درخت حوزه‌های تخصصی

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. 

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 “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.

According to Article 7 of the Rome Statute, the crime of Apartheid refers to actions, policies, and courses of conduct with the purpose of maintaining an institutionalized regime of systematic racism and racial domination. Based on this definition, the word "Apartheid" will not only refer to the historical regime of South Africa (1948-1994) but is also recognized as a crime against humanity on par with torture and slavery. Due to certain similarities in legal systems and roots of establishment, Israel and the Apartheid Regime of South Africa have been considered to be analogous in various international documents sponsored by the United Nations until 1991. This study aims to analyze the historical rationale behind this recognition and the reversal of course by the United Nations General Assembly, which was initiated with the revocation of A/RES/3379 resolution (the equation of Zionism with racism). Furthermore, in the light of recent developments on domestic and international levels, it seems several unaligned trends are gaining ground in this respect to reaffirm the previous attribution of the crime of Apartheid to Israel. Through using E-Library data and employing the descriptive-analytical method, the veracity of the said trends, their projection, and their perseverance will be further discussed in this paper.

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.

The sea pathways are extensively considers as a way to reach a safe zone for the forced people, who their lives are threatened for many reasons. A large number of the irregular migrants, asylum seekers and refugees are drowned daily in the sea, particularly in the Mediterranean Sea. The numbers of the deaths are worrying and alarming. It requires urgent and effective actions by States to prevent this disastrous human crisis. This paper through descriptive and analytical research method through a qualitative research examines the international legal framework for the protection of irregular migrants, asylum seekers and refugees’ rights and focuses on two essential rights of their rescue at sea and its related right of non-refoulement. The paper concludes that the security and military ironic measures of the coastal States, particularly those of certain European States, are considered as a serious risk for the rights of the people trafficked through the sea in order to be moved from the place of danger to a safe zone. Accordingly, States must play a more responsible role in assisting and protecting the desperate irregular, asylum seekers and refugees at sea in order to guarantee their fundamental rights.