درخت حوزه‌های تخصصی

Environmental crimes have emerged among the foremost international challenges, with states assuming a decisive role in their emergence, perpetuation, and deterrence. While governments bear a statutory duty duty to protect the environment, developmental policies and regulatory decisions may, directly or indirectly, facilitate the proliferation of such crimes. This study conducts a comparative analysis of the criminal liability of state for environmental crimes within the legal systems of Iran and France. The central research question is: To what extent can states be held criminally liable for environmental crimes, and what principal distinctions characterize the approaches of these two legal systems? The operative hypothesis posits that in Iran, state liability remains predominantly confined to administrative and civil spheres due to insufficient criminalization, whereas France has developed a more coherent juridical framework acknowledging the potential criminal liability of public legal persons. Methodologically, the study adopts a descriptive-analytical approach, utilizing library and documentary resources, within a comparative criminal law framework informed by theories of corporate criminal liability. The findings indicate that reforms within French criminal law, particularly within specialized environmental statutes and the Penal Code, enable the prosecution of public institutions and, under certain circumstances, state entities for environmental violations. French jurisprudence has further elaborated the doctrine of corporate criminal liability to enhance environmental protection. Conversely, the Iranian system remains principally oriented toward civil and administrative remedies, hampered by deficient enforcement regimes and substantial legal ambiguities regarding the recognition of the state as a a subject of criminal liability. This study concludes that Iran necessitates a revision of its legislative framework, incorporating insights from the French experiences, to reinforce its criminal policy for effective environmental protection.

This article examines the conditions and consequences of the proposed judicial reform package on Israel’s constitutional order using an analytical and library-based research method. Within Israel’s separation of powers framework, two main currents — religious Zionism and secular Zionism — are institutionally represented in the Knesset (and the executive branch) and the judiciary, respectively. These two factions originally converged on the foundational goal of establishing a safe homeland for Jews. The judicial reform package, which authorizes the Knesset to override Supreme Court rulings by a simple majority, alters the composition of the Judicial Selection Committee, lowers the retirement age of Supreme Court justices, restricts the use of the “reasonableness doctrine,” and reduces the authority of legal advisors, effectively curtails the judiciary’s capacity to check and balance periodic majorities. Given the country’s demographic structure, the approval of this bill would allow the religious and fundamentalist bloc to gain absolute power. As a result of the erosion of constitutional safeguards based on the separation of powers, Israel would face major constitutional challenges, including a legitimacy crisis, the restriction of citizens’ political agency, the violation of minority rights, and the weakening of legal security. These developments ultimately conflict with the founding vision of the State of Israel.