Human Rights

Democracy is a much used and abused word. As a possible structure of political organization, democratic concepts are very much under debate in Muslim countries. Democracy in a western sense has become associated with a forceful “democratization” of the Middle East, which in effect has brought war and various forms of foreign domination to crucial areas of this sensitive region. However, up to now democratic structures are an exception in Muslim countries. Due to historical developments during the past centuries, there seems to be a lack of theoretical backing for democracy in the culture of the Middle East. This is surprising, because Islam, from its beginning, has offered the model of shura (consultation), which can and should be developed to serve modern governance. Especially Shi'ism can offer a theological backing through interpretations and explanations conducive to the formation and implementation of an Islamic democracy. In Imam Ali's (a.s.) letter to Malik al-Ashtar, we find a beautiful outline of what today is called “good governance”. Moreover, Shi'ism postulates the Imamate of the Mahdi (a.s.) as a just rule to-come. In the absence of the Imam-e zaman, an Islamic democracy should prevail with full participation of Muslims. But how is it possible to organize a modern Muslim country democratically? In addition to a working government and a majlis or parliament formed on the basis of elections, the expertise of religious scholars is needed – scholars who are capable of Ijtihad, so that they can find answers to the needs of present-day life in the wake of ongoing social change. In an Islamic polity, the period of awaiting al-Mahdi al-muntazar requires active participation of the people, since unless there is widespread readiness to support the good cause, the Mahdi will not appear. This participation is a basic human right and also a duty of men and women. For this purpose, every individual should have the opportunity to develop his/her moral, religious and cultural consciousness and the social and political awareness through education and self-education, so that citizens may fulfil their social and democratic responsibilities within the framework of Islam. 

The emerging right to democracy (e.g. Franck, T) within international law favors a liberal, democratic packaging. Yet as Abedolkarim Sourash argues, there has been a conflation of liberalism and democracy, which must be decoupled.  It is from this point of departure that this paper will examine the international legality of militant democracy and interrogate when and how a constitutional democracy can legally act in an anti-democratic manner to combat threats to its democratic existence.  Militant democracy was a term introduced in 1937 by Karl Lowenstein. It refers to a form of constitutional democracy authorized to protect civil and political freedom by pre-emptively restricting its exercise. Lowenstein’s writings, at the time, were concerned with the limitations of democratic institutions in containing fascism. Militant democracies stand in contrast with the principles of legal pluralism, but the extent to which international law authorizes transformative political agendas that seek to implement forms of religious, cultural, or national autonomy is unclear.

Peaceful co-existence is a universal but elusive aspiration. Despite the search for tools to create a peaceful world, conflict remains between nations and within nations. The fostering of peace is a question to which scholars, religious leaders and politicians put their minds, but despite this attention the paradox remains that there is little evidence that local and global conflict have subsided. Ideally the key to providing solutions can be found in the tenets of the world’s major religions and cultural traditions and in the musing of some of the great philosophy voices of past and modern times. Regrettably these tenets are often absent in education systems where there are limited endeavours to encourage young people to think locally and globally about social justice, peace and human rights. Many of the current ways of imparting knowledge of human rights and peace are limited, with the emphasis on the legal aspect alone and on international instruments such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). Although the UDHR is an inspiring document given that its creation stemmed from a commitment to all humanity, its uncritical acceptance negates the critiques about western dominance. Arguably, unless humankind can find a way to grapple with the tension between universal and relativist approaches to human rights by acknowledging diversity, the search for peace and social justice will be limited. This paper contemplates the creation of human rights understandings beyond legal constructs to explore how human rights concepts can be invoked through education to reduce ignorance, prejudice, religious intolerance and fear that detracts from the goal of peaceful co-existence. It explores the question of responsibility to ‘the other’, a form of responsibility that is not apparent in the clash of cultures and the conflict between nations. The paper suggests a schema for human rights understandings based on philosophical, political, historical, anthropological, legal and practical approaches to human rights. This includes forging the connection between theory and practice; engaging in critical pedagogy through a process of collaborative dialogue and inquiry; being familiar with the historical origins of human rights and their application; and understanding that concepts of human rights are found in every cultural and religious tradition.  In advocating such a schema it draws on examples that present barriers and prospects and in so doing outlines the endeavours that take place in the inter-disciplinary Master of Human Rights program at Curtin University in Australia as a model that may be adaptable to other contexts. The paper concludes by suggesting practical ways in which the schema could be enacted including through a lifetime educational commitment to human rights through historical and philosophical understandings, inter-faith dialogue and cultural exchanges.

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. 

After the atrocity’s committed during the Second World War, the citizens of the world cried out for a universal code of ethics. On December 10th 1948 the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted a universal declaration of human rights, thus setting a new standard for all nations to follow. According to Article 18 of that declaration “Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship, and observance”. People, and women in particular, who are born in different parts of the world have different cultural, as well as religious identities. It is time for education on, and a universal understanding of, the identity differences of Muslim women to be made universally accessible, and understood. Although the ultimate result was the near obliteration of an entire race, and a worldwide war, the groundwork was laid in a much quieter manner. The Nazi party slowly began working their ideals into society. First espousing the sovereignty of the German race and then planting the seeds for the loathing and contempt that would follow for all other races. Near the end of the Second World War Adolph Hitler described Jewish people as “something aggressive” the same words that French president Jacques Chirac recently used when petitioning Parliament to pass a law banning the wearing of hijab in France?

The notion of "H11ma11 Rights" encompass the two notions of "man" and "right" and the relationship between them. This relationship, boiueoer; pertains to much of theoretical as well as philosophical elaboration. Looking critical!J al the prevailing conception of this relationship, name!J that ofpossessive individualism, this paper points to a different conception for such relationsbip. Using the two metaphors of "Red Reason" and "Green Rights", a theo!y qf "human rights" is elaborated according to an i!lmninationist (Eshraghi) conception of "man" and an emancipatory conception qf 111ight".

Since the advent of the Islamic Revolution in Iran, the country has been continuously subject to severe sanctions by the Western countries, especially the United States. In all these years, the U.S. sanctions did not affect Iran’s economy much, due to the fact that the two countries have no formal relations and as a result, their economies are not, by any means, interdependent. However, Iran’s economy has been reliant on extensive interactions with the European countries; the EU sanctions against Iran since 2011, therefore, have harshly affected Iran’s economy and caused adverse social impacts on Iranian lives. In the shadow of Iran’s dark image in the eyes of the world, one issue that has remained overshadowed by the discussions on the impact and effectiveness of the sanctions, is the severe human rights crises left by the EU sanctions. The key question is what have been the human rights and humanitarian consequences of the EU sanctions for Iran, and how serious have these consequences been for the country? As the author argues in this paper, EU economic sanctions against Iran are considered violations of the three main generations of human rights and are therefore unwarranted. Given this, the resumption of sanctions since 2018 would lead to a human rights disaster in Iran. The effect of these sanctions will not affect the Iranian government, but the Iranian civilians, especially the vulnerable, which will undermine their human dignity.

In view of the EU’s position in international policy arena and its evolving foreign relations with I.R.I, this research first attempts to elucidate the background of EU-I.R.I foreign relations as well as the EU foreign policy towards Iran and then proceeds to address the importance of Iran for the EU. Efforts have also been put into giving an account of the US role in convergence and divergence of such relations followed by examination of the EU and the Middle East, Iran and WMD as well as issues of human rights and democracy in Iran-EU relations. However, due to interruptions in discourse making in all fields of Iran-EU foreign relations, it seems that these two important actors have not utilized the available opportunities in political terms with significant impacts on their bilateral commercial and economic ties.

US- Iran relations were special and strategic ones and after the Islamic revolution and upon suspension of diplomatic ties, these relations were replaced by a sustainable enmity and hate even after four decades. This matter is unique in the history of diplomatic relations. Based on the direct and face to face negotiations between Iran and the United States regarding nuclear issues in the 11th government, the necessity of the analysis of the factors contributing to the continuous conflicts between two countries has attracted the attention of the researchers and scientists in the field of international relations and has posed the question as to why even four decades after Islamic Revolution, the two countries have failed to establish a rational, logical and free from slogan relations. This question can be addressed from various viewpoints including nuclear deal, terrorism, Middle East peace process and human rights. The aim of the present study is to investigate the role of the human rights’ issue and its effect on the US – Iran relations, with a descriptive-analytical manner, hypothesizing that this issue has no noticeable weight and importance in the continuous conflict between two countries .To confirm this hypothesis, human rights situations in Pahlavi era are considered and compared with similar situations in Islamic Republic, and then their contribution to the US – Iran relations is analyzed . A historical - analytical method is used to explain the evidences and findings .

The present paper is an attempt to integrate the concept of human rights in relation to tourism discourse and international laws and relations. In pursue of development, human rights are often mistreated while constantly supporting it will be more advantageous in long run. Economic development and prosperity of humans are among the most valuable motives for working on tourism development. It seems that there is no universally accepted definition of human rights but they are the basic standards without which people cannot live with dignity (D’Amore, 1988). This paper examines the effects of tourism and international laws relations on human rights to finally arrive at a comprehensive picture of this relation. In this regard, practical suggestions and guidelines of human rights for tourism and international relations are discussed. It is concluded that tourism constant development is not achievable until human rights is respected in international law and relations.

In most target countries unilateral sanctions act as obstacles that deprive nationals of human rights, particularly economic rights. This descriptive-analytical study to assess the legitimacy of US sanctions from a human rights perspective, especially in relation to ICESCR, seeks to answer the following question: On what basis can the US government be committed to respecting the human rights of Iranians in imposing unilateral sanctions? It is necessary to prove the existence of such an obligation since a State is considered internationally responsible if it violates a proven obligation. As it assumes that all states have the commitment to cooperate for the fulfillment of human rights for all human beings, the findings of this study according to CESCR comments, show that obligations that are related to economic human rights including the obligation to respect and cooperate can be considered extraterritorial, as well. Regarding Iranians residing in America, the US government must respect and uphold these economic human rights in its territory and regarding the Iranians who are within a third country, a blend of (Extra)territorial obligations are raised for America and the countries in which Iranians reside.

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.

Since the adoption of the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam (CDHRI) in 1990, there was an ongoing debate between Western and Muslim states regarding the compatibility of its provisions with human rights standards. The adoption of Ten-Year Program of Action in 2005 was a turning point in the OIC human rights agenda. The establishment of the Independent Permanent Human Rights Commission (IPHRC) paved the way for the revision of the CDHRI in 2020 and it was described as a monumental success. This article shall review the in which the OIC has re-engaged to human rights after 30 years of controversies with a descriptive and analytical method. First, we will study the general framework of the revised Declaration and the challenges of the adoption process, and then we will evaluate the changes made in its content by comparing the two declarations. The paper concludes that the revised declaration may bring OIC human rights rhetoric in alignment with UN human rights language, nevertheless, the IPHRC failed to carry out its mandated task in bringing human rights standards in harmony with Islamic teachings and values, especially where it simply copied and pasted the text of international human rights instruments.

Discrimination and xenophobia are threats to peace, and in many occasions have led to armed conflicts. Similarly the UN Special Rapporteur on Racism, Doudou Diène finds racism and xenophobia, rather than terrorism, as “the most serious threats to democracy”. On the other hand, international struggle against non-discrimination, fascism and xenophobia, along with protection of minorities, has been concentrated on the racial and national aspects of vulnerable people, rather than the religious ones. This policy seems no more adequate when as Abdelfattah Amor, the former UN Special Rapporteur on religious intolerance states that “there are borderline cases where racial and religious distinctions are far from clear cut. Abdelfattah Amor adds, “apart from any discrimination, the identity of many minorities, or even large groups of people, is defined by both racial and religious aspects. Hence, many instances of discrimination are aggravated by the effects of multiple identities.” Similarly Diène refers to “the centrality of the amalgamation of the factors of race, culture and religion in the post-9/11 ideological atmosphere of intolerance and polarization.”

Over the past few years, two events have radically transformed American identity and global perceptions of America with respect to human rights. The first of these is the detention of “enemy combatants” at Guantanamo Bay and the second is the abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. This paper considers how Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib have altered the intellectual and popular perceptions of human rights in America and abroad. The paper argues that the very different reactions to these events in the US and abroad suggest a move toward a relativist view of human rights in the US, limited by necessity and legality, but a universalist approach to human rights abroad. Moving toward a common global understanding of necessity and legality is critical to the pursuit of universal human rights. The reactions to Guantanamo indicate a growing acceptance in the United States of a relative conception of human rights. In the winter and spring of 2003, United States military forces at Abu Ghraib prison committed a range of often gruesome violations of Iraqi prisoners.

Western discussions of human rights have led to the coalescence of two distinct positions regarding the fundamental, inalienable liberties that citizens should be able to enjoy as a matter of principle. The first, commonly known as the cosmopolitan perspective , asserts that one set of basic human rights is valid for all societies. The other claims that citizens of different societies may possess different sets of human rights, albeit ones that any thoughtful person would acknowledge to be essentially decent and appropriate to the cultural and historical circumstances of the community at hand. Among a great many prominent cosmopolitan theorists, David Held stands out as the most consistent and vociferous champion of a universalist conception of human rights. Arguably the most influential proponent of distinct packages of rights for various social milieux is John Rawls, whose controversial notion of the Law of Peoples explicitly calls on liberal societies to tolerate, if not actually respect, alternative ways in which a minimal cluster of basic rights might be articulated. This paper demonstrates first that these two, generally opposed poles of the debate over human rights have moved much closer to one another than one might expect.

The word dialogue comes from the Greek word ‘dialogos’ and is commonly used in the meaning of conversation between two people, two groups and/or communities or organizations. Dialogue is not a debate to win or lose or to convince the other of a particular way of thinking. Dialogue is communicative conversation that involves intensely creative process with a goal to create peaceful and respectful relations among participants and in a community. When religious communities or organizations nominate a representative to participate in the intra or interfaith dialogue, they make sure that their nominees are trained in the art of dialogue. First, that he/she represents the community and second, that if he/she is not trained in the art of dialogue they understand that there may be a negative impact on the intra-faith or interfaith dialogue. For a healthy intra-faith and interfaith dialogue, the organization or community representatives must be trained in rights, responsibilities and skills of dialogue. This paper will discuss some of those rights, responsibilities and skills essential for a successful dialogue in the light of those principles and guidelines initiated in the Qur’an and Sunnah.

India is home to a remarkable variety of religions, and a major challenge that the country faces today is that of conflict between various religious communities. This has taken on menacing forms in recent decades. Incidents of violence between Hindus and Muslims, in which often agencies of the state play a central role in directing anti-Muslim violence, have now become endemic in some parts of the country. This form of communal violence, generally instigated by right-wing Hindu forces, is sought to be given religious sanction and is also projected as a crusade to save the Indian “nation”, which is described and portrayed in Hindu terms. Communal violence and anti-Muslim pogroms in various parts of the country have resulted in mounting human rights violations, particularly of marginalised communities such as the country’s Muslims, who number more than 150 million.

"Human rights" as a fundamental issue in the present century has been a major parts of legal researches as well as one of the main features of democratic governments. Although it was theoretically first raised in the West but provoked various reactions from Islamic countries. In Iran, after the Constitutional Revolution, these issues were addressed. In a division, Shiite political thought can be divided into four sub-categories: political philosophy, political mysticism, political literature, and political jurisprudence. Because in Iran, Shiite jurists have always played a decisive role in various political, social, economic and cultural issues, it is necessary to refer to their opinion in this issue as well. Shiite jurists have also viewed Western human rights from three perspectives: denial, proof, and modification. Among Shiite jurists, the views of Allameh Jafari are interesting due to their special focus on this issue and the coherence of the issues raised by them. The main question pursues in this research is what is Allameh Jafari's view on human rights? This paper hypothesis is that Allameh Jafari, like most modern Shiite jurists, while accepting human rights issues, tries to adjust them according to religious sources and texts.