international law

Climate resilience is referred to the social ability in the event of impulses and environmental degradation in pursuit of activities towards goals. Sustainability is established through adaptability and evolution. This will make communities less likely to witness large-scale emigration and the emergence of environmental asylum phenomena as a response to environmental hazards. The climate resilience thinking, in the context of modern urban ecology, enables the integration of human and ecological factors and understanding of the interactions between them, develops sustainability strategies with respect to identification of interactions. An important discussion about upgrading resilience is paying attention to the participation of the people and the civil society, and it is also necessary to educate people about the environment. Therefore, the present research was aimed at investigating the direct role of environmental education in climate resilience and its effect on environmental asylum phenomena using a descriptive method of documentary analysis. The findings of the research suggested that sustainable development and ultimately, climate resilience will be achieved when environmental information is disseminated among people and through the participation of people in preserving the community. The importance of this issue has not been neglected from the point of view of international law, and several international documents have also been dedicated to this issue. Since the occurrence and evolution of climate resilience and as a result the sustainable development of countries depends on environmental education as the main pillar of each society, it is necessary to take measures in order to increase the environmental awareness of the people.  

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.

During its historical life, the Caspian Sea has always been a safe place for many races, people, and governments. Unfortunately, humanity does not appreciate this valuable water zone and steps away consciously or unknowingly on the path to its destruction and demolition. Taking the path in this way is equal to obliterating the roots of the present generation and future generations. With the aim of evaluating the environmental security structure of the Caspian Sea, this research examines a new legal framework for this water zone. Moreover, the research also argued that the Caspian requires effective political and legal decision-making to achieve its ideal state both environmentally and economically or socially. Until the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, the Caspian Sea was dominated by the two governments of Iran and the Soviet Union. The intense asymmetry between power and resources between the two countries led to the unofficial and actual control of the region in the hands of the Soviet Union.

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.

One of the fundamental principles of the Islamic Republic of Iran in its foreign policy during the last four decades have  been to support the liberating movements, specifically the Islamic movements. This policy has been formed according to ideals of Iranians, and based on the Islamic worldview of the Islamic Republic of Iran and its revolutionary discourse. In fact, it has been emphasized in our constitutional law and other legal documents. On the other hand, support of these movements is not only in the direction of our national and ideological benefits, but also, according to completely lawful standards of international law and specifically human rights concerning fate determination and the right of lawful defense. In spite of all these facts, since the victory of the Islamic revolution, the Western countries and, following them, the Western media have continuously accused Iran of supporting terrorism and terroristic groups. This paper is going to explain the difference between these events and the terroristic groups according to international law, human rights and humanitarian principles.

Natural law-based self-defense draws its moral force given that it is used in the presence of an immediate threat, giving the defender government no time for deliberation and placing them in a dreadful situation where they must choose between using force in self-defense or losing their lives. The self-defense right is an essential human right that has existed and been recognised throughout history. It is accessible to both individuals and, as states formed, to states as sovereign entities. Self-defense confines rather than widens the area for public officials' discretion, unlike other criminal justice systems that fulfil important political purposes. It rejects public interest and public justification in favour of private ones. The problem to be investigated in this article is the right of self-defense can still be imposed by the state at the same time preserving the natural law in the country.  This article will analyse the view of the right to self-defense and jurisprudential analysis of the right to self-defense. The study is qualitative doctrinal research that derives its data from library-based sources. The article suggests that the state has the power to suspend our right to self-defense but certainly not extinguish it. A state may take away this natural law because of the welfare and safety of society. However, when facing immediate threat, natural law will be preserved as the State can't guarantee our safety is imminent

Exploiting the bed and subbed of the seas which are outside the governments’ sovereignty is always discussed since the countries severely need to these resources and the technological progress makes it possible to exploit these areas. Present study aims to respond this question that how resources of bed and subbed of the seas outside governments’ sovereignty are exploit based on law perspective, and how can analyze juridical attitude in this issue. In law perspective, according to the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Seas, these areas are the common heritage of humanity and International Seabed Authority is responsible in this field. In Islamic jurisprudence, exploitation of properties which do not belong to a specific person and freely are in access the public is named Anfal. But the bed and subbed of the seas are not included in any of the territories such as Dar al-Harb defined by the jurists, because no government have the right to claim sovereignty over these areas, and Dar al-Kofr is not in charge of these areas either. It is necessary to act based on international treaties and customary in such a situation. It means that Dar al-Islam is committed to act in accordance with existing international treaties and customary. Even if Dar al-Islam has not accepted any treaties regarding the bed and subbed of the seas, it is committed to implement international regulations based on international customary since international customary has known the bed and subbed of the seas outside the governments’ sovereignty as the common heritage of humanity.

Branches of international law closely concern international and non-international armed conflicts. So, these principles are tried to be operationalized in the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict. From the point of view of international law, the disputed region is recognized as a part of the territory of Azerbaijan, and no country has recognized the self-proclaimed Republic of Armenia there. Nagorno-Karabakh region belongs to Azerbaijan from the perspective of international law and based on the resolutions of the Security Council. This study is conducted to examine the legal aspects of the Nagorno-Karabakh crisis, seeking an answer to its legal implications. According to the results, Azerbaijan's rights to maintain its territorial integrity are undeniable and legitimate. However, the actions of the Republic of Azerbaijan, even in the context of defending its territorial integrity, should not pose a threat to the Armenian people of Karabakh. Referring to the acceptance of the principle of territorial integrity regarding the right of nations to self-determination in international law, any action against this principle is not legitimate, and the right to self-determination is accepted as long as the said principle is not violated.

American sanctions against Iran are one of the most extensive in terms of variety and extent . The most approved sanctions are unilateral against a country. While unilateral economic sanctions in an extraterritorial manner are considered a violation of the sovereignty of other countries in this regard.This research is done through analytical-descriptive methodGiri has studied the legal analysis of Iran's foreign investment embargo by the United States of America based on reliable research documents and international law jurisprudence. The findings of the research show that the restrictions caused by the unilateral US sanctions against Iran and the increase in investment costs can be considered as a serious obstacle to foreign investment in Iran. However, in 1991, the United Nations General Assembly strongly urged governments to end unilateral pressures. Also in the another one in 1996 called for the removal of such practices under the title "Elimination of economic pressure measures as a means of political and economic coercion".The American side in sanctioning Iran violates the principle of peaceful coexistence among governments, which requires respect for the political principles of international law, i.e. the legal equality of governments, non-interference, cooperation and friendship, respect for the independence and territorial integrity of governments among the members of the international community. This type of actions lacks legal and international validity due to the lack of legitimacy.