https://ijicl.qom.ac.ir/ Iranian Journal of International and Comparative Law en daily 1 Mon, 01 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0330 Mon, 01 Dec 2025 00:00:00 +0330 https://ijicl.qom.ac.ir/article_4009.html The 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 soft law 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_4010.html The rule of the exhaustion of local remedies serves as an indispensable prerequisite for the admissibility of claims invoked in various fields of international law, including 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_4011.html 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. https://ijicl.qom.ac.ir/article_4012.html Environmental 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 what extent can states be held criminally liable for environmental crimes, and what principal distinctions characterize the approaches of these two legal systems? 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_4013.html The 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 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_4014.html Despite 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_4015.html 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. https://ijicl.qom.ac.ir/article_4016.html AbstractProtest 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_4017.html 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. https://ijicl.qom.ac.ir/article_4018.html Independence 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_4019.html This 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_4020.html 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. https://ijicl.qom.ac.ir/article_4021.html 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. https://ijicl.qom.ac.ir/article_4022.html Natasa 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_4076.html The principle of the prohibition of the use of force, enshrined as a fundamental norm of international law in the United Nations Charter, forbids the use of force except in cases of self-defense (Article 51) and collective measures under Chapter VII. Nevertheless, certain states—particularly the United States—have, by invoking the doctrines of pre-emptive or preventive self-defense, blurred the legal boundaries of this principle. This article critically analyzes the 12-day armed aggression against Iran as a concrete instance of such a breach, situating it within the broader framework of U.S. foreign policy and the doctrine of exceptionalism. Over the past two decades, including actions such as the invasion of Iraq (2003) and the assassination of General Qasem Soleimani (2020), the United States has relied on expansive interpretations of self-defense, citing concepts such as “imminent threat” and “terrorism.” These practices have generated conceptual ambiguities in the interpretation of Article 51, undermined the principle of state sovereignty, and set unilateralist precedents that challenge the enforcement of international legal norms.This approach has not only generated conceptual ambiguities in the interpretation of Article 51 of the Charter, but—due to the absence of objective criteria and the potential for abuse by major powers—has also posed a serious threat to the legal peace and security of the international system. Using a descriptive–analytical method, this article critically examines the claim of pre-emptive self-defense within the framework of U.S. foreign policy, analyzing its incompatibility with international law and its implications for the global legal order. The findings demonstrate that the United States, by instrumentalizing concepts such as “imminent threat” and “terrorism,” has engaged in an expansive reinterpretation of self-defense that is inconsistent with the sources of international law—customary, treaty-based, and judicial practice. This has not only undermined the principle of state sovereignty but also established a unilateralist precedent that enables exceptionalism from the application of international legal norms. Limiting and adhering to the strict and exceptional scope of self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter remains the only means to safeguard the function of the prohibition of the use of force. https://ijicl.qom.ac.ir/article_4077.html The rapid pace of urbanization and pressures from industrial expansion in recent decades have posed a serious threat to agricultural land use in many countries. In Iran, the “Law on the Preservation of Agricultural and Orchard Land Use” was enacted as the main legal instrument to curb land conversion. However, despite several amendments, the law has failed to effectively prevent the growing trend of farmland destruction. The main problem addressed in this study is the shortcomings and implementation challenges of this law in Iran, compared with the experiences of Turkey and France. The central research question is: “What factors explain the relative inefficiency of Iran’s land preservation law, and what lessons can be drawn from Turkey and France?” The hypothesis argues that institutional fragmentation, multiple decision-making authorities, legal gaps, and weak enforcement mechanisms are the major causes of failure in Iran. In contrast, Turkey and particularly France have achieved higher effectiveness through transparent legal frameworks and cohesive institutional arrangements. The study employs a descriptive–analytical and comparative approach, drawing on documentary sources, national legislations, and international reports. The theoretical framework is grounded in the concepts of “land governance” and “new institutionalism.” Findings indicate that although Iran has strong legal potential, its implementation suffers from institutional dispersion and weak enforcement. Turkey’s recent reforms and France’s comprehensive land-use planning system demonstrate relatively higher effectiveness. The conclusion suggests that reform in Iran should focus on strengthening monitoring institutions, ensuring transparency in decision-making processes, and adopting elements of the French land governance model. https://ijicl.qom.ac.ir/article_4078.html The importance of investment and the necessity of its legality and the occurrence of corruption due to the involvement of many factors in the investment process make its investigation inevitable, especially in arbitration (Study motivation). Corruption may be caused by foreign investors and the pressures of their respective governments or intermediaries affiliated with them. in the form of paying bribes and colluding with the host government's internal officials or threatening them. The incidence of corruption, moreover, may arise from structural weakness or corrupt processes in the host government system. Sometimes, social factors from all the mentioned factors, along with the involvement of third parties, create a corrupt and illegal process in the matter of investment. Given that arbitration is a private process, the main question is whether the arbitration has the authority and authority to examine and determine the responsibility of each of the mentioned factors? (Problem definition) In the light of analytical documentary review, it was found that, firstly, arbitration tribunals do not have the power to investigate criminal behavior and related investigations; Second, it is difficult to collect and maintain the security of evidence within the host state's jurisdiction due to secrecy and threats against witnesses;Third, ICSID has sometimes relied on the "law of probabilities" and to a large extent on "corruption flags" and anti corruption organizations.Fourthly, pay attention to the factor that initiates corruption, the degree of influence of contributing factors (the extent of the prevalence of corruption in the host government and the extent of the host government's participation in the occurrence of corruption), considering the "state of emergency" and "Hostage status" to the investor and the nature of the bribe, depending on the case. lead to the complete condemnation of the investor or the reduction of responsibility or exemption of the host government (research results) https://ijicl.qom.ac.ir/article_4079.html Targeted killing is the premeditated, freely performed, intentional killing of a uniquely identified individual person (or group). This concept is started to be common around 20 years ago, when firstly used by Israeli forces. After 9/11 attacks, the United States of America declared a war against Al-Qaedaand its affiliated groups; and called it a self-defense against so called terrorist organizations. Whereas this conflict could be categorized as the non-international conflict, according to common Geneva Conventions article 3 and Additional protocol II article 1, the international humanitarian law(IHL) is dominated in this conflict. The main principles of IHL, distinction, necessity and proportionality would be considered in the targeted killings done by the USA in its operations in Afghanistan during the years of conflict. The USA was not successful in obeying of IHL principles in its operations in Afghanistan. The essence of targeted killing would be observed during the paper to show that there is no obligation according to IHL principles to ban targeted killing by itself and as a military tactic, it should be considered separately in each case. https://ijicl.qom.ac.ir/article_4183.html Territorial disputes 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 Persian Gulf dispute over the three Iranian islands of Abu Musa, Greater Tunb, and Lesser Tunb. Although not formally submitted to the ICJ, the dispute can be analyzed based on 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 due to the acts occurring during occupation (not colonial rule) and their inconsistency with historical and formal documents confirming Iran’s sovereign and ownership rights over the islands. https://ijicl.qom.ac.ir/article_4202.html The October 7 Al-Aqsa Storm Operation (hereinafter referred to as the October 7 Operation) was a cross-border attack by Hamas against the Israeli occupying regime. In response, the Israeli regime launched military operations, claiming that its actions were based on self-defense and retaliation. This issue remains highly controversial under international law. The October 7 Operation falls within the scope of the National Liberation Movement (NLM). NLMs, based on the right to self-determination, often resort to the use of force to expel foreign occupiers from territories where their national group resides. This article examines whether the use of force under the justifications of self-defense or retaliation against Palestinian resistance is legal under international law. Findings indicate that invoking self-defense and retaliation against an NLM and the Palestinian people contradicts international law and is therefore illegal. The illegality of such actions stems from the fact that both self-defense and retaliation are prohibited against NLMs, including the Palestinian movement. This study employs a descriptive and analytical approach. A survey was conducted to assess the legal implications of Israeli military operations against Palestinian resistance under international law. The research is based on sources obtained from both online databases and libraries. Findings confirm that self-defense and retaliation as responses to the October 7 Operation, carried out by Israeli military forces against Palestinian resistance, are illegal under international law, as Palestinian resistance qualifies as an NLM. Additionally, findings classify Hamas within the framework of NLMs. https://ijicl.qom.ac.ir/article_4212.html This study is organized with the aim of explaining the relationship between liberty and criminalization in the two criminal law systems of Islam and the West, and seeks to examine, in a systematic manner, the fundamental question of the legitimate scope of criminal intervention in the domain of individual liberties. The central issue is under what conditions the legislator may remove human conduct from the sphere of permissibility and place it within a binding criminal rule, and to what extent such intervention must be governed by foundational principles, criteria, and constraints that limit penal authority. The findings indicate that in the Western system, liberty constitutes the primary normative foundation and the principal criterion for restricting criminalization, and principles such as legality, proportionality, and necessity play a regulatory role; whereas in the Islamic system, liberty is intertwined with duty and collective welfare (masalih naw‘iyya), and rules such as “no-harm” (la zarar) and “removal of hardship” (raf‘ al-haraj), as well as the protection of the five essentials (daruriyyat khams), determine the legitimate limits of intervention. The conclusion is that although both systems avoid penal expansionism, their normative foundations and justificatory logic differ, and this divergence is reflected at the level of criminalization criteria. Accordingly, the present study emphasizes the need to develop a measurable framework for criminal legislation and to strengthen the standing of liberty within criminal policy. https://ijicl.qom.ac.ir/article_4262.html The Israeli regime's invasion of Iranian territory in 2025 led to the assassination of nuclear scientists and military leaders, and considerable damage to some of the country's infrastructure, such as residential, medical, research, and military facilities. This action is considered illegitimate from the perspective of international law for various reasons, such as the immunity of civilians during armed conflicts, the condemnation of terrorist acts, the illegitimacy of preventive and preemptive defense, the prohibition of attacking nuclear facilities, as well as the prohibition of resorting to force and violating the sovereignty of states. In response to this aggression, Iran took specific measures under international law. Therefore, this research, using library resources and applying analytical and descriptive methods, answers two questions: to what extent Iran's actions were in accordance with international law? and also to what extent were they effective in stopping this aggression? Finally, the findings of this study indicate that the actions of the Iranian ruling forces in this regard, including condemning the Israeli regime's attacks, requesting the Security Council's intervention, emphasizing its peaceful nuclear activities, appealing to the international community to condemn the Israeli regime's actions, and exercising the right to legitimate self-defense, were entirely in accordance with currently accepted international law norms and as a result, the consensus of this country's partners in condemning the Israeli regime's aggression, as well as its defensive measures, has had the greatest impact on stopping the Israeli regime's aggression and leading to its end. https://ijicl.qom.ac.ir/article_4330.html Good faith, as one of the fundamental principles in contract law, plays a key role in ensuring the fair and effective enforcement of oil and gas contracts. This principle is interpreted differently across various legal systems, with distinct approaches and requirements, and has a direct impact on both domestic and international contractual relations. Accordingly, the main objective of this research is to conduct a comparative analysis of the dimensions of good faith in oil and gas contracts and identify the legal differences and similarities between Iran and Norway. The primary research question is: "How is the principle of good faith interpreted and implemented in oil and gas contracts under Iranian and Norwegian law, and what impact does it have on contractual relations?" The hypothesis suggests that structural and legal differences between the two countries influence the interpretation and implementation of good faith, and these differences could have significant practical consequences for international oil and gas contracts. The research findings, based on a comparative and descriptive-analytical analysis of legal documents, sample contracts, and case law in both countries, as well as the use of the theory of general principles of contract law and the theory of good faith, show that in Norway, good faith is recognized as a binding principle at all stages of the contract, from negotiation to execution and dispute resolution, directly affecting the interpretation of contractual clauses and the behavior of the parties. In Iran, good faith is primarily used in the interpretation of contracts and filling legal gaps, with a more limited binding effect. Additionally, the research indicates that in Norway, a violation of good faith can lead to civil liability and compensation, whereas in Iran, its legal effects are mainly limited to references to equity and judicial practices. The research results suggest that understanding the comparative differences in good faith can contribute to the drafting of more effective international contracts and reduce legal disputes. https://ijicl.qom.ac.ir/article_4331.html Abstract This article advances a doctrinal and normative account of the simultaneity of independent and derivative state responsibility for a single internationally wrongful act and develops the concept of aggravated/compound responsibility where the underlying breach implicates jus cogens norms. Building on the ILC’s Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (ARSIWA), the ILC’s articles on consequences of serious breaches (Arts 40–41), and authoritative jurisprudence (notably Nicaragua, Bosnia v Serbia, DRC v Uganda), the article argues that modern networked military operations may generate dual responsibility: a State can be directly responsible for committing a wrongful act and at the same time derivatively responsible for aiding, inducing, or facilitating another State’s identical wrongdoing. The empirical section applies this framework to the June 2025 Israel–U.S. campaign against Iran’s military and nuclear infrastructure, assessing whether the factual record — direct Israeli strikes, reported intelligence-sharing and logistical support for U.S. strikes — satisfies the thresholds for simultaneous independent and derivative responsibility and thereby triggers aggravated legal consequences under Articles 40–41 ARSIWA. The article concludes with doctrinal refinements and policy recommendations for enhancing accountability in interstate cooperative uses of force. https://ijicl.qom.ac.ir/article_4375.html The study aims to validate that implementing direct democracy in public administration has the potential to replace traditional hierarchical structures. Through a comparative analysis of components of direct democracy and the requisites of public administration, this article introduces the elements of direct democracy in public administration. Findings: the components of direct democracy encompass the value and legal equality of citizens, pluralism (as an extension of equality), public participation in all public affairs, public control, protection and promotion of human rights, decision-making through the consensus method, the general assembly, and the rule of law, the law which naturally arises from these foundational components. Conclusion: The components of direct democracy, in alignment with the characteristics of administration, involve the establishment of an inclusive general assembly of employees, decision-making in the inclusive general assembly of employees by consensus, ensuring value-legal equality among employees, active participation of all employees in the inclusive general assembly of employees, supervision through the inclusive general assembly of employees, implementing direct democracy as much as possible in appointments, promotions, and disciplinary proceedings, and enacting a regulatory-contractual framework through the inclusive general assembly of employees. Despite widespread efforts to embrace democracy, the hierarchy within public administration poses a significant obstacle to democratic reforms. Resolving this impasse requires replacing the direct democratic management approach within the administration instead of hierarchical structure. https://ijicl.qom.ac.ir/article_4376.html A fair trial to guarantee the defendants' defense rights requires that the cited reasons in the criminal trial process be legal and in accordance with the standards of the trial. The necessity of the 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 in addition to other law enforcement guarantees, the invalidity of investigations and extracting the evidence in case of non-compliance with the regulations are mentioned. The principle, under the title of "the Principle of Invalidity of Evidence" indicates that the evidence obtained illegally by law enforcement or judicial authorities is considered invalid and it is excluded from the evidence against the accused. Due to the nature of the subject, the present study is applied in terms of purpose and in terms of data collection by documentary method and by studying valid laws and sources and the obtained information is analyzed descriptively-analytically. the comparison of the two penal systems confirms that the laws of both systems are ambiguous and inconsistent, and the strategies presented by them are inadequate and in some cases have been criticized by lawyers, so this can lead to conflicts of opinion and procedures and lack of due process. For example, the lack of definition and 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_4387.html This article examines the legal and strategic limits of preventive force within the framework of the jus ad bellum, using Israel’s policy toward Iran and the June 2025 Twelve-Days War as a contemporary case study. It argues that preventive military action directed at nuclear-threshold capability confronts structural constraints embedded in Article 2(4) and Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. Drawing upon the jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice, the study demonstrates that nuclear latency and prospective capability do not meet the gravity threshold required to constitute an “armed attack” capable of triggering the inherent right of self-defense. At the same time, the article situates this legal analysis within a broader theoretical framework, engaging realism, rational choice theory, and constructivist insights. It shows how security dilemma dynamics, bounded rationality, and identity-based threat constructions may sustain coercive strategies even when they generate diminishing strategic returns and heightened escalation risks. The interaction between legal constraint and strategic miscalculation produces a condition of enduring legal fragility, in which coercion operates below the threshold of lawful force yet fails to secure durable deterrence. The limits of coercion, therefore, are both juridical and systemic, embedded in the Charter framework and reinforced by the structural dynamics of protracted rivalry. https://ijicl.qom.ac.ir/article_4388.html Abstract: The use of Artificial Intelligence technology in different areas of human life has caused several important legal challenges which indicate an unprecedented development. Generative Artificial Intelligence, appearing to be a creative type of this technology, is important from a literary and artistic law perspective since generating high-quality literary and artistic works is among the tasks accomplished by Generative Artificial Intelligence. Such productions are similar to those created by human authors and in some cases, it is difficult to understand that they are generated by Artificial Intelligence. Therefore, this paper deals with one of the most important challenges faced by intellectual property law that is characterized by a main question: is it possible to consider Generative Artificial Intelligence as the author of literary, artistic, and scientific works it generates? The results of this descriptive-analytical article show that currently, in the legal systems compared, the concept of author is restricted to human authors; consequently, it is not possible to consider Generative Artificial Intelligence as author of literary and artistic works. The legislators are recommended to modify the laws in such a way to identify the author of literary and artistic works made using Generative Artificial Intelligence while  meeting the demands of developers and users of this technology.