University of QomIranian Journal of International and Comparative Law2980-92823220251201"Soft Law"; The Nature and Existence of Soft Law in International Law: Real or Unreal400910.22091/ijicl.2025.13781.1179ENSeyyed HosseinMousavifarAssistant Professor of International Law, Department of Criminal Law &amp; Criminology, Faculty of Law and Political Sciences, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Iran0009-0005-0406-9712Seyed FazlollahMousaviProfessor of International Law, Department of International Law, Faculty of Law & Political Sciences, University of Tehran, Iran0000-0002-2249-5943Journal Article20250902The term "soft law" represents a comparatively recent conceptual development in international law, denoting rules and principles that are currently non-binding, inchoate, or predominantly politically motivated. The nature and extent of such norms are intrinsically shaped by political contexts and developments, which may appear to lie beyond the legal domain. Nevertheless, the term of <em>soft law</em> is not used in a vacuum devoid of a legal community and system; to do so would it strip of meaning and applicability. Instead, it is invoked in contexts where it has been scrutinized within the fabric of the international community and the international legal system. A pivotal issue in analyzing these norms is whether such a designation corresponds to a genuine legal category or is, in fact, illusory. In this article, we carefully examine this term, the context underpinning the proposal and establishment of such norms in international law, and assess it through the lens of general principles. We contend that the designation "soft" is inapposite and argue for its unreal character under certain conditions. The central thesis advanced herein is that no substantive distinction exists between "soft law" and "hard law"; rather, the rules and principles in question should be analyzed through modern insights and interpretive methods stemming from societal developments. Consequently, the use of dichotomous terms such as "soft" or "hard" - and the demarcation between rights and laws - becomes otiose, highlighting the significant role of general principles and their interplay with such norms. Although certain doctrinal approaches and schools (such as the New Haven School) have not engaged in the etymological and pathological analysis of this concept, they have nevertheless treated it as a component of a political governance system, resulting in a blurring of the precise boundary between law and politics.https://ijicl.qom.ac.ir/article_4009_c31d56101ca775b68186423f8479e1f3.pdfUniversity of QomIranian Journal of International and Comparative Law2980-92823220251201Exhaustion of Local Remedies and Mixed Claims in International Law: An Analysis of International Court of Justice Jurisprudence401010.22091/ijicl.2025.13245.1172ENMatinAmiriAllameh Tabataba'i University, Tehran, Iran0009-0003-7094-2693Seyed GhasemZamaniAllameh Tabataba'i University, Tehran, IranJournal Article20250806The rule of the <em>exhaustion of local remedies </em>serves as an indispensable prerequisite for the admissibility of claims invoked in various fields of international law, including<strong> </strong>the law of diplomatic protection and international human rights law. A State may invoke the responsibility of another State for injuries suffered by its nationals by exercising diplomatic protection, subject to the satisfaction of certain conditions. Where the legal basis for an application instituting proceedings is predicated upon injury to both the direct rights of the State and the derived rights of its nationals, the characterization of the claim becomes complex. In such instances of "mixed claims," the jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice (the Court, ICJ) applies a "preponderance" test to determine whether the claim is essentially founded upon an injury to the State or to its nationals. Should the claim be determined to relate preponderantly to the interests of the national, its admissibility before the Court is contingent upon the prior exhaustion of local remedies, a fundamental condition for the exercise of diplomatic protection. This article analyses the approach of the ICJ to the exhaustion of local remedies rule, with a particular focus on its jurisprudence concerning mixed claims, to clarify the underlying rationale for the Court’s determinations on admissibility.https://ijicl.qom.ac.ir/article_4010_8fd54c34c4abfc9cc7da4fcf2cc556a8.pdfUniversity of QomIranian Journal of International and Comparative Law2980-92823220251201The Standard of State Control in Attributing the Conduct of Non-State Actors in International Law: A Review of the Practice of the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal401110.22091/ijicl.2025.11928.1126ENSaraRezaeiDepartment of International Law, Law faculty, University of Qom, Qom, IranMostafaFazaeliProfessor of International Law, Law faculty, University of Qom, Qom, IranJournal Article20241216The 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.https://ijicl.qom.ac.ir/article_4011_88ac872ee4ad9dac2f23fa6a4279f841.pdfUniversity of QomIranian Journal of International and Comparative Law2980-92823220251217A Comparative Analysis of State Criminal Liability for Environmental Crimes: Challenges and Approaches in the Criminal Law of Iran and France401210.22091/ijicl.2025.14088.1189ENSeyed HosseinJalali AkerdiDepartment of Law, CT. C., Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.0009-0009-2597-6142SadeghMoradiDepartment of Law, CT. C., Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.0000-0002-6436-8416YasamanKhajeh NooriDepartment of Law, CT. C., Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.0009-0007-0644-5309Journal Article20251007Environmental crimes have emerged among the foremost international challenges, with states assuming a decisive role in their emergence, perpetuation, and deterrence. While governments bear a statutory duty duty to protect the environment, developmental policies and regulatory decisions may, directly or indirectly, facilitate the proliferation of such crimes. This study conducts a comparative analysis of the criminal liability of state for environmental crimes within the legal systems of Iran and France. The central research question is: To <em>what extent can states be held criminally liable for environmental crimes, and what </em>principal distinctions characterize the approaches of these <em>two legal systems?</em> The operative hypothesis posits that in Iran, state liability remains predominantly confined to administrative and civil spheres due to insufficient criminalization, whereas France has developed a more coherent juridical framework acknowledging the potential criminal liability of public legal persons. Methodologically, the study adopts a descriptive-analytical approach, utilizing library and documentary resources, within a comparative criminal law framework informed by theories of corporate criminal liability. The findings indicate that reforms within French criminal law, particularly within specialized environmental statutes and the Penal Code, enable the prosecution of public institutions and, under certain circumstances, state entities for environmental violations. French jurisprudence has further elaborated the doctrine of corporate criminal liability to enhance environmental protection. Conversely, the Iranian system remains principally oriented toward civil and administrative remedies, hampered by deficient enforcement regimes and substantial legal ambiguities regarding the recognition of the state as a a subject of criminal liability. This study concludes that Iran necessitates a revision of its legislative framework, incorporating insights from the French experiences, to reinforce its criminal policy for effective environmental protection.https://ijicl.qom.ac.ir/article_4012_4acec920f3136eafb69232f3e6c72224.pdfUniversity of QomIranian Journal of International and Comparative Law2980-92823220251201Modern International Approaches to Victims’ Right to Information: Understanding Major Legal Requirements401310.22091/ijicl.2025.13180.1163ENElham GhavidelShahrakiPh.D. Candidate in Criminal Law, Department of Law. Islamic Azad University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran.0009-0004-3536-9446Moosa AkefiGhazianiDepartment of Law, Payame Noor University (PNU), Tehran, Iran.0000-0001-8884-0773Journal Article20250610The protection of victims’ rights has long attracted significant academic and legal interest, finding expression in both international instruments and national legislation. Among these rights, the right to information occupies a central position, serving as a prerequisite for the meaningful exercise of all other entitlements within any justice system. Modern instruments such as the European Union Directive 2012/29/EU Establishing Minimum Standards on the Rights, Support, and Protection of Victims of Crime 2012 (‘Victims’ Rights Directive’), and the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights 2015, explicitly enshrine this right as foundational to effective victim participation and access to justice. Within this context, this article employs a qualitative methodology to examine how contemporary international instruments conceptualise and operationalise the victims’ right to information, and to identify the core legal and institutional requirements for its effective implementation across jurisdictions. Following an introduction, literature review, and theoretical framework, the study traces the historical evolution of this right, analyses mainstream international approaches, and outlines the key elements necessary for its adequate realisation in national legal systems. The analysis concludes that while international norms increasingly promote a more expansive and structured approach to victims’ right to information, several domestic frameworks - particularly in developing jurisdictions - frequently remain underdeveloped or inconsistent in their application. The article consequently argues<strong> </strong>that aligning national legislation, judicial procedures, and institutional support mechanisms with emergent international standards is essential to ensuring the full and effective enjoyment of this right by all victims of crime.https://ijicl.qom.ac.ir/article_4013_ffe2458d5f993995a254a6e9e558b2fc.pdfUniversity of QomIranian Journal of International and Comparative Law2980-92823220251201Fasting as a Duty: How Religious Fasting Can Support Global Food Security401410.22091/ijicl.2025.13266.1166ENGiancarloAnelloDepartment of Law, Political and International Studies, University of Parma, Italy0000-0002-3131-821XJournal Article20250702Despite the universal recognition of the right to food, global hunger remains a persistent crisis. Paradoxically, many of the world’s major religions incorporate fasting as a central practice, seemingly at odds with the fundamental need for sustenance. This essay explores this apparent contradiction, focusing on major religious traditions to examine the nuanced relationship between the right to food and the duty of fasting. It argues that religious fasting, far from undermining food security, can cultivate values such as self-abstinence, communal responsibility, and empathy for the hungry, indirectly supporting efforts to ensure more equitable access to food resources. Religious rules on fasting, in fact, can be instruments for managing the challenges of food insecurity. This paper analyses different meanings of fasting in religious laws, summarizing the altruistic view that underpins them. Moreover, this matter could be a point of the “strategy of dialogue” that is currently being developed in the EU under the umbrella of the Article 17 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. The ultimate goal is to demonstrate that religious duties can be considered as valuable legal resources in achieving global food security.https://ijicl.qom.ac.ir/article_4014_62b55ec45bea1f68f6e87a280931a71a.pdfUniversity of QomIranian Journal of International and Comparative Law2980-92823220251201Good Governance through Public Policy Education: Experiences from US-Mexico and Iran-Afghanistan Water Treaties401510.22091/ijicl.2025.12769.1154ENClayRamsaySenior Research Associate
Center for International and Security Studies, School of Public Policy
University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland, United States.JavadArabshiraziInternational Law, Faculty of Law, University of Qom, Qom, IranJournal Article20250417The 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.https://ijicl.qom.ac.ir/article_4015_402ea5a0ce9ed3c8e71f7b63a06167d0.pdfUniversity of QomIranian Journal of International and Comparative Law2980-92823220251201Collective Protestive Expression: The Nexus Between Freedoms of Expression and Peaceful Assembly and the Right to Protest401610.22091/ijicl.2025.12493.1144ENAyatollahJaliliAssistant Professor, Department of Public Law, Faculty of Law, University of Qom, Qom, Iran0009-0002-2070-0170MousaKaramiPh. D. in Public International Law, Faculty of Law, University of Qom, Qom, Iran0000-0002-7536-8972ArtinGhavamiBA in Law, Islamic Azad University, Qorveh Branch (Kurdistan), Qorveh, IranJournal Article20250305<strong>Abstract<br /></strong>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.https://ijicl.qom.ac.ir/article_4016_e3a89d0eb7863108fcf978465d79ce60.pdfUniversity of QomIranian Journal of International and Comparative Law2980-92823220251201Trade Secrets Definition in the New Iranian Act on Industrial Property with a Comparison to American Law and the TRIPS Agreement401710.22091/ijicl.2025.13031.1160ENSayyed Mohammad HadiGhabooli DorafshanAssociate Professor, Department of Islamic Jurisprudence and Principles of Islamic Law, Faculty of Theology and Islamic Studies, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran0000-0003-3227-2169MostafaFateminia (Bakhtiarvand)Associate Professor, Department of Private Law and Intellectual Property Law, Faculty of Law, University of Qom, Qom, Iran0000-0003-4308-2272Journal Article20250525Trade 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.https://ijicl.qom.ac.ir/article_4017_76c85fd584d88ea6a379e638de1dfbcf.pdfUniversity of QomIranian Journal of International and Comparative Law2980-92823220251201The Interplay Between Nationality and the Independence and Impartiality of the Arbitrator401810.22091/ijicl.2025.11768.1106ENAli AsgharRahimiUniversity of Qom, Qom, Iran0009-0009-0525-6236Seyed AliHosseini BalajadehInternational Trade Law, Faculty of Law, Allameh Tbatabaie University, Thran, Iran.Journal Article20241128Independence and impartiality are essential indicators for qualified arbitrators. However, the criteria for assessing these indicators differ among competent authorities when addressing challenges to arbitrators. One contentious aspect is the nationality of the arbitrators. By examining arbitration rules and issued decisions, a distinction was made between commercial arbitration and investment arbitration. The ICSID rules of arbitration explicitly mention common nationality with the parties as a criterion for challenging an arbitrator. The ICSID practice has also influenced investment arbitration outside of ICSID, given the significant role of nationality throughout investment law. Conversely, in commercial arbitration, the role of nationality is less pronounced, to the extent that the international character of arbitration in various legal systems is determined by the differences in the parties' places of business rather than their nationalities. Consequently, the nationality of arbitrators in commercial arbitration cannot solely serve as a basis for challenging an arbitrator without other supporting factors.https://ijicl.qom.ac.ir/article_4018_93ab0cbadd25e5ac4f28ba9b9ac3b574.pdfUniversity of QomIranian Journal of International and Comparative Law2980-92823220251201Protection of Foreign Investors in the Law of Iran and Saudi Arabia: Legal Guarantees and Dispute Resolution Mechanisms401910.22091/ijicl.2025.11733.1105ENMohammad JavadPakdel MoghaddamAllame Tabatabaei University, Tehran, Iran0009-0003-5707-9565Journal Article20241217This article conducts a comparative analysis of the legal frameworks for the protection of foreign investors in Iran and Saudi Arabia, focusing on legal guarantees and dispute resolution mechanisms. Given the crucial role of foreign investment in economic development, this research examines the transparency and sustainability of legal protections in each country and assesses the attraction of these frameworks for investors. Saudi Arabia has recently undertaken extensive legal reforms in alignment with its Vision 2030 to attract foreign investment, whereas Iran faces challenges due to economic sanctions and a lack of legal updates. Both countries provide varying degrees of legal guarantees against expropriation and dispute resolution mechanisms, including the possibility of arbitration. The new Investment Law in Saudi Arabia, set to take effect in 2024, aligns with international standards, reflecting a progressive approach to fostering a favorable investment environment. In contrast, Iran's Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Act (FIPPA), while offering fundamental protections, lacks comprehensive reforms comparable to those in Saudi Arabia. This study contributes to filling the gap in comparative research in this field and offers insights for improving investment policies in Iran.https://ijicl.qom.ac.ir/article_4019_710590e5f78152276216ca4b70b84e40.pdfUniversity of QomIranian Journal of International and Comparative Law2980-92823220251201The Effect of Marriage on Nationality: A Comparative Study Between Nigeria and Iran402010.22091/ijicl.2025.14068.1187ENYasirMaiwada Inuwa;BSc, Law, Faculty of Law, University of Qom, Qom, Iran0009-0005-7111-9951MohamadSetayeshpurAssociate Professor, International Law Department, Faculty of Law, University of Qom, Qom, Iran0000-0001-9647-9391Journal Article20251004Marriage, 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.<strong> </strong>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.<strong> </strong>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” (<em>nikah da'im</em>)<strong> </strong>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 (<em>madhhab</em>). In family law, especially marriage, the legal schools of both nations share many similarities.https://ijicl.qom.ac.ir/article_4020_ce442fa6f7444fe1080d3fed478ba616.pdfUniversity of QomIranian Journal of International and Comparative Law2980-92823220251201Transplantation, Religion and Law: The Experience of Interaction in the Islamic Republic of Iran402110.22091/ijicl.2025.13310.1206ENSergeyVyltsanThe Institute of Legislation and Comparative Law under the Government of the Russian Federation, Moscow, Russian Federation0009-0005-4855-5683Journal Article20251110<span lang="EN" style="font-family: 'Times New Roman',serif;">The present study is devoted to determining the relationship between religious and legal norms in the regulatory framework governing organ transplantation as a method of treating diseases in the Islamic Republic of Iran. It has been established that the set of normative acts regulating this field consists of the fatwas of the Supreme Leaders, as well as laws and subordinate regulatory legal acts. The author concludes that in contemporary Iran, religious norms – by legitimizing transplantation (including from unrelated donors and even from animals) – have been flexibly adapted to the needs of Iranian society. As a result of the study, the author finds that at the present stage in the Islamic Republic of Iran a balance has been achieved between the requirements of religion and legal norms in the regulation of transplantation. This balance has allowed the country to emerge as a world leader in meeting the demand for donor organs.</span>https://ijicl.qom.ac.ir/article_4021_ff06d45d3de4b03c50ef4c6d5059993d.pdfUniversity of QomIranian Journal of International and Comparative Law2980-92823220251201Book Review: Shared Obligations in International Law by Natasa Nedeski402210.22091/ijicl.2025.14206.1193ENSaeedMokhtariPHD Student of International Law, Department of International Law, Faculty of Law, University of Qom, Qom, Iran.0000-0001-7620-0058Journal Article20251013Natasa Nedeski’s Shared Obligations in International Law is a careful, conceptually ambitious monograph that fills an important gap in contemporary international-law scholarship by moving the debate about “shared responsibility” onto the terrain of primary obligations. Building on the SHARES research project, the book develops a positive-law concept of “shared obligations,” offers a systematic typology (most importantly: divisible vs. indivisible shared obligations), and maps the doctrinal consequences of this typology for performance, attribution and the secondary obligations of cessation and reparation. The argument is meticulously argued, richly illustrated with instructive case studies (Nauru, Eurotunnel, the Kyoto commitments, the Marshall Islands cases and others), and closely attentive to the ILC materials and the broader architecture of the law of obligations. The book’s chief value is conceptual clarity: by foregrounding the structure of the primary legal duty the author is able to show—persuasively—that how a duty is shared shapes who can be held responsible, what remedies follow, and how claims should be framed in adjudication. The monograph is essential reading for scholars, judges and practitioners interested in multilateral governance and international responsibility.https://ijicl.qom.ac.ir/article_4022_acf7ddd86aaa2eeb9abf13a6e731300c.pdf