https://ijicl.qom.ac.ir/ Iranian Journal of International and Comparative Law en daily 1 Mon, 01 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0330 Mon, 01 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0330 https://ijicl.qom.ac.ir/article_4449.html This 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_4448.html This 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“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_4485.html The 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_4183.html Territorial 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 Abu Musa, Greater Tunb, and Lesser Tunb. 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_4427.html This 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 contestation https://ijicl.qom.ac.ir/article_4453.html State 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_4376.html A 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_4486.html This 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_4429.html Biological 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_4212.html This 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_4447.html The 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_4388.html The 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_4487.html The 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_4513.html This 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_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_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_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_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_4428.html The large-scale military operation launched by Israel against the Islamic Republic of Iran’s nuclear facilities on June 13, 2025, purportedly aimed at neutralizing its enrichment capabilities and eliminating a rapidly escalating nuclear threat, constitutes one of the most contentious instances of the use of force in contemporary international relations. The initial operation targeted sites in Natanz and Isfahan. Crucially, on June 21, 2025, the United States joined the conflict, conducting bombing operations against Iranian nuclear sites. The official justification presented by the United States to the UN Security Council for its military participation was the inherent right of collective self-defence consistent with the UN Charter. The US representative asserted that the action was designed to aid its ally, Israel, in eliminating a longstanding but rapidly escalating source of global insecurity. This legal claim transforms the scenario into a critical test for the limitations of jus ad bellum (the law governing the resort to force), as it attempts to stretch the concept of collective self-defense - traditionally predicated upon responding to a demonstrable armed attack -to legitimize preemptive action against unconventional or future threats. Therefore, a rigorous analysis of the juridical nature of this intervention and its compliance with the stringent requirements of public international law, particularly the jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), is paramount. https://ijicl.qom.ac.ir/article_4430.html Abstract: The military actions undertaken by Israel and the United States against the territorial integrity of the Islamic Republic of Iran in Khordad 1404 (May–June 2025) may, from the perspective of international criminal law, constitute a prima facie case of the crime of aggression under Article 8 bis of the Rome Statute. Although the International Criminal Court (ICC) possesses a theoretical legal framework for addressing such conduct, significant structural and political impediments—including the non-membership of the United States and Israel in the Rome Statute system, the limited jurisdictional regime governing aggression, the need for United Nations Security Council involvement in certain circumstances, and the veto power of permanent members—substantially restrict the practical enforcement of accountability. This disparity exposes a persistent gap between normative universality and selective implementation within international criminal justice. While Iran retains the inherent right of self-defense under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, the prospects for criminal prosecution at the international level remain constrained by geopolitical considerations and institutional asymmetries. The study concludes that the current framework of international criminal justice faces serious legitimacy and effectiveness challenges when responding to acts of aggression involving major powers or their allies. https://ijicl.qom.ac.ir/article_4534.html This article compares the epistemological foundations of Islam (sharʿ) and contemporary international humanitarian law through the lens of natural law, assessing their respective capacities to humanize the regulation of armed conflict. Although both systems converge on core principles, their differences arise from fundamentally distinct sources of moral and legal authority. Sharʿ is grounded in fitrah (primordial human nature) and infallible divine law, with reason (ʿaql) functioning as a divinely endowed faculty that apprehends an objective moral order which revelation confirms and perfects. This close alignment with natural law yields more substantive protections, including the prohibition of compelled participation in hostilities, an absolute ban on foreseeable civilian harm, immediate release or gratuitous manumission of prisoners, and protection based on actual cessation of fighting rather than formal legal status. By contrast, IHL reflects a hybrid epistemology in which natural-law principles coexist with positivist foundations rooted in State consent through treaties and custom. While natural-law elements—such as prohibitions on unnecessary suffering—remain normatively influential, positivist logic continues to shape key operative rules. Utilitarian proportionality, status-based targetability of combatants, and broad State discretion over conscription introduce instrumental reasoning that can dilute the intrinsic value of human dignity. Analysis of five core principles—conscription, protected persons/hors de combat, unwillingness to fight, prisoner release, and collateral damage—shows that sharʿ more consistently safeguards innocent life and individual autonomy. The article concludes that a fitrah-based epistemology offers a more coherently humanizing framework, and that renewed engagement with natural-law reasoning could strengthen IHL’s moral and normative foundations. https://ijicl.qom.ac.ir/article_4541.html This study aims to clarify the concept, foundations, and legal consequences of fraud against the law by the parties to litigation in Iranian law through a comparative analysis with private international law and Imami (Ja‘fari) jurisprudence. The main research question is: “How is fraud against the law identified and addressed in Iranian law, and to what extent is this approach consistent with the foundations and mechanisms recognized in private international law and Imami jurisprudence?” The research hypothesis is based on the premise that although Iranian law does not provide an explicit and systematic regulation of fraud against the law, effective mechanisms to confront this phenomenon can be derived from general legal principles, public order considerations, the prohibition of abuse of rights, and the foundations of Imami jurisprudence an approach that is likewise acknowledged in private international law as a means of preventing the misuse of conflict-of-laws rules. The findings of the study, obtained through a descriptive–analytical method and a comparative approach based on library sources, judicial decisions, jurisprudential texts, and legal doctrine, indicate that in private international law, fraud against the law is primarily recognized as an exception to conflict-of-laws rules and as a tool for neutralizing the fraudulent choice of the applicable law. Furthermore, an examination of the foundations of Imami jurisprudence demonstrates that principles such as the prohibition of legal stratagems (ḥīla), the ban on deceptive manipulation of legal rules, the rule of no harm (lā ḍarar), and the principle of fidelity to the objectives of the Lawgiver provide substantial theoretical capacity for identifying and invalidating fraudulent conduct by litigating parties. In addition, the findings reveal that Iranian law, albeit in a fragmented and implicit manner, employs solutions in judicial practice and certain legal institutions that are aligned with Imami jurisprudence and private international law to counter fraud against the law; however, these solutions lack sufficient coherence and transparency. The results suggest that strengthening the linkage between the foundations of Imami jurisprudence and the achievements of private international law can contribute to the development of a coherent framework for addressing fraud against the law in Iranian law. https://ijicl.qom.ac.ir/article_4559.html Humanitarian Intervention remains a deeply contested issue in International law, emerging where civilian protection imperatives confront the legal limits on the use of force; and research argues that such intervention gains legitimacy only when the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) is embedded as the rule based element within International Humanitarian law (IHL) (1). The endorsement of the R2P at the 2005 World Summit redefined sovereignty as a duty toward populations. Yet, its implementation has exposed a continuing tension between R2Ps preventive rationale and the conduct based constraints of International humanitarian law once force is employed (2). It further develops an institutional accountability framework designed to ensure rigorous compliance with International humanitarian law, particularly the rules governing the permissible scale of force; the proportionality of military action in relation to civilian harm and the principle of distinction in targeting during R2P operations. (3). Through doctrinal analysis and selected case studies (including Libya, Syria and Ukraine and Gaza, among others) the study reveals repetitive ambiguities in legal interpretation, uneven enforcement outcomes and a significant accountability gap. (4). By reconciling humanitarian urgency with legal restraint, the article advances a legally grounded framework for regulating humanitarian intervention within contemporary International law, with particular emphasis on the post-crisis and reconstruction dimensions of the Responsibility to protect. (5). I will conclude that only through firm integration within International humanitarian law can the R2P move beyond rhetoric and emerge as a credible legal framework capable of addressed humanitarian crises without eroding core humanitarian norms. https://ijicl.qom.ac.ir/article_4739.html This article examines the impact of the United States (US) military base in the Indian Ocean on the way of life of the Chagossians who live there since centuries ago with threats to their environment, natural habitats and infringement to human rights. Consequently, they were deported from their islands and sent to England where very few of them could adapt to their new mode of life. After several litigations on the legal sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelagos in British courts a treaty on the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT) was agreed between the Republic of Mauritius and the United Kingdom (UK). The 2025 Treaty provides for Mauritius to exercise full sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago, with the UK exercising rights on Diego Garcia but persistent and undisputed rights of the Chagossians over the Chagos are still present until the International Court of Justice gave its Advisory Opinion on the Chagos and found that the process of decolonisation of Mauritius was not lawfully completed since its independence on the 12th March 1968 as the UK’s continued administration of the Chagos Archipelagos coupled with concern relating to the protection of the human rights of the Chagossians including obligations reflected in the UN General resolutions 1514 (XV) of December 1960, 2066 (XX) of 16 December 1965, 224 (XXI) of 20 December 1966 and 2357 (XXII) of 19 December 1967. Over and above there are conflicting views and opinion between the Hose of Commons and the House of Lords: the House of Commons rejected all amendments made by the House of Lords for The Diego Garcia Military Base and the British Indian Ocean Territory Bill explaining why the High Court of England finally decided to review the agreement between the UK and Mauritius. https://ijicl.qom.ac.ir/article_4838.html The expansion of the BRICS economic bloc and the recent accession of Iran necessitate legal harmonization to facilitate cross-border trade. A critical gap exists in comparative literature regarding the alignment of Iran's contract formation rules with those of the original BRICS members. This study seeks to answer the central question: to what extent are the principles of contract formation in Iranian law compatible with those of Brazil, Russia, India, and China, and what reforms are necessary for Iran to foster greater legal convergence within this alliance? Employing a doctrinal and analytical-descriptive methodology, this research relies on a comparative examination of primary legal sources, including the civil codes and contract acts of the five target jurisdictions, alongside authoritative secondary sources and international instruments like the CISG and UNIDROIT Principles. The study is structured into three main comparative parts following a conceptual introduction. It first compares the essential conditions for contract validity. It then proceeds to a detailed, two-stage analysis, scrutinizing the doctrines of 'offer' and 'acceptance' in each legal system, specifically focusing on their formation, revocability, and the moment of legal effectiveness. The findings reveal that despite broad similarities in the foundational concepts of offer and acceptance, significant divergences render the Iranian legal framework notably more rigid. Specifically, Iranian law’s ambiguity in defining a binding offer, its strict "mirror image" rule with no tolerance for immaterial alterations in an acceptance, its refusal to permit the withdrawal of an acceptance, and its adherence to the "receipt rule" for the effectiveness of acceptance all create friction in international transactions. The study concludes that these specific areas constitute the primary obstacles to legal harmonization and proposes targeted legislative reforms. It ultimately argues that Iran must adopt a more flexible approach, drawing on the tested mechanisms in its BRICS counterparts, to maximize the potential benefits of this economic alliance https://ijicl.qom.ac.ir/article_4845.html Land in Iran, as a vital resource for economic development and household livelihoods, is a primary focus of legal disputes. However, the traditional system for addressing these claims faces structural challenges (cadastral deficiencies and document conflicts), procedural issues (protracted litigation and the need for physical presence), and capacity constraints. This study, employing an analytical-comparative approach, proposes an integrated Artificial Intelligence - Online Dispute Resolution (AI-ODR) Framework. Inspired by the British Columbia Civil Resolution Tribunal (CRT) Model, its operational structure is localized based on the interaction of three main pillars: 1. The Iranian Registration Organization and Cadastre (for location-based validation), 2.Dispute Resolution Bodies (for intelligent mediation and settlement), and 3.The Judiciary (as the issuer of binding rulings and the supreme supervisor of the entire judicial process). This five-component framework includes self-help tools, online registration and registration validation, intelligent negotiation and mediation, electronic adjudication, and judgment enforcement. The innovation of this model lies in shifting from a sole focus on a single institution to creating a connected value chain in which cadastral data serves as the basis for screening, the Dispute Resolution Council provides the platform for settlement, and the Judiciary guarantees justice and oversees algorithms for bias. Findings indicate that implementing this model, while adhering to legal requirements and under the Judiciary's human supervision, can make access to justice in property cases more democratic and efficient.