درخت حوزه‌های تخصصی

Background and Theoretical Foundations : The phenomenon of maritime piracy and maritime terrorism has long posed a persistent threat to international maritime security and the global economy. In recent decades, especially in the Gulf of Aden, Bab el-Mandeb, and northern Indian Ocean, piracy has evolved into a transnational organized crime with political, military, and economic implications. The Islamic Republic of Iran, relying on its strategic naval doctrine and regional maritime presence, has taken an active role in combating piracy, particularly through the operations of the Islamic Republic of Iran Navy (NEDAJA). This study draws upon international criminal law, international public law, customary law, and Iranian domestic legal frameworks to assess the legal, operational, and normative roles of Iran’s strategic navy in response to piracy and maritime terrorism . Methodology : The study employs a qualitative and comparative legal-analytical approach. It draws from a wide range of primary and secondary sources, including conventions such as the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the SUA Convention (1988), resolutions of the United Nations Security Council, Iranian national legislation, military doctrinal documents, and recent judicial reports. Additionally, scholarly literature and Persian-language defense and legal analyses were translated into English and used to frame the domestic response within broader international criminal accountability mechanisms. Case studies of Iranian naval interventions in piracy incidents over the last decade—especially the rescue of foreign vessels—are critically examined.   Findings : Iran’s navy has played a pivotal role in securing major sea lanes and protecting Iranian and foreign commercial vessels. Despite Iran’s non-ratification of UNCLOS, its practical compliance with international norms—including principles of universal jurisdiction and hot pursuit—demonstrates its functional alignment with international obligations. However, challenges remain in domestic law, including the absence of specialized maritime criminal courts, limited procedural clarity regarding extradition and prosecution of foreign pirates, and insufficient institutional transparency. Nonetheless, the Iranian legal system provides certain unique tools, such as military judicial authority over transnational maritime offenses, which enhance responsiveness . Conclusion : Iran’s strategic naval actions contribute significantly to regional anti-piracy operations, reinforcing its soft power and legitimacy in maritime governance. From the standpoint of international criminal law, these actions, when paired with reforms in legal codification and international cooperation, can enhance Iran’s role as a responsible maritime actor. The study recommends updating domestic criminal codes to explicitly criminalize piracy in accordance with international law, establishing maritime judicial training, and expanding bilateral treaties to facilitate extradition and mutual legal assistance .

The Iran-United States Claims Tribunal (IUSCT), throughout its operation, has successfully resolved a significant number of claims and disputes—including claims by nationals against the state and state-to-state disputes—within the sensitive legal and complex political milieus between Iran and the United States. Nevertheless, the Tribunal’s role in the international arena extends beyond this inter-state dimension: its awards and decisions, as widely acknowledged, have played a significant role in the development of law on a global scale, particularly in international arbitration, international investment, and international commercial law. A structured, analytical, and methodological study of the Tribunal’s impact on the development of law in the international arena necessitates an examination of its awards and decisions across various legal fields. These include contract law, international commercial law, and international law—particularly international investment law. The first step in such a study is to assess the status of the Tribunal’s awards and decisions in the international arena, particularly their precedential value, in order to ascertain the reasons for and mechanisms behind their influence on the development of law globally. This article, while clarifying that the awards and judgments of international courts and tribunals—including the IUSCT—are not generally binding precedent, seeks to demonstrate that these decisions may nevertheless serve as persuasive authority relied upon by other arbitral and judicial bodies on both procedural and substantive matters. The criteria for evaluating the nature and extent of this persuasive value are analyzed in this study. It is argued that the Tribunal’s rulings, as decisions rendered on diverse subject matters within the legal framework applicable to various other international commercial or investment disputes—and issued by an international claims tribunal with established external credibility and consistent internal jurisprudence— carry significant persuasive precedential value in the international arena.

The impacts of climate change pose a potential threat to peace as defined in the United Nations Charter. Currently, there are few concrete examples of violent conflicts directly induced by climate change, and our understanding of future projections remains limited. Many researchers contend that it is not climate change itself that precipitates conflict, but rather issues such as poor governance of water resources that serve as the primary drivers. This paper examines the competency of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) in addressing the effects of climate change to either mitigate the sources or enhance the sinks of greenhouse gases. Various recommendations have been proposed for the UNSC in its dealings with the adverse impacts of climate change. These include refraining from involvement, adopting coercive measures, resorting to military force, ending impunity for environmental crimes, requesting advisory opinions from the International Court of Justice (ICJ), imposing sanctions, opting for non-response, and utilizing legislative competencies or authorizing measures. However, given the existence of multilateral climate treaties and other relevant forums, immediate action by the UNSC may be unnecessary. Additionally, the withdrawal of certain Permanent Members from the Paris Agreement complicates the Council's ability to advocate for compulsory actions in support of climate initiatives.