درخت حوزه‌های تخصصی

Exploitation, Exploration and Extraction of the Area resources are subject to the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. States Parties to the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea are bound by its provisions to develop the Area economic activities. All states have a duty to prevent harm to the environment including the marine environment. The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea has general and ambiguous rules for the support of member states for the operation of sponsored contractors in Area. States are worried that they would be liable by sponsoring contractors from their Area’s actions. Eliminating the ambiguity of this concern is issue of Advisory Opinion that has been requested from the Seabed Disputes Chamber of the International Tribunal Law of the Sea to interpret the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. The main question is what are the obligations of the Sponsoring State in supporting the activities of the contractor in the Area based on Seabed Disputes Chamber of the International Tribunal Law of the Sea’s Advisory Opinion? Research findings show that Judges interpret the main concepts outlined in Part XI and XII of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, including due diligence, obligation to ensure, and obligation to achieve, argued that the Sponsoring State’s obligations to the Sponsored Contractor’s activities are obligation to ensure. The Sponsoring State advocates for the contractor to comply with the provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and the contracting parties, use appropriate instruments and endeavor to achieve maximum results and achieve these goals. Under these conditions, the responsibility for the damage by Sponsored Contractor to the Area environment is not borne to the Sponsoring State.

The conflict between sovereignty over parts of the sea and the necessity of "innocent passage" concept has been the most contentious field in the law of the sea." Two hypotheses in this field have collided in the history of international law of the sea. The first hypothesis is that every human possesses the seas together. "Navigation" and other operations are also allowed for all. Under the excuse of owning the sea, no state has the right to restrict other people's use. However, the second theory says that the sea is owned by someone who controls part of it, and its use can be limited. In international law, the "innocent passage" by foreign vessels from the territorial sea of a country is widely recognized. However, in some territories, the requirements for the "innocent passage" of military vessels include the need for prior notice or the coastal state's permission. Most forces, led by the US, believe in absolute freedom of the military vessel's "innocent passage." However, most Asian countries, including Iran, assume that they can prior notification or approval for a foreign military vessel passage. This activity was often resisted in operational as well as diplomatic phases by naval forces such as the United States. 

In today's world, countries choose to pursue their own interests in foreign policy, the most common and least cost of which is diplomacy, which, as an independent tool, is widely used in intergovernmental relations. In the discussion of environmental problems and protection of the marine environment, diplomacy is also considered a tool to advance the goals and interests of governments. In this article, the descriptive and analytical method of environmental diplomacy from conflict to cooperation is studied and analyzed. This research seeks to explain the pattern in the context of environmental diplomacy from conflict to cooperation. The findings of this study indicate that environmental challenges both on land and in the seas and oceans arise from climate change, changing rainfall patterns, expanding industry and agriculture, population growth, reducing resources, and increasing conflicts over natural resources and foundations. Biological, exploitation of natural resources in the form of deforestation, Desertification and uncontrolled marine hunting, use of various toxins to combat plant and animal pests to disturb the ecological balance and degradation of the aquatic and terrestrial environment on a local, regional, national, regional and global scale. Therefore, the need for environmental diplomacy to identify common threats and dangers to the global environment and efforts in the form of common commitments and to deal with these threats and dangers and to protect the environment and resources on Earth, the need for environmental diplomacy is inevitable. Environmental protection is also essential for the sustainable development of the seas. From this perspective, maritime and environmental diplomacy complements macro-diplomacy and provides policymakers with a wide range of tools and options. Finally, the activation of maritime and environmental diplomacy is an effective step towards sustainable development, especially sustainable maritime development in coastal countries.

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.

Today, advances in science and technology have increased human power to change the environment; This situation has endangered human survival. Sustainable development is one of the solutions to solve this challenge. The emphasis of sustainable development is on intergenerational commitment and intergenerational and intergenerational justice, quality of life and participation of individuals in the development process. Since international judicial authorities play an important role in the development of international law, it is important to address the jurisprudence of these courts in the context of sustainable development and its principles. This article analyzes some of the rulings of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea and states that in its decisions of the last two decades, the Court has made good use of the principles of sustainable development and revealed the normative element of the concept of sustainable development. The rulings of this court indicate the establishment of the position of these principles in the practice of this institution and its positive approach to the rights of future generations, while defending the interests of the current generation.

Often when speaking of supporting vulnerable victims, including women, everyone's offender-oriented approach turns to a specific criminalization or aggravation of punishment, however the question is whether such an approach is in the best interest of the victim and will lead to maximum support for her. It seems that constant recourse to criminal intervention is not only insufficient for stopping victimization of women, but sometimes criminal intervention apart from significant costs can lead to aggravation or recurrence of victimization.  It seems that providing extra-criminal protective options, decriminalization, or depenalization of behaviors that some women are forced to commit in certain circumstances provides better protection for women victims rather than focusing solely on criminal punishment. In this article, an attempt has been made to use analytical-descriptive method, while referencing the current criminal law and its shortcomings in protecting women victims, to suggest some measures such as decriminalization of abortion after rape or accepting extra-criminal options in crimes including domestic violence in light of restorative justice teachings as an alternative or supplementary approach.  

The right to attorney in judicial proceedings is one of the basic procedural rights that serves substantive rights. The question that can be raised here is “What is the meaning and characteristics of the attorney in administrative proceedings? Using a comparative and analytical method, the present article seeks to answer the above question. The findings of this article show that the British and Australian legal systems do not recognize the right to attorney in administrative proceedings as an absolute right. If the laws do not recognize the power of attorney in the administrative proceedings, it will be up to administrative courts. However, in cases where procedural fairness requires this right, the courts are sensitive to it in their judicial procedure. The procedure of the European Court of Human Rights also shows that the concepts of fairness of the proceedings and the right to attorney have been extended to administrative proceedings as well. In the Iranian legal system, the attorney is one of the basic procedural rights recognized by the Constitution and according to the approach of the Guardian Council, this right can be extended to administrative courts as well. The judicial procedure of the Court of Administrative Justice also confirms this approach and treats it as a judicial proceeding.

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.”