this qualitative research are the use of library resources and texts, and electronic journals, with a common approach in identifying and critiquing the research conducted. Findings: It shows that the Islamic legal system and international law have presented mostly similar and sometimes different views in this regard, but ultimately, both legal systems support the observance of ethical and humanitarian principles. Conclusion: The results show that today, the issue of war is an important issue and challenge that can only be accepted when it is accepted as a just challenge in the international arena. Therefore, considering the principles of international law and the actions of pirates, in many cases there are many similarities with the term war in Islamic jurisprudence, and their behavior and actions, which often lead to the deprivation of sea security, can be considered as war, but observing the principles of just war is both essential and of fundamental importance in the Islamic legal system.

Today the world is tackling climate change and simultaneously needs to overcome growing energy security challenges. The transition to renewable energy is known as the key strategy for reducing carbon emissions and ensuring energy security. However, not all countries access the required finance and technologies to successfully and sustainably deploy renewable energy projects. Therefore, they seek to attract foreign investment and technology. A growing number of governments are adopting incentives to compete in this field and create a more favorable investment atmosphere. The granting of investment incentives lies within the realm of national legislation which is susceptible to revocation by the host States. This exposes foreign investors to several risks as no State is bound by its unilateral commitments and the change or withdrawal of pro-foreign investment policies by the host States is a mere exercise of their sovereignty. As International Investment Agreements (IIAs) were primarily drafted to promote and protect cross-border investments against unfair and discriminatory treatments, it is interesting to know their current approach to investment incentives and assess its implications for renewable energy investments. Adopting a qualitative approach, this research aims to clarify this issue by defining investment incentives and shedding new light on the relevant clauses in IIAs that can better contribute to the protection of renewable energy investors’ interests. Findings suggest that harmonizing investment incentives by including them in IIAs has not been on the agenda so far and IIAs seldom contain renewable energy-related incentive provisions. Therefore, this research points out the relevant provisions that can better accommodate the renewable energy investment needs.

Whether floor crossing is democratic or undemocratic under Article 70 of the Bangladeshi Constitution is a significant question. The major goal of this rule is to prevent Members of Parliament (MPs) from voting against their party, lest their seats in Parliament be vacated. However, this article's violation of the Members of Parliament's (MPs') right to free speech is a major matter for worry, as it violates their fundamental rights. The primary purpose of this study is to examine the existing floor crossing law to determine whether or not it constitutes a breach of fundamental rights as embodied in the Bangladeshi Constitution, and to identify the gaps prevalent in the provision regulating floor crossing. This paper employs the doctrinal research methodology, utilizing journal articles, textbooks, academic databases, and online resources. In this study, we've attempted to introduce the provisions of floor crossing and describe it with historical context, Article 70 of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, and provisions in other nations such as the United States, the United Kingdom, and India. We have reviewed the rationale for barring floor crossing and why this provision will not be altered. We have also reviewed a recent incidence involving floor crossing and a case study that constructively critiques the regulation. We have determined that floor crossing is abandoning one's party in Parliament to vote for the opposing party during the bill's voting or passage, and we have provided recommendations to fix this issue and make the provision of floor crossing acceptable for the benefit of our people.