درخت حوزه‌های تخصصی

The attribution of conduct to a state in international law, particularly in international claims, is a fundamental and complex subject that determines how states are held accountable for the actions of non-state entities. While the general principle is to attribute the conduct of state organs to the state, under specific circumstances, the conduct of non-state actors may also be attributable to the state, contingent upon the state’s control or direction over those entities. The standard of control, particularly in the practice of the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal (IUSCT/ Tribunal), is a critical aspect in determining state responsibility. The IUSCT maintains that for a state to be held responsible for the actions of non-state entities, it must be proven that the state exercised effective control over those actions. This control requires an examination not only of the mandates and statutes of the non-state entities but also proof of the state’s direct influence on their operations. In cases involving the Islamic Revolutionary Committees and private entities, the Tribunal has considered clear indications of state responsibility, especially when tangible state control and direction have been established. For instance, in conditions of chaos such as during a revolution, a state cannot evade its responsibility by citing the prevailing disorder; however, at the same time, for the acts of private entities to be attributable to the state, mere state ownership is insufficient. The Tribunal emphasizes that it must be proven that the actions of the non-state entities were carried out pursuant to the state’s instructions or under its direction. In summary, the IUSCT strongly emphasizes the necessity of “effective control” and a causal link between this control and the violation of international law to prevent the undue imposition of responsibility on states.

The inherent difficulties of designing and executing good public policy are not restricted to modernity or any specific political system. Many of these difficulties were pondered and discussed even in the ancient world. Today, Public Policy Education (PPE) has turned into a primary necessity, and more than any time in recent history needs to be promoted globally. PPE could empower citizens to assume a more effective role in good governance through understanding how governmental decisions directly impact their lives. The promotion of PPE can lead to the overall of promotion of good governance, as it can progressively enhance civic agency, limit excessive state control, and reinforce democratic principles. This study examines the origins of public policy fundamentals and argues that they are not inherently tethered to the American context. It posits that public policy educators around the world can, and indeed should, develop their own curricula based on similar broad outlines and comparative studies. Establishing PPE worldwide is paramount, and one effective method is to immerse students in real-world policy challenges from diverse global settings. This paper – employing a descriptive-analytical method and illustrating its application through two bilateral treaties on water rights (US-Mexico and Iran-Afghanistan Water Treaties) – further highlights how other real-world case studies from international organizations, such as the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), can expose students to practical policy challenges. The paper seeks to address a central question: Can Public Policy Education effectively promote good governance? Findings suggest  that PPE holds significant potential for cultivating a globally informed and engaged citizenry. This is particularly vital given the widespread perceptions of governance failures in numerous states; an educated populace familiar with universal principles of good governance can tackle complex policy issues more effectively than current state structures.

Protest is one of the ways to express diverse viewpoints in society and critique the status quo. This article examines the interdependence between two foundational rights within international human rights law namely the right to freedom of expression and the right to freedom of peaceful assembly on one side and the right to protest on the other. Drawing upon Hohfeldian jurisprudential analysis, the study challenges the treatment of these rights as separate legal entitlements and instead argues that they function in a mutually reinforcing framework essential to democratic participation. The article approaches this relationship in two stages: first, by analyzing the connection between the right to protest and freedom of expression as a form of dissent-based communication; and second, by examining how freedom of peaceful assembly enables protest to manifest collectively and publicly. To conceptually integrate these dimensions, the article introduces the term Collective Protestive Expression, a construct that reframes protest as a communicative act rooted in expression and amplified through collective assembly. Unlike conventional understandings of protest as either political reaction or public disorder, this term positions protest as an essential rights-based practice and an expression of democratic citizenship. The article concludes that recognizing protest in this way provides both conceptual clarity and normative strength, especially in contemporary contexts where protest is increasingly restricted. By identifying protest as a product of the interplay between expressive and associational rights, this study offers a more holistic framework for understanding, protecting, and promoting protest within democratic legal orders.

Trade secrets have gained unprecedented importance in all fields of industry and have emerged as a critical component of many firms' intangible assets following the big changes seen during the past decades. Achieving and preserving a competitive advantage over competitors is vital for many enterprises and trade secrets are an essential means for fulfilling this goal. Nevertheless, the mere possession of valuable trade secrets is not enough. There must be adequate safeguards by trade secrets holder, and more importantly, effective legislative measures are necessary to ensure the secrecy of such information. In an attempt to accomplish this task, the Iranian legislator has provided for protection of trade secrets in a specific chapter of the new Act on Industrial Property. This paper, employing a descriptive-analytical method, examines the definition of trade secrets articulated by the Iranian legislator and compares it with the definitions enshrined in two main American statues and the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). The analysis concludes that while the Iranian definition is an appropriate step forward, when compared to the U.S. and TRIPS counterparts, it remains imperfect in certain material respects and consequently requires amendment.