درخت حوزه‌های تخصصی

Marriage, as a social institution with inevitable legal consequences, brings about legal effects within any legal system and has historically constituted a primary source of conflict of laws in Private International Law. This article examines the issues arising from these effects comparatively, aiming to elucidate how familial interactions, specifically marriage, influence questions of nationality, among which dual citizenship is a well-known phenomenon. In Nigeria, marriage is not strictly codified; the domestic legal order officially recognizes three distinct types: customary, Islamic (Shariah), and statutory marriages, each governed by its own legal regime. Internationally, however, the Nigerian government only recognizes only the statutory marriage,  by virtue of its formal registration. As a result,  marriages contracted under customary or Shariah law are more vulnerable to legal issues on the international stage. These issues have prompted many couples in Nigeria to opt for the so-called “double-decker marriage,” a combination of two marriages: a customary or shariah marriage along with a statutory marriage, mainly to reduce international legal complications by securing a state-issued marriage certificate. In Iran, by contrast, the legal landscape is markedly distinct. The State recognizes only one form of marriage: statutory marriage. Iran maintains a stricter stance on nationality issues, ensuring that public order, legislative intervention when needed, and state prerogative are consistently upheld. Everyone in the country, regardless of religion, sect, or custom, must follow this one mode of marriage. Notably, failure to register a “permanent marriage” ( nikah da'im ) in Iran is a criminal offense punishable by law. A  noteworthy commonality between the two jurisdictions is the influence of Shari’ah law, although each follows a distinct school of Islamic jurisprudence ( madhhab ). In family law, especially marriage, the legal schools of both nations share many similarities.

Background and Theoretical Foundations: Water is a fundamental necessity for life, underpinning public health, social well-being, and sustainable development. Over the last decades, the international community has progressively recognized access to safe and sufficient water as a human right, formally acknowledged by the United Nations General Assembly in Resolution 64/292 (2010) and further elaborated in General Comment No. 15 of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. This right encompasses not only physical access to adequate water for personal and domestic uses but also its quality, affordability, and non-discrimination in distribution. The theoretical framework for understanding the right to water draws upon human rights law, environmental law, and principles of sustainable resource management. It also requires balancing individual rights with collective stewardship of a finite resource in the face of population growth, climate change, and competing sectoral demands. Methodology: This study adopts a qualitative, comparative, and normative approach. Primary legal instruments, including international treaties, soft law instruments, and national constitutions, were analyzed alongside secondary literature on water governance and human rights. A doctrinal legal analysis was employed to interpret the scope and content of the water right. At the same time, a comparative policy review examined regulatory models from selected jurisdictions representing different water management traditions. Case studies from South Africa, Brazil, and Spain were used to illustrate diverse legal and institutional mechanisms. The research also integrates perspectives from development studies, public policy, and environmental economics to assess regulatory effectiveness. Finding: The analysis reveals that, although the water right has been normatively affirmed, its implementation varies significantly across different legal systems. Effective realization depends on three interrelated factors: (1) constitutional or statutory entrenchment of the right, (2) robust regulatory institutions with clear mandates, and (3) adequate financial and technical capacity to manage supply and quality. Countries that embed the right to water within broader water resource management strategies tend to achieve more equitable and sustainable outcomes. Conversely, where water governance is fragmented or overly market-driven, disparities in access persist, especially for marginalized populations. Policy coherence, participatory decision-making, and transparent monitoring mechanisms emerge as critical drivers of success. Conclusion Recognizing the right to water as a human right is a necessary but insufficient step; its realization demands an integrated regulatory framework grounded in equity, sustainability, and accountability. States must align water policies with human rights obligations, invest in infrastructure, and ensure inclusive governance processes. As climate variability intensifies and water stress increases, the legal and policy architecture protecting water rights will be central to safeguarding health, livelihoods, and environmental integrity. International cooperation, knowledge-sharing, and innovative financing will be essential in bridging the gap between normative commitments and practical outcomes.  

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 .