درخت حوزه‌های تخصصی

Contemporary Europe is undoubtedly a largely secular region where the notion that secularism and ‘progress’ are intertwined has long held sway. Religion in the public sphere is, for many Europeans, associated with emergent or conservative societies, whereas secularism is equated with modernism and seen as an indispensable component of modern governance. Recently, both domestic and European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) case-law has highlighted the obvious tensions that arise in the manifestation of religion in the European public sphere. While Article 9 of the European Convention on Human Rights affords everyone the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion (while allowing for certain limitations as imposed by domestic authorities), in matters related to religion, ECtHR has adopted a deferential attitude towards domestic authorities in the determination of the parameters of this right. This is reflected in the fact that it was not until 1993, some thirty-five years after the Court commenced operating, that a violation of Article 9 of the Convention was found. The Court’s jurisprudence on the Article is therefore somewhat troubling and nowhere is this more aptly illustrated than in the jurisprudence relating to the wearing of the Islamic headscarf. Recent case-law in fact suggests that in that the wearing of the headscarf is viewed both as being incompatible with the principle of gender equality and in direct opposition to the principle of secularism. Through the lens of recent Article 9 jurisprudence, this paper will assess the trends emerging in the European Court’s consideration of Islam. Discussion of relevant cases will include Dahlab v. Switzerland, Karaduman v. Turkey, Leyla Şahin v. Turkey, Refah Partisi (The Welfare Party) and Others v. Turkey as well as analysis of cases occurring at the domestic level, most notably the Teacher Headscarf Case of the German Constitutional Court and the English decision of R (on the application of Begum (by her litigation friend, Rahman)) v. Headteacher and Governors of Denbigh High School. This paper also seeks to challenge the ECtHR reasoning in the area of expression of religion (and particularly where that religion is Islam) by analysing the question of religion in the public sphere in the broader European context. There is in fact increasing evidence to suggest that Europe is undergoing a period of de-secularisation, a reality routinely ignored by the European Court of Human Rights.

Universal human rights suffer from a lack of consensus on the question: what kind of internal state organisation can actually take these fundamental rights adequately into account? The main intent of this article is to present a critical assessment of various modes of state–religion affiliation and their effects on the state’s scope for human rights compliance. A special focus will be on the right to freedom of religion or belief since this fundamental right is within this context most profoundly at stake. It will be contended that states which are organised in accordance with the principle of state neutrality can in principle fully comply with human rights norms; while states which identify themselves either positively with a single religious denomination or excessively negatively with religion have to be considered poorly equipped for both democratisation as well as optimal human rights compliance. The crucial issue of ‘multivocality’ of religions will be addressed as a contribution to the reform debate. Ultimately a case will be made for ‘the right to neutral governance’.

After dividing the sea as areas under the sovereignty and sovereign rights of the coastal states and High seas in  the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea, and as a result of the possibility of detaining some foreign vessels violating the rules governing these areas, this convention also has rules regarding the prompt release of these vessels and how Its implementation has been stated in the judicial proceedings of the Coastal Government. In this regard, cases have been introduced in the International Tribunal of Law of the Sea, whose analysis can be considered as a judicial procedure and a secondary source of the law of the sea in development. In this article, in addition to the analysis and review of the judicial procedure and the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea, Iran's internal rules have also been reviewed in this regard. This research seeks to answer the question, in addition to clarifying the various aspects of immediate release, what are the criteria for prompt release, and what are appropriate and reasonable bonds? The research method is descriptive and analytical, and materials have been prepared based on library and documentary studies.

The formation and activity of naval alliances formed in the waters of southern Iran may lead to a critical situation in the region and an increase in military tension between the naval units of the Iranian army and the military units of the coalition forces. In response to this question, the current research, what roles can the Navy of the Islamic Republic of Iran play in confronting naval coalitions? This research is applied in terms of purpose and qualitative in nature. For this purpose, qualitative data was collected by using a questionnaire and through semi-structured interviews with 12 experts and specialists of the Navy, and then by using the method of foundational data theory, the data were coded through three stages of open coding. Axial and selective coding was analyzed and the result was 8 general categories, which in the form of a paradigm model include causal conditions (building power at sea and confidence building at sea), axial category (maritime geopolitical position of Iran), conditions Background (naval knowledge and naval ability), intervening conditions (diplomacy capacities), strategy (development of oceanic navy) and consequence (strengthening of Iran's naval power) were introduced.

Arbitration, as a method of pacific settlement of disputes, is mentioned in Article 33 of the Charter of the United Nations, by which parties to any dispute endeavor to find a solution to eliminate their conflict. Yet, article 33 does not include other forms of arbitrations that the United Nations System deals with. International arbitrations are generally referred to as interstate arbitration, international commercial arbitration, and international investment arbitration. Although these arbitration-based methods of international dispute settlement are different, they all observe the same goal: the settlement of disputes by peaceful means and preventing the parties from resorting to adverse behavior. Due to their common goal, it calls the role of the United Nations in promulgating international arbitrations among its member States into question: Has the UN had any bold involvement in promoting and strengthening international arbitrations in the abovementioned fields? It seems that the influence of the UN on interstate arbitration is undeniable because of its main goal and principles; however, this article depicts that the UN policy regarding international arbitrations adheres to the forming and developing international commercial arbitration and international investment arbitration rather than inter-state arbitration. The UN also plays a mediocre role in developing thematic-oriented international arbitrations.

The South China Sea, along with the Korean Peninsula and the Taiwan Strait, is described as one of the three hotspots in East Asia because of its potential for conflict of interest and threat to peace and security. Therefore, the issue of its borders is of international importance. As a quasi-closed sea, it is home to numerous small islands and cliffs, as well as abundant living and non-marine reserves, as well as providing key maritime routes for commercial navigation. For these reasons, the sea has become the target of conflict between coastal countries and its neighbors. In this sea, the main issues in dispute are: 1- Border disputes over the determination of the lines of origin, the boundaries of the territorial seas and also the exclusive economic zone2. Territorial disputes over several islands, including the Paracel and Spratly archipelagos. Because of its superior power, as well as some unproven historical claims, China sets the nine-dash as the final line of its sovereignty, some of which extend as far as the coastal sea. The United States and the countries bordering the South China Sea strongly oppose this, as well as China's historic claims. The littoral states of the South China Sea consider the historic claims and the nine-dash claimed by the Chinese government to be contrary to the laws of the UN Convention. The United States, as a trans-regional player, also provides diverse support to coastal countries. In this research, with a descriptive analytical approach and using new sources, the disputed issues between the claiming countries have been studied and the role of the United States in terms of geopolitical competition has been analyzed.

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. 

The peaceful use of the various territories of the international community, including land, sea, air, and outer space, is one of the basic rules of international law, and the prohibition of the use and threat of force based on paragraph 4 of Article 2 of the United Nations Charter is one of the mandatory rules.None of the members of the United Nations have the right to resort to force in the seas and non-peaceful maritime activities. Although the 1982 Montego Bay, Convention on the Law of the Sea was drafted for peacetime, this does not mean that the aforementioned convention loses its validity and executive power when armed conflicts occur.In this research, using the analytical descriptive method, a review of the behavior of the United States in the peaceful use of the seas from the point of view of the United Nations Charter and the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea and the authors' analyzes has been done.The findings of this research show that the US government, according to the statements issued by this country, which have been prepared in line with the interests and oceanic policies of this sea power, has provided interpretations or perceptions regarding the maritime activities of the US in relation to the 1982 convention, which can endanger the peaceful use of the seas.The approach of the United States through the seven positions that have been examined in this brief article indicates that this country allows its military activities in order to secure its interests and is not subject to dispute resolution methods and peaceful goals. It does not consider the 1982 Convention as its legal obligation.   Therefore, the US wants absolute freedom of navigation in all sea areas. Naturally, this approach of a maritime power cannot be a suitable basis for guaranteeing the peaceful use of the seas and institutionalizing maritime diplomacy. 

Universality of common human values embedded in declarations and international treaties supposed to be evident in the international human rights legal system but it does not mean that there were no intellectual discrepancies behind those instruments. Universality of human rights has its roots more than anything on theories of Jhon locke's natural law and Immanuel kant's rational ethics . But one of the earliest philosophers of opposition side against unity of human nature and universal morality at the embryonic stage was Nietzsche . Bringing forth the theory of will to power by adopting a psychological genealogy method Nietzsche distinguished between two moralities: Masters Morality and Slaves Morality . He attributed human rights as slave morality. Slaves revolted with the spirit of resentment and womanish deception against masters then introduced their own qualities as standard and universal . The Rise of Christianity and the Great French Revolution are amongst two biggest examples of such slave revolt in morality. With such a presupposition, trying by any effort to reconcile human rights morals with Nietzschean views seems to be unachievable. While reviewing past philosophical challenges, this article tries to analyze necessity of co-existence both international human rights legal system and Nietzschean world from a new perspective.

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 “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.