University of QomIranian Journal of International and Comparative Law2980-92824120260601The Interwar Otherwise: Rewriting Liberal Histories of International Law318444910.22091/ijicl.2026.14988.1225ENJeanD'aspremontProfessor of International Law, Sciences Po Law School and University of Manchester, England.Journal Article20251226This article critically examines the mainstream international legal narrative of the interwar period,arguing that it functions not as a neutral recounting of the past but as a strategic intervention thatgoverns the present. The conventional story—centered on collective security, codification ofrestraints on war, the mandates system, and minority protection—is shown to be a distinctlyliberal construction. It presumes a liberal concept of law and treats peace and security as law’snatural horizon, thereby sidelining the era’s competing legalities: economic ordering andtechnocracy, racialized governance and imperial extraction, social rights internationalism andlabor constitutionalism, emergency as a legal technology, and administrative internationalismacross finance, health, and trade. In this sense, the interwar as conventionally narrated is largelya self-description of liberal legalism, not a transparent periodization.The article advances twoclaims. First, that this narrative framing narrows what counts as international legality andnaturalizes particular institutional forms. Second, that in 2025—amid fraying constitutionaldemocratic orders, notably in parts of the Global North—we must reinvent our narratives. Thismeans foregrounding legal architectures that structured social conflict and authority beyondthe security frame: debt, trade, and resource governance; race and empire within internationaladministration; emergency and technocratic expertise; and rival internationalisms. Rewritingthe interwar is not antiquarian labor but a practical intervention to enable the strategic work ofhistory in constituting the horizon of the possible.https://ijicl.qom.ac.ir/article_4449_7382ec261280b0ae544bc7bf8a257fda.pdfUniversity of QomIranian Journal of International and Comparative Law2980-92824120260601Between Procedure and Substance: A Legal Analysis of the ICJ Judgment in Certain Iranian Assets (Iran v United States)1950444810.22091/ijicl.2026.15557.1242ENNasrollahEbrahimiAssociate Professor of International Law
Faculty of Law and Political Sciences
The University of Tehran0000-0002-4942-0431Journal Article20260228This article provides a legal analysis of the International Court of Justice’s judgment in CertainIranian Assets (Iran v. United States), a treaty-based dispute arising from legislative, executive,and judicial measures adopted by the United States. These measures, including amendments tothe Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, the Terrorism Risk Insurance Act, and Executive Order13599, enabled enforcement of terrorism-related judgments against assets associated with Iranianstate-connected entities. Iran argued that these measures breached the 1955 Treaty of Amity,exposing broader tensions between domestic enforcement mechanisms, sovereign control overstate-linked assets, and international treaty obligations in contexts shaped by economic pressureand national security policy. A central theme of the article is the interaction between proceduraland substantive dimensions of ICJ adjudication. It explains how the Court’s preliminary objectionsphase, particularly the 2019 judgment, functioned as a decisive procedural filter, narrowing thedispute to claims falling within the Treaty’s ratione materiae scope while excluding argumentsframed as violations of customary international law concerning sovereign immunity. Thisdelimitation significantly shaped the subsequent merits analysis and the remedies available. Thearticle also clarifies a common misunderstanding regarding the outcome. Although the disputewas publicly associated with the attachment of approximately USD 1.75 billion in assets linkedto Bank Markazi, the Court did not order their return. It held that claims advanced on behalf ofBank Markazi fell outside the Treaty’s protections because Iran failed to demonstrate that the bankengaged in commercial activities capable of bringing it within the Treaty’s concept of a protected<br />“company.” By contrast, other Iranian entities were found to fall within the Treaty framework, andcertain United States measures were held to breach obligations relating to juridical status, treatmentof companies, unlawful taking of property, and freedom of commerce. Finally, the article examinesthe Court’s rejection of the United States’ essential security defence and its approach to remedies,emphasizing compensation and the principle of full reparation following the Treaty’s termination.https://ijicl.qom.ac.ir/article_4448_e59656d2bb865c3d85f2bf4e4cb751c7.pdfUniversity of QomIranian Journal of International and Comparative Law2980-92824120260602The Role of the UN Secretary-General in Maintaining International Peace and Security: Focusing on António Guterres’ Performance5173448510.22091/ijicl.2026.14974.1227ENFatemehFouladiDepartment of Public Law, Faculty of Law and Political Science, University of Tehran, Tehran, IranElhamAminzadehDepartment of Public Law, Faculty of Law and Political Science, University of Tehran, Tehran, IranFatemehEisakhanDepartment of Public Law, Faculty of Law and Political Science, University of Tehran, Tehran, IranJournal Article20251227The Secretary-General of the United Nations, as one of the principal organs of the Organization,plays an important role in maintaining international peace and security. This role is definedon the basis of the express and implied powers of the United Nations Charter, as well asthe functions entrusted to the Secretary-General by the Security Council and the GeneralAssembly. Accordingly, the performance of Secretaries-General in different periods has takendiverse forms, influenced by prevailing international conditions and their individual personalcharacteristics. This research, conducted through a descriptive–analytical approach, examinesthe action capacities of the Secretary-General in the field of international peace and securityand, by reviewing the initiatives of previous Secretaries-General, analyses the performance ofAntónio Guterres. In this context, thirteen major crises during his term of office were identifiedand examined. The findings indicate that Guterres’s approach has largely been confined todiplomatic measures and political statements. His positions have often been characterized byunjustified delays, a cautious, conservative posture, the absence of clear identification of theaggressor and the defending party, and mere calls for the parties to exercise restraint, which,in certain instances, have resulted in partial and inequitable responses. Overall, in light of themultiplicity of international crises during Guterres’s tenure and the growing expectations ofthe international community for the United Nations to play an active and impartial role, hisperformance, in comparison with his predecessors, may be assessed as placing him among theweaker Secretaries-General.https://ijicl.qom.ac.ir/article_4485_b61b9f5a7acba0bfb3b8d6d1347b916d.pdfUniversity of QomIranian Journal of International and Comparative Law2980-92824120260601Sovereignty over Islands in the Light of the Jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice: A Case Study of the Iranian Three Islands in the Persian Gulf7491418310.22091/ijicl.2026.12960.1159ENSeyedeh MahdisAli RazavianMaster's degree student in international law, Faculty of Law, University of Qom, Qom, Iran0009-0009-1901-0552Mohammad SalehTaskhiriAssistant Professor, Department of International Law, Faculty of Law, University of Qom, Qom, Iran0009-0009-6768-6223Journal Article20250521Territorial issues are among the most sensitive issues in international law, where non-intervention and respect for territorial integrity are crucial. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has developed consistent jurisprudence emphasizing treaties, effective and continuous exercise of sovereignty, and tacit acquiescence in determining territorial title. This study applies these principles to the sovereignty of Iran over the three Iranian islands of <em>Abu Musa</em>, <em>Greater Tunb</em>, and <em>Lesser Tunb</em>. Although not formally submitted to the ICJ, the question of sovereignty over islands can be analyzed in light of the Court’s precedents, highlighting the significance of tangible governmental acts—administrative, military, economic, and legal—in establishing ownership. Mere historical claims without effective control hold little weight in international law. The findings indicate that Iran’s effective, manifest, and continuous sovereignty over the three islands consolidates its ownership, and the interruption caused by the British occupation does not impair this sovereignty and title. The UAE’s historical claims predating its establishment cannot be relied upon before the Court because the acts occurred during occupation (not colonial rule) and are inconsistent with historical and formal documents confirming Iran’s sovereign and ownership rights over the islands.https://ijicl.qom.ac.ir/article_4183_b9187a642ed4d7ea454f5770f2721af3.pdfUniversity of QomIranian Journal of International and Comparative Law2980-92824120260601International Constitutionalism Under Stress: Constitutional Fragmentation and Authoritarian Resurgence in Global Governance92117442710.22091/ijicl.2026.12404.1142ENAlirezaDabirniaDepartment of Public Law, Faculty of Law, University of Qom, Qom, Iran.0000-0001-7259-5427MehradMomenDepartment of Public Law, Faculty of Law, Qom University, Qom, Iran0000-0001-7860-6713Journal Article20250304This article examines the contemporary viability of international constitutionalism within anincreasingly fragmented global governance framework. Since 1945, Public International Lawhas undergone significant processes of constitutionalization, reflected in the development ofnormative hierarchies, institutionalized forms of governance, and universal human rightsregimes. Recent geopolitical developments, however, have exposed growing tensions withinthe international legal order. The renewed influence of authoritarian governance models, thedeclining effectiveness of multilateral institutions, and the increasing dispersion of internationalauthority raise fundamental questions concerning the coherence, legitimacy, and regulatorycapacity of international constitutionalism in the twenty-first century. The article examineswhether contemporary international law continues to operate as a constitutionalized legal orderor whether it is increasingly characterized by normative fragmentation, institutional contestation,and pluralized forms of governance. It argues that, although constitutional elements remainembedded within international law, their practical effectiveness is increasingly constrained bygeopolitical rivalry, selective enforcement practices, and competing conceptions of sovereignty,legitimacy, and international authority. Particular attention is given to developments in the MiddleEast, where armed conflict, humanitarian crises, and contested applications of internationallegal norms operate as significant stress tests for collective security mechanisms, humanitariangovernance, and international accountability structures. Methodologically, the article adopts adoctrinal and descriptive-analytical approach grounded in Public International Law. It draws upontreaty law, international jurisprudence, institutional practice, and constitutionalist scholarship,while also engaging with theories of constitutional pluralism and global governance. The articleconcludes that international constitutionalism has neither collapsed nor consolidated into afully autonomous global constitutional order. Rather, contemporary international law reflectsan ongoing process of constitutional transformation, characterized by fragmented authority,contested legitimacy, and pluralized governance structures operating amid persistent geopoliticaland normative contestationhttps://ijicl.qom.ac.ir/article_4427_9bfd7619e81176f60258eb3fb36e228f.pdfUniversity of QomIranian Journal of International and Comparative Law2980-92824120260601A Legal Study of Kidnapping of the President of Venezuela: Interventionist Policy of the United States during the Trump Administration118139445310.22091/ijicl.2026.15154.1230ENAlirezaKoohkanAssociate professor, department of international relations, Allameh Tabataba'i university, Tehran. IranSeyedeh LatifehHosseiniAssistant Professor, Department of Law, Faculty of Social Sciences and Economics, Alzahra University, Tehran, Iran.0000-0002-7882-331XJournal Article20260114State sovereignty constitutes one of the foundational principles of public international law,safeguarding political independence and prohibiting external interference in the internalaffairs of states. The disclosure of an alleged plan by the United States, during the Trumpadministration, to kidnap the President of Venezuela represents a contemporary manifestation ofcoercive conduct carried out through ostensibly non-military means. Situated within the broadercontext of escalating tensions between the United States and Venezuela and closely connectedto U.S. energy, economic, and security interests in Latin America, this case raises significantlegal questions concerning the scope of the principle of non-intervention and the applicabilityof international legal norms to covert and extraterritorial operations.The central objective ofthis study is to examine the legal nature of the alleged non-military kidnapping plot and assesswhether such conduct constitutes a violation of state sovereignty and political independence.Adopting a descriptive–analytical methodology, the article evaluates the legality of the allegedaction in light of the United Nations Charter, relevant rules of customary international law, the1973 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally ProtectedPersons, and the principles governing international state responsibility. The findings indicate thatthe kidnapping or attempted kidnapping of political leaders, even outside the context of armedconflict and in the absence of overt military force, entails an inherently coercive and interventionistcharacter. Such conduct constitutes a serious breach of state sovereignty, political independence,and the international legal protections afforded to heads of state, thereby triggering the actingstate’s international responsibility. The article concludes that the normalization of covert non-military coercive measures poses a substantial threat to the integrity of the international legalorder and highlights the urgent need to strengthen legal accountability mechanisms to safeguardthe principle of state sovereignty in contemporary international relations.https://ijicl.qom.ac.ir/article_4453_05fddd60b98ea36e828042dfa1449945.pdfUniversity of QomIranian Journal of International and Comparative Law2980-92824120260601Surveying the Rule of the Exclusion of Evidence in the Legal Systems of Iran and China140156437610.22091/ijicl.2026.14302.1199ENFatemeFallahnezhadAssistant Prof Department of law, Payame Noor University, Tehran, IranJournal Article20251022A fair trial that guarantees defendants’ defense rights requires that the reasons cited in thecriminal trial process be legal and in accordance with the standards of the trial. The necessity ofthe principle of obtaining evidence through legitimate and legal means in Chinese law, as a rule,and in Iranian law, in certain cases, to guarantee the principle of legality of obtaining evidence, inaddition to other law enforcement guarantees, the invalidity of investigations and extracting theevidence in case of non-compliance with the regulations is mentioned. The principle, titled “thePrinciple of Invalidity of Evidence,” holds that evidence obtained illegally by law enforcementor judicial authorities is invalid and excluded from evidence against the accused. Due to thenature of the subject, the present study is applied in terms of purpose and in terms of datacollection by documentary method and by studying valid laws and sources, and the obtainedinformation is analyzed descriptively-analytically. The comparison of the two penal systemsconfirms that the laws of both systems are ambiguous and inconsistent, and that the strategiesthey present are inadequate and, in some cases, have been criticized by lawyers, leading toconflicts of opinion and procedures and a lack of due process. For example, the lack of definitionand determination of the system of evidence refutation in the Iranian Criminal Procedure Code,and the lack of necessary seriousness in implementing the rule of evidence rejection in China.https://ijicl.qom.ac.ir/article_4376_c2dd6dce51a760a3fac8fee858959b3d.pdfUniversity of QomIranian Journal of International and Comparative Law2980-92824120260601The Constitutional Dimension of Interregional Cooperation in Europe with Reference to Italy157172448610.22091/ijicl.2026.14282.1198ENGiuseppeDi GenioLaw Faculty, University of Salerno, Italyorcid.org/0000-0001-6237-7346RezaFanazadlaw department,social sciences faculty,PNU University,Tehran,IranJournal Article20251020This essay is an introductory comparative study about the facts and available norms of interregionalcooperation in Europe with the focus on Italy legal system. Cross-border cooperation is a concertedprocess of building neighborly relationships between local stakeholders and authorities on eitherside of a border, with a view to overcoming such problems and fostering harmonious developmentof neighboring communities. Its success should be built on clear concrete objectives and thewillingness to cooperate. Cross-border co-operation does not entail conveying additional powersto border communities or authorities. Rather it is an efficient way for exercising local authoritypowers. Through cross- border co-operation, communities located in border areas may seek topromote the socio- economic development of the border area, develop economies of scale toprovide better services and widen cultural perspectives. Therefore, the capacities of Europe legaldocuments and programs in recent twenty years and last version of Italy constitutional law willbe analysed .The main findings could be abstracted in 1.Interregional cooperation and Europeanintegration; 2.The normative and jurisprudential context for the international cooperation of theItalian Regions; 3. (Italian) Regions and Euro-Mediterranean partnership;4. Requirements ofItaly Constitutional Law for Interregional Cooperation.https://ijicl.qom.ac.ir/article_4486_7ebee2fa486405bc926664fd711e713f.pdfUniversity of QomIranian Journal of International and Comparative Law2980-92824120260601Rethinking Human Rights and Global Governance: Inherent Rights of Nature, Ecosystems, Climate Migration, and Resource Exploitation173207442910.22091/ijicl.2026.16019.1250ENNafeesAhmad224, II Floor, South Asian University
Akbar Bhawan, Satya Marg, Chanakayapuri
New Delhi0000-0003-1791-3060Journal Article20260517Biological life has been in a state of perpetual crisis since its emergence; the crisis is ahistorical phenomenon related to human activity (shaped by industrialisation, urbanisation, andunsustainable consumption patterns). However, the concept of the rights of Nature is centralto the cultures of many Indigenous peoples (for whom Nature is a living relative, not a mereresource). The concept of Nature and its relationship to culture and history constitutes a vitalnexus for appreciating the rights of Nature and its ecosystems (since how a society definesNature determines how it treats rivers, forests, and species). This article addresses various issuesrelated to the reassessment of the inherent rights of Nature (IRoN). It addresses individual issuesinvolved in the IRoN trajectory to do justice to Nature (ranging from philosophical foundationsto procedural enforcement mechanisms). The primary argument is the “inherent rights of IRoN-driven principle of global governance” (meaning that Nature’s inherent rights should guideinternational decision-making, not merely supplement it). It is an unorthodox attempt to cover thediversity of global issues having a cascading impact on the IRoN (i.e., how each crisis amplifiesothers), along with population growth, climate change, war, and natural resource exploitation,as well as legal matters, including constitutional personality (granting legal personhood tonatural entities like rivers or forests), human rights (and their intersection with ecosystemrights), and global governance leadership (the role of states, international organisations, andcivil society in championing ecocentric policies), and new legal structures fostering fundamentalrights of Nature (such as environmental tribunals, ecocentric constitutions, and transnationalaccountability mechanisms).https://ijicl.qom.ac.ir/article_4429_8a1faa254f6eaa131c4c26f258edd4c3.pdfUniversity of QomIranian Journal of International and Comparative Law2980-92824120260601The Relationship between Criminalization and Liberty in Islamic and Western Criminal Law208227421210.22091/ijicl.2026.14729.1217ENZahraTavangarPhD candidate in Criminal Law and Criminology, University of Qom, Qom, Iran.AdelSarikaniprofessor in criminal law and criminology, faculty of law, Qom university, Qom, Iran.MortezaFathiAssistant professor, Criminal Law and Criminology, Faculty of law, University of Qom, Qom, Islamic Republic of IranJournal Article20251130This study is organized to explain the relationship between liberty and criminalization in the twocriminal law systems of Islam and the West, and seeks to examine, in a systematic manner, thefundamental question of the legitimate scope of criminal intervention in the domain of individualliberties. The central issue is under what conditions the legislator may remove human conductfrom the sphere of permissibility and place it within a binding criminal rule, and to what extentsuch intervention must be governed by foundational principles, criteria, and constraints that limitpenal authority. The findings indicate that in the Western system, liberty constitutes the primarynormative foundation and the principal criterion for restricting criminalization, and principlessuch as legality, proportionality, and necessity play a regulatory role; whereas in the Islamicsystem, liberty is intertwined with duty and collective welfare (masalih naw‘iyya), and rulessuch as “no-harm” (la zarar) and “removal of hardship” (raf‘ al-haraj), as well as the protectionof the five essentials (daruriyyat khams), determine the legitimate limits of intervention. Theconclusion is that although both systems avoid penal expansionism, their normative foundationsand justificatory logic differ, and this divergence is reflected in the level of criminalizationcriteria. Accordingly, the present study emphasizes the need to develop a measurable frameworkfor criminal legislation and to strengthen the standing of liberty within criminal policy.https://ijicl.qom.ac.ir/article_4212_187eec7fc351bfc1fdd2ef497135a4ef.pdfUniversity of QomIranian Journal of International and Comparative Law2980-92824120260523The Right to Repair Goods in Iranian and European Union Law228249444710.22091/ijicl.2026.13844.1180ENAhmadYosefzadeAssistant Professor, Department of Law, Azarbaijan Shahid Madani University, Tabriz, Iran (Corresponding Author)0000-0003-1708-2236SoroushRostamzad AsliShiraz university0000-0002-4912-4667Journal Article20250908The right to repair has emerged as a fundamental component of modern consumer protection,playing a crucial role in complementing consumer rights, ensuring contractual fairness, andpromoting environmental sustainability. This right not only guarantees that consumers canaccess adequate, affordable, and timely repair services in the event of product malfunction,but also empowers them to make informed choices and resist monopolistic control over after-sales services. This article adopts a comparative approach to examine the legal recognitionand scope of the right to repair within the legal systems of Iran and the European Union. Thefindings indicate that while certain sector-specific regulations in Iran—such as those governinghousehold appliances and motor vehicles—do incorporate limited aspects of this right, theabsence of explicit legal recognition, weak enforcement mechanisms, and the lack of mandatoryrepairability design significantly hinder its full realization. In contrast, the European Union hasformally recognized the right to repair through legislative instruments such asDirective(EU)2019/771 and theEcodesign Directive, alongside implementing circular economy initiatives.These measures have integrated the right to repair into the EU’s broader consumer protection andenvironmental policies. The article concludes that establishing a comprehensive and enforceableright to repair in Iran requires structural legislative reform, technical standard development, anda fundamental rethinking of after-sales service policies.https://ijicl.qom.ac.ir/article_4447_e68971aacac822a6276eec1e82caf520.pdfUniversity of QomIranian Journal of International and Comparative Law2980-92824120260601The Possibility of Considering Generative Artificial Intelligence as Author of Literary and Artistic Works250264438810.22091/ijicl.2026.15570.1243ENSayyed Mohammad HadiGhabooli DorafshanAssociate Professor, Department of Islamic Jurisprudence and Principles of Islamic Law, Faculty of Theology and Islamic Studies, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad, Iran0000-0003-3227-2169Journal Article20260310The use of Artificial Intelligence technology in different areas of human life has caused severalimportant legal challenges, which indicate an unprecedented development. Generative ArtificialIntelligence, which appears to be a creative form of this technology, is important from a literaryand artistic law perspective, since generating high-quality literary and artistic works is amongthe tasks it can perform. Such productions are similar to those created by human authors, andin some cases it is difficult to recognize that they were generated by Artificial Intelligence.Therefore, this paper addresses one of the most important challenges in intellectual property law:whether Generative Artificial Intelligence can be considered the author of the literary, artistic,and scientific works it generates. The results of this descriptive-analytical article show that,in the legal systems compared, the concept of author is currently restricted to human authors;consequently, it is not possible to consider Generative Artificial Intelligence as the author ofliterary and artistic works. Legislators are recommended to modify the laws to identify the authorof literary and artistic works created using Generative Artificial Intelligence while meeting theneeds of developers and users of this technology.https://ijicl.qom.ac.ir/article_4388_000fc44a346aeb5a8282a405451f45a9.pdfUniversity of QomIranian Journal of International and Comparative Law2980-92824120260601Iran's New Governance on the Strait of Hormuz under International Law265272448710.22091/ijicl.2026.16060.1252ENSeyed YaserZiaeeDepartment of International law, faculty of law, university of Qom, Iran0000-0003-0649-5318Journal Article20260520The strategic importance of the Strait of Hormuz is such that Marco Rubio, the U.S. Secretary ofState, has referred to it as an “economic nuclear weapon.” Iran’s fury following the U.S.-Israeli “Epic Fury” operation led to the blockade of the world’s economic artery in the Strait of Hormuz.Iran’s diplomatic apparatus and its leadership emphasize that what is occurring in the Strait ofHormuz is not a closure, but rather the “management of the Strait of Hormuz.” The questionis whether international law provides any legal grounds for defending Iran’s new governanceframework over the Strait of Hormuz. Descriptive and analytical assessments demonstrate thatthere are some legal justifications for Iranian practice in the Strait of Hormuz. Iran’s objectionsto the legal regime governing international straits even make it plausible that “non-suspendableinnocent passage” may not apply in the Strait of Hormuz. The prohibition on passage throughoutthe entire territorial sea applies to unauthorized military vessels, especially those linked to ahostile State, and to vessels engaged in non-innocent passage. The levying of transit tolls ongoods aboard vessels, or on the vessels themselves, may be defensible by invoking the doctrineof fundamental change of circumstances. The possible emergence of a particular regionalcustom could also justify the continued collection of transit tolls. The non-discriminatorylevying of charges for all maritime services, including those based on treaties such as COLREG,MARPOL, and SOLAS, is permissible. Compensation may also be collected by invoking thedoctrine of countermeasures and, potentially, the doctrine of necessity. Any Iranian action aimedat generating such economic revenue from the Strait of Hormuz on the Omani side would requireadditional legal justifications, such as designating the area as a “war zone” or designating Omanas a “hostile State” or “co-belligerent.” Invoking necessity could also assist Iran in this regard.https://ijicl.qom.ac.ir/article_4487_a1f3f39338a9b51cc56b0306b8b65782.pdfUniversity of QomIranian Journal of International and Comparative Law2980-92824120260601The Americanization of International Lawand the Strategies of the Islamic Republic of Iran by Seyed Ghasem Zamani276285451310.22091/ijicl.2026.16141.1254ENAbdollahAbediniFaculty Member of the Institution for Research and Development in the Humanities (SAMT)Journal Article20260527This book review examines Seyed Ghasem Zamani’s The Americanization of InternationalLaw and the Strategies of the Islamic Republic of Iran, which critically analyses the growinginfluence of the United States on the formation, interpretation, and application of internationallegal norms and institutions. The book is structured in three chapters: the conceptual frameworkof Americanization; its manifestation across branches of international law—including the useof force, self-defence, targeted killings, dispute settlement, investment law, and the law of thesea; and proposed strategies for Iran to respond to this phenomenon. The central thesis is thatcontemporary international law is increasingly shaped by U.S. political, military, economic,and cultural preponderance rather than multilateral consensus. This “Americanization” operatesthrough unilateral reinterpretation of fundamental norms (notably Article 51 of the UN Charter),selective treaty ratification, double standards, resistance to international judicial bodies, and theexport of U.S. legal practices to international dispute settlement mechanisms. The book draws oncase studies including the 2003 Iraq invasion, the targeted killing of General Qasem Soleimani,and U.S. non-ratification of UNCLOS to illustrate how American exceptionalism has reshapedsubstantive and procedural rules. The final chapter offers counter-strategies: strengtheninginternational legal education, enacting responsive legislation, fostering regional cooperation,utilising international organisations (OIC and Non-Aligned Movement), lodging persistentobjections to emerging customary rules, producing alternative legal scholarship, reinforcingjudicial institutions, and enhancing Iran’s role in the UN Sixth Committee. The book contendsthat the Americanization of international law challenges the rule-of-law-based character of theinternational order. While acknowledging some beneficial effects, Zamani insists that concernedStates must adopt a multi-layered approach—combining education, diplomacy, legislation, andinstitution-building—to preserve the universality, diversity, and legitimacy of international law.The review concludes that the work is a timely and valuable contribution, offering both analyticaldepth and practical relevance for scholars, policymakers, and practitioners.https://ijicl.qom.ac.ir/article_4513_8a743e4c665a77387fe834f81d927e03.pdf