Advanced Journal of Management, Humanity and Social Science

Abstract Ethics and its components hold particular importance in the political arena. These components, in the political arena, possess great potential as a foundational factor for the expansion of religion and the dissemination of the school. Most Shia politicians and statesmen, by applying ethical principles in politics, were able to take the correct path in politics and be influential in society''s inclination toward the Shia religion. The present study, with an "analytical-descriptive" approach and based on the "documentary studies" method, seeks to answer the question: What capacities do ethical components in the political arena possess for the dissemination of and inclination toward the teachings of the Ahl al-Bayt (peace be upon them)? Studies show that the observance of ethics in politics, such as affection and populism, tolerance, justice-seeking, simple living, not distancing oneself from the people, rationalism, and legalism, was influential in people''s inclination toward Shi''ism. This study aims to express the ethics of Shia statesmen and, by examining them, show what ethical principles these politicians and rulers were able to adopt in politics in such complex conditions to advance the expansion of Shi''ism. Obviously, examining those ethical principles whose adherence by Shia politicians and statesmen in the political arena caused people''s inclination and positive attitude toward this Shia religion and the export of this nascent culture in this period of time can familiarize us more with the role of ethics in the dissemination of religion and the school of society.

Abstract Attacks on critical infrastructure, whether kinetic or cyber, constitute one of the most pressing challenges in contemporary international law. The 2026 joint military strikes by the United States and Israel against Iran's nuclear facilities, energy infrastructure, bridges, and transportation networks, combined with concurrent cyber operations targeting communication systems, have reignited debate over the legal framework governing such attacks. This article examines the legal dimensions of the prohibition on infrastructure attacks under international law, analyzing the US-Israel strikes as a case study and exploring available legal avenues for Iran to seek recourse before international judicial bodies. Using a descriptive-analytical methodology grounded in treaty interpretation, customary international law analysis, and judicial precedent, this research finds that while international humanitarian law (IHL) provides a robust framework through the principles of distinction, proportionality, and precaution, the concept of "dual-use" objects—objects with both civilian and military applications—creates significant interpretive ambiguity . Despite this ambiguity, Article 56 of Additional Protocol I explicitly protects nuclear power plants from attack where such attacks may cause dangerous force release, and the International Criminal Court (ICC) has established precedent by issuing arrest warrants for attacks on Ukrainian critical infrastructure. The research identifies four principal legal avenues: proceedings before the International Court of Justice (ICJ), prosecution before the ICC, arbitration through bilateral dispute resolution mechanisms, and domestic litigation. However, significant obstacles persist, including the United States' withdrawal from the 1955 Treaty of Amity with Iran, non-membership in the Rome Statute, attribution challenges for cyber operations, and evidentiary difficulties. The article concludes that while international law prohibits attacks on critical infrastructure, enforcement mechanisms remain inadequate, and the most effective long-term strategy involves strengthening multilateral cooperation and developing a dedicated convention on critical infrastructure protection.

Abstract The period from the beginning of the Major Occultation (329 AH) to the establishment of the Safavid state (907 AH) is considered one of the sensitive junctures in the history of Islam and Shi'ism. During this period, the Shi'a faced a crisis of leadership of the Infallible Imam (peace be upon him) and underwent various vicissitudes. However, the numerous obstacles along the way could not prevent Shi'ism from growth and flourishing; rather, it continued its movement with steady steps and was able to extend its influence to various regions. This success after the Major Occultation was the result of several factors, among which the contribution of ethical components is significant. The present study seeks to answer the following question: What were the ethical-political components influencing the growth of Shi'ism from the Major Occultation (329 AH) to the establishment of the Safavid state (907 AH)? A descriptive-analytical examination of the ethics of Shia rulers demonstrates that legalism and the implementation of divine ordinances in society in accordance with the commands of the Shari'a, just behavior, populism, rationalism, and attention to the religious and Shia education of the people by most Shia rulers in the period under discussion were influential in promoting their school of thought and spreading the Shia religion.

Abstract Peaceful space facilities constitute an interdependent terrestrial-orbital infrastructure: satellites, ground stations, mission-control networks, user terminals, inter-satellite links, and software-dependent services. A malicious cyber operation directed at any one of these components may disrupt essential civilian functions far beyond the immediate target. Yet a damaging cyber incident does not itself establish an internationally wrongful act of a state, and an internationally wrongful act does not necessarily constitute a prohibited use of force or an armed attack. This article develops a sequential doctrinal framework for evaluating state responsibility for cyber operations against peaceful space facilities under the United Nations Charter, the 1967 Outer Space Treaty, and the law of state responsibility. Its method is qualitative legal analysis of primary instruments, current United Nations materials and peer-reviewed scholarship published principally in 2024–2026, supplemented by carefully labelled hypothetical scenarios. It distinguishes technical attribution, legal attribution, the content and breach of primary obligations, injury and reparation, and the independent conditions for lawful responses. It argues that Article III of the Outer Space Treaty confirms the applicability of the Charter in the space domain, whereas Articles VI–IX add distinctive but non-identical obligations concerning national space activities, launch-related liability, jurisdiction and control, and due regard. These rules should not be collapsed into a blanket presumption that a state is responsible for every cyberattack by a private actor connected to its territory. An effects-sensitive analysis can identify conduct potentially falling under Article 2(4), while the more demanding armed-attack inquiry governing Article 51 requires a separate assessment of scale, effects, necessity and proportionality. The proposed evidentiary and institutional approach prioritizes timely incident preservation, reasoned legal attribution, consultations and reversible non-forcible measures. It addresses the legal uncertainty surrounding non-destructive interference, due diligence and the reach of the specialized space-liability regime without treating contested interpretations as settled law.

Abstract Cyberterrorism is not synonymous with serious hacking, ideologically motivated disruption, terrorist propaganda, or state-sponsored cyber operations. This article compares how Iranian law and European Union law address digitally enabled violence and interference that may meet a terrorism threshold, while also assessing ordinary cybercrime, critical-infrastructure security, electronic evidence and procedural safeguards. Employing a qualitative doctrinal and functional comparative method, it reads Iran’s Computer Crimes Act against the EU Counter-Terrorism Directive, the attacks-against-information-systems framework and the layered cybersecurity acquis, with developments through 24 September 2026. It finds a shared capacity to prosecute harmful interference with essential systems but significant differences in the express legal link between cyber interference and terrorist purpose, the distribution of preventive duties and the architecture of cross-border evidence. The comparison also demonstrates that resilience laws cannot replace criminal-law proof of intent and that cybersecurity incident datasets must not be treated as estimates of terrorist offending. The article proposes tightly defined offence criteria, interoperable evidence safeguards and risk-based infrastructure protection without conflating political expression, cybercrime and terrorism. [R01-R17, R20]

Abstract Each This paper examines the Yalta Conference (4–11 February 1945) as a pivotal episode of post-war order-building and asks what mattered more in shaping its outcomes: material capabilities or institutions. Combining a historical reconstruction of key negotiations—Germany’s occupation and reparations, Poland’s political future, Soviet entry into the war against Japan, and the design of the United Nations—with an explicit International Relations framework, the study evaluates whether Yalta’s model of great-power management stabilized the emerging system or intensified a security dilemma between the Western and Soviet blocs. Methodologically, the paper employs a qualitative case-study design and process tracing, using primary diplomatic records alongside major secondary scholarship to identify bargaining sequences, causal mechanisms, and “close-call” turning points. The analysis argues that power realities set the limits of agreement, particularly where military facts on the ground created asymmetric leverage, while institutional arrangements helped formalize, legitimate, and extend those bargains over time. Yalta therefore reduced the risk of immediate great-power war by coordinating expectations and procedures, yet simultaneously accelerated ideological and strategic competition by embedding contested norms—especially over self-determination—within an unequal settlement. The paper concludes that Yalta’s legacy is best understood as an institutionalized power bargain: stabilizing at the apex, but structurally prone to legitimacy crises at the periphery, shaping both the early Cold War and the architecture of post-1945 global governance.

Abstract Legal predictability is one of the essential indicators of an efficient private law system because it enables contracting parties to estimate legal consequences before disputes arise. In the Iranian legal system, contractual damages are governed by statutory provisions, judicial interpretation, and evolving judicial practice. Nevertheless, differences in judicial reasoning and the absence of unified interpretative standards have generated considerable uncertainty regarding the determination and enforcement of contractual damages. This study investigates the level of legal predictability of contractual damages in Iranian private law through an empirical evaluation of published judicial decisions together with statutory principles governing contractual liability. A doctrinal-empirical research design was employed by integrating qualitative legal analysis with systematic examination of judicial decisions issued by Iranian civil courts and the Supreme Court. Legislative provisions of the Iranian Civil Code were analyzed alongside judicial reasoning and interpreted within comparative contract law frameworks. The findings indicate that statutory provisions provide a relatively coherent legal foundation, whereas judicial predictability is primarily influenced by variations in judicial interpretation concerning causation, foreseeability, contractual intent, and proof of damages. Comparative legal principles demonstrate that greater interpretative consistency could significantly improve legal certainty without requiring extensive legislative reform. The study contributes practical recommendations for strengthening judicial consistency, enhancing contractual certainty, and improving the overall predictability of contractual remedies in Iranian private law while providing a structured analytical framework applicable to future empirical legal studies.

Abstract The expansion of electronic commerce and the increasing growth of sales contracts in the digital space have exposed consumers to new vulnerabilities rooted in the inherent nature of the virtual environment, including information asymmetry, inability to physically inspect goods, ambiguity regarding the identity of the counterparty, and difficulty in enforcing rights in the digital sphere. These realities reveal the necessity of an efficient legal framework for the protection of the electronic consumer. The main issue of the present research is to determine to what extent the Iranian legal system, in comparison with the European Union, protects the consumer in electronic sales contracts, where the existing gaps are, and what solutions can be offered to address these deficiencies. This research has been conducted using a descriptive-analytical method and drawing upon library resources, legal documents, and judicial practice. The research findings indicate that although both systems recognize the principle of consumer protection and have provided similar instruments such as pre-contractual information obligations, the right of withdrawal, and the control of unfair terms, the depth, scope, and effectiveness of these instruments differ significantly. The Iranian legal system has performed relatively acceptably at the level of declaring rights, but suffers from serious weakness at the level of ensuring the enforcement of these rights. Three fundamental gaps the absence of a comprehensive personal data protection law, the lack of regulations governing the liability of intermediary platforms, and the absence of an efficient online dispute resolution mechanism constitute the most important weaknesses of the Iranian legal system in comparison with EU standards. Addressing these gaps through the enactment of a personal data protection law, updating the Electronic Commerce Law with a focus on strengthening enforcement guarantees, and establishing an online dispute resolution mechanism are proposed as legislative reform priorities.

Abstract The Strait of Hormuz, as one of the most strategically significant international straits, has consistently served as a focal point where the rules of the international law of the sea intersect with the national security imperatives of coastal States. With the adoption of the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), a novel concept "transit passage" was introduced, conferring extensive freedoms upon military and merchant vessels while concomitantly restricting the regulatory authority of the coastal State. In contrast, the traditional regime of "innocent passage" provides for a more expansive supervisory authority for the coastal State (Iran). Employing a descriptive-analytical methodology and scrutinising Articles 19, 38, and 44 of the aforementioned Convention, this study examines the legal challenges at hand. The findings indicate that Iran, by invoking the doctrine of the "persistent objector" and emphasising the contractual character of the transit passage regime, underscores the implementation of innocent passage rules in order to safeguard its national security and protect the marine environment against non-member States.

Abstract The expansion of blockchain technology and the evolution of digital platforms have led to the emergence of new concepts in contractual relations, of which "smart contracts" are among the most significant. These contracts are designed as blockchain-based computer programs that execute the terms of the parties' agreement in the form of digital codes and enable the automatic performance of obligations without the need for traditional intermediaries. Such features have increased the speed, transparency, and efficiency of transactions. However, the introduction of this technology into the field of contract law has raised fundamental questions regarding the legal nature, validity, and enforcement of such contracts in various legal systems, particularly those based on classical traditions. The aim of this research is to elucidate the legal nature of smart contracts and analyze the challenges of their enforcement in the Iranian legal system. The research method is descriptive-analytical, and data have been collected through library studies and the examination of domestic and international legal sources. The findings indicate that, despite technical differences, smart contracts can be analyzed within the framework of general contract rules. The principle of party autonomy and Article 10 of the Civil Code provide the capacity to accept this type of contract, and the Electronic Commerce Law, by recognizing data messages and electronic signatures, has established a basis for the validity of digital transactions. However, challenges such as ascertaining the true intent of the parties, determining liability for technical errors, and the conflict between the immutability feature of blockchain and institutions such as rescission and mutual rescission persist. Accordingly, the formulation of supplementary regulations, the development of legal infrastructure, and the enhancement of specialized knowledge appear essential for the safe and effective utilization of this technology.

Abstract The municipality is a non-governmental public institution which, due to the powers and duties entrusted to it by law, is also accountable before the law. Therefore, the legal obligations that municipalities bear in line with their prescribed duties are subject to legal enforcement or judicial proceedings. The civil liability of municipalities is governed by the rules defined for other persons, but the omission of municipalities is specifically related to the organized nature of this non-governmental institution's activities. This research is theoretical in nature and was conducted using a descriptive-analytical method. The data collection method was library-based, involving the review of documents, books, and articles. The results of the research indicate that the liability of municipalities is subject to article 11 of the civil liability law; however, the determination of the type and assessment of the amount of damages, as well as the role of each organizational level within this institution in relation to omission, has not been properly defined and does not follow an established precedent. This issue becomes more complex when numerous contractors collaborating with municipalities are also brought within the scope of municipal civil liability. Ultimately, it appears that municipalities enjoy immunity against damages arising from their sovereign acts and are exempt from paying compensation. Another group of legal scholars believes that, in addition to the aspect of sovereign acts, the necessity of the omission must be proven to the judge; otherwise, they will not be absolved from the application of the law and compensation merely on the grounds of exercising sovereignty.

Abstract The will of the contracting parties constitutes the cornerstone of private law, determining the validity, enforceability, and overall effectiveness of contractual agreements. This paper examines the role of parties’ intention, consent, and autonomy in shaping legally binding obligations. In private law, a contract is only recognized as valid when the parties demonstrate genuine, voluntary, and informed consent. Defective or vitiated will—arising from mistake, fraud, duress, undue influence, or incapacity—can undermine contractual validity, rendering agreements void or voidable. Through a doctrinal and comparative analysis of civil law and common law traditions, the study highlights the methods courts employ to assess the authenticity of parties’ will. Civil law jurisdictions often prioritize the subjective intention of the parties, evaluating internal motives and knowledge, whereas common law emphasizes the objective manifestation of consent, focusing on outward expressions and reasonable perceptions. The paper further discusses legal remedies available when the will is compromised, including contract rescission, reformation, and damages, illustrating how private law balances the principle of contractual freedom with the protection of fairness and justice. Moreover, the study underscores the critical interplay between autonomy and legal oversight: while parties have the freedom to structure their legal relations, the law intervenes to prevent exploitation and ensure equitable outcomes. By analyzing theoretical foundations, historical perspectives, and contemporary case law, this research demonstrates that the parties’ will is both a theoretical construct and a practical determinant of contract law. Understanding its impact is essential for legal practitioners, scholars, and policymakers in safeguarding contractual integrity and promoting voluntary, fair, and enforceable agreements.

Abstract Contract rescission serves as a crucial legal mechanism for terminating contractual obligations, ensuring fairness, and maintaining the balance of rights between parties. This study aims to examine the effects of contract rescission in Iranian civil law and to compare them with those in comparative law, analyzing the legal aspects, conditions for rescission, and its consequences. In Iranian law, contract rescission is generally possible either legally or contractually, and its effects mainly include the termination of future obligations, restitution to the prior state, and compensation for damages resulting from contractual breaches. In comparative legal systems, particularly in French and English law, similar concepts exist; however, notable differences can be observed regarding restitution, the extent of damage compensation, and the role of the parties’ will. The research employs a descriptive-analytical method, relying on legal texts, doctrinal analysis, and judicial precedents to identify points of convergence and divergence among various legal systems. The findings indicate that while the fundamental principles of contract rescission are largely similar across jurisdictions, differences exist in the execution of rescission and its impact on complex economic contracts. Moreover, comparative law generally offers greater flexibility in determining the effects of rescission and compensating associated damages, whereas Iranian law provides a more defined and limited legal framework. This study concludes with recommendations to enhance the regulation of contract rescission in Iranian law, offering practical guidance for legal practitioners, judges, and contract drafters.

Abstract Stipulations within contracts (Shurūṭ Ḍimn al-‘Aqd) constitute an essential legal mechanism through which contracting parties can regulate their mutual rights and obligations beyond the principal terms of an agreement. In legal systems influenced by Islamic law, particularly Iranian law, contractual stipulations occupy a central position due to their deep roots in Imami (Ja‘fari) jurisprudence. This comparative study examines the concept, legal foundations, and conditions of validity, classifications, and legal effects of stipulations within contracts in Iranian law and Imami jurisprudence, with the aim of identifying points of convergence and divergence between the two systems. In Imami jurisprudence, contractual stipulations are regarded as ancillary commitments attached to the main contract and derive their binding force from both jurisprudential principles and religious sources, most notably the rule that believers are bound by their conditions (al-mu’minūn ‘inda shurūṭihim). However, their validity is strictly limited by conformity with Sharia, rationality, feasibility, and consistency with the essence of the contract. Iranian civil law, while largely inspired by these jurisprudential principles, adopts a codified and systematic approach, particularly in Articles 234 to 246 of the Iranian Civil Code, and further reinforces contractual autonomy through Article 10, which recognizes the freedom of private agreements within legal boundaries. The findings of this study demonstrate a substantial degree of harmony between Iranian law and Imami jurisprudence, especially in the classification of stipulations into conditions of attribute, act, and result, as well as in the legal consequences of breach. Nevertheless, Iranian law introduces modern legal concepts such as public order, legal certainty, and explicit statutory remedies, which distinguish it from classical jurisprudential analysis. Overall, the study highlights how Iranian law has preserved the substantive foundations of Imami jurisprudence while adapting them to the requirements of a modern legal system.

Abstract Arbitration has become one of the most widely used mechanisms for resolving disputes in international commercial contracts due to its efficiency, neutrality, and enforceability across borders. The effectiveness of arbitration, however, fundamentally depends on the validity and enforceability of the arbitration clause embedded within the contract. A well-drafted arbitration clause ensures that parties have a clear, mutual agreement to resolve disputes outside of domestic courts, providing predictability and reducing the risk of protracted litigation. This paper examines the legal frameworks, challenges, and practical considerations associated with arbitration clauses in international commercial agreements. It analyzes key international instruments, including the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (1958), and national legislations modeled on the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, highlighting how they influence enforceability. Critical factors affecting the validity of arbitration clauses include mutual consent, clarity of scope, compliance with mandatory legal requirements, capacity of the parties, and adherence to public policy. Challenges to enforceability often arise from ambiguities in drafting, conflicts with national laws, jurisdictional disputes, and procedural irregularities. The study also discusses notable case law, including Fiona Trust & Holding Corp v. Privalov and Dallah Real Estate & Tourism Holding Co. v. Ministry of Religious Affairs, illustrating how courts interpret and uphold arbitration agreements. Finally, the paper provides practical recommendations for drafting effective arbitration clauses, emphasizing the importance of specifying arbitration rules, the seat of arbitration, applicable law, language, and interim relief provisions. By addressing potential challenges proactively, parties can significantly increase the likelihood that their arbitration agreements will be recognized and enforced internationally, thereby ensuring a reliable mechanism for dispute resolution and promoting greater confidence in cross-border commercial transactions.

Abstract Armed conflicts, both international and non-international, have historically been associated with extensive human rights violations, including extrajudicial killings, torture, sexual violence, forced displacement, and attacks on civilian infrastructure. Such violations not only inflict immediate physical and psychological suffering on affected populations but also undermine long-term socio-economic development and political stability. International law provides a critical framework for the protection of human rights during armed conflicts, primarily through International Humanitarian Law (IHL), human rights treaties, and the mandates of international bodies such as the United Nations. Instruments such as the Geneva Conventions, their Additional Protocols, and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court define obligations for state and non-state actors, establish standards for the treatment of civilians and combatants, and prescribe mechanisms for accountability. Despite these frameworks, enforcement challenges remain significant due to issues such as state sovereignty, lack of political will, insufficient monitoring, and difficulties in prosecuting non-state actors. This article examines the nature and scope of human rights violations in contemporary armed conflicts, highlighting case studies to demonstrate patterns of abuse and systemic challenges in protection. It also explores the role of international law in both preventing violations and ensuring accountability, emphasizing the importance of universal jurisdiction, international tribunals, and the complementarity principle of the International Criminal Court. The paper concludes by arguing that strengthening international legal mechanisms, enhancing compliance through domestic incorporation of treaties, and promoting robust civil society participation are essential to mitigating human rights violations during armed conflicts. The findings underscore that while international law provides vital protections, its effectiveness relies on a combination of legal, political, and humanitarian efforts.

Abstract The permissibility of a judge’s acceptance of gifts from litigating parties or from others is among the significant issues long debated within Islamic jurisprudence. Given the unanimous consensus among jurists regarding the prohibition of bribery, there is no dispute that a judge’s acceptance of bribes is categorically forbidden. Consequently, in the discussion of a judge’s acceptance of gifts whether from litigants or even from individuals with no pending dispute before the judge it is often presumed that any gift offered to a judge must necessarily be a bribe and cannot be motivated by any other legitimate intention. The majority of jurists have categorically ruled that it is impermissible for a judge to receive such gifts. Their principal argument is that a judge’s gift effectively constitutes a form of bribery and must therefore fall under the same prohibition. In contrast, some jurists distinguish, at the level of subject and definition, between bribery and gifting, and consequently deem the judge’s acceptance of gifts permissible. The central question raised in this article is whether the prohibition on bribery extends to gifts as well. A descriptive-analytical examination of juristic opinions indicates that a gift is not inherently equivalent to a bribe; however, certain types of gifts may, under specific circumstances, constitute bribery and thus fall under its legal ruling of prohibition.

Abstract Each This research assesses whether, and in what manner, broader access to the internet should be recognized as a human right in contemporary international law and practice. It first outlines how established human rights instruments, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and regional systems in Europe and the Americas, already link freedoms like expression, information, education, participation, and equality to the right to enjoy the benefits of scientific progress and its applications. Although these documents predate the digital age, they collectively provide strong normative support. This backing helps to conceptualize meaningful internet access as a component of existing rights, rather than as a new, additional entitlement. The manuscript next analyzes how expanding digital infrastructure raises privacy and data protection challenges. It explains the tension between using data collection to serve public interests, such as health or security, and the risks of surveillance, profiling, and discrimination that result. These issues are explored through debates over contact-tracing apps, mass surveillance, and algorithmic control, illustrating their complexities. This investigation shows that, in case studies of China, India, and selected sub-Saharan African states, internet shutdowns and internet control practices operate under distinct political contexts. In all three cases, governments use technical and legal mechanisms to reduce connectivity during protests, elections, or crises. These actions are frequently in violation of their international obligations. The investigation concludes that effective enjoyment of many human rights now clearly relies on secure, affordable, and continuous access to the internet. Future legal and policy reforms at international, national, and local levels must treat internet access and digital connectivity as key conditions of human dignity and democratic accountability.

Abstract Economic sanctions are an increasingly central instrument of statecraft. Their proliferation since the early 2000s — and particularly after 2014 and 2022 in response to high-profile geopolitical events — has created complex tensions between public international law, domestic sanctions regimes, and the private-law regime of international arbitration. This article analyzes how sanctions shape (1) the jurisdictional and arbitrability questions tribunals face, (2) procedural conduct and due process in arbitration, and (3) the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards in domestic courts. First, the paper maps the legal architecture: the New York Convention, ICSID framework, UNCITRAL rules, domestic sanctions regimes (notably U.S. OFAC and EU restrictive measures) and counter-measures such as EU blocking statutes. Second, it examines doctrinal fault lines — choice of law, public policy defenses, supervening impossibility/frustration, and state immunity — and how tribunals and courts have addressed them. Third, it surveys practical impediments: asset freezes that render awards effectively unenforceable, restrictions on counsel/arbitrators caused by sanctions, seat selection and institutional compliance, and the chilling effect on dispute settlement. The analysis integrates recent scholarship and institutional guidance to show that (a) sanctions often convert solvable contractual disputes into multi-jurisdictional legal puzzles; (b) tribunals retain procedural and substantive tools to manage sanctions-related disputes but their remedies are uneven; and (c) enforcement of awards is increasingly contestable where sanctions and sovereign immunity intersect. The paper concludes with recommendations: refined drafting (sanctions clauses, payment/escrow mechanisms), tribunal powers to order interim relief cognizant of sanctions law, coordinated institutional guidance, and diplomatic-legal responses (blocking statutes, targeted licenses) to protect the effectiveness of international arbitration without undermining legitimate sanctions policy.

Abstract This article examines the principal legal, constitutional and practical obstacles to recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in the Islamic Republic of Iran, focusing on the twin concepts of public order (ordre public) and national sovereignty. Iran’s accession to the 1958 New York Convention in 2001 and the enactment of domestic arbitration legislation modelled on the UNCITRAL Model Law have, in principle, created a framework conducive to enforcement; however, constitutional constraints, state practice and policy considerations repeatedly complicate implementation. Central among obstacles is Article 139 of the Iranian Constitution, which conditions referral or settlement of disputes concerning public or state property to the approval of the Council of Ministers and—where foreigners are parties—to parliamentary notification or approval, thereby limiting the arbitrability and enforceability of awards touching on public/state assets. Courts applying the public-order exception under the New York Convention and domestic procedural rules have at times invoked Article 139 or broad public policy concerns to deny recognition or to delay enforcement; recent jurisprudence from Iran’s Supreme Court (2024) evidences incremental clarification but does not eliminate uncertainty. Other enforcement hurdles include ambiguities in statutory definitions (e.g., what counts as “international” or “public” property), procedural barriers (jurisdictional review, limited discovery, availability of interim measures), state immunity claims, and the impact of extrajudicial factors such as international sanctions and political relations. The article analyses doctrinal debates, major statutory provisions, representative case law and evolving administrative practice, and proposes targeted reforms—statutory clarifications, issuance of implementing regulations, internal approval protocols for Article 139 matters, judicial training, and treaty-level initiatives—to reconcile Iran’s commitment to arbitral enforcement with legitimate public-order and sovereignty concerns while improving predictability for foreign investors and creditors.

Abstract Family law serves as a fundamental legal framework regulating relationships within families, including marriage, divorce, child custody, inheritance, and domestic obligations. This comparative study examines the divergent and convergent features of family law systems in Eastern and Western jurisdictions, highlighting the influence of cultural, religious, and social factors. Western legal systems, including common law and civil law traditions, emphasize individual autonomy, gender equality, and codified procedural safeguards. In contrast, Eastern systems, particularly those influenced by Islamic law and traditional Asian customs, prioritize family cohesion, social harmony, and religious or cultural norms. The study analyzes marriage and divorce regulations, child custody and protection mechanisms, inheritance rules, and contemporary reforms in both regions. It also addresses emerging trends such as recognition of same-sex marriages, assisted reproductive technologies, and cross-border legal issues. Comparative findings reveal key differences in the balance between individual rights and collective responsibilities, the role of religion in legal formulation, gender equality, and procedural approaches. Despite these differences, globalization and international human rights standards have prompted reforms in both regions, fostering convergence in areas such as child welfare, protection of vulnerable family members, and legal modernization. The study concludes that understanding the underlying social, religious, and cultural values of family law systems is essential for policymakers, legal scholars, and practitioners to promote effective, equitable, and culturally sensitive legal frameworks. Comparative analysis not only enhances cross-cultural legal understanding but also provides opportunities for harmonization, mutual learning, and informed reform in globalized contexts.

Abstract Youth movements have historically served as catalysts for political transformation, social reform, and democratic renewal. This paper examines the multifaceted role of youth activism in shaping political transitions, emphasizing its influence on governance structures, social justice, and civic participation. The study analyzes the dynamics of youth engagement in key political transformations across regions such as the Middle East, Eastern Europe, and Sub-Saharan Africa. It argues that youth movement’s function both as agents of mobilization and as moral forces that challenge entrenched political orders. Through digital communication, grassroots organization, and transnational solidarity, young people have reshaped the boundaries of political discourse, often acting as the vanguard of democratization efforts. The research employs a qualitative comparative approach, drawing from historical and contemporary case studies including the Arab Spring (Tunisia and Egypt), the Serbian Otpor! Movement, and the End SARS protests in Nigeria. Findings reveal that while youth movements are instrumental in initiating transitions, their long-term impact depends on institutional inclusion, leadership sustainability, and the capacity to translate protest into policy. Ultimately, this study concludes that youth movements represent not merely a phase of dissent but a transformative force capable of redefining political legitimacy and participation in the 21st century. Understanding their evolving role is essential for policymakers and scholars seeking to comprehend the dynamics of modern political change.

Abstract Medical crimes encompass a spectrum of wrongful acts in healthcare, ranging from unintentional negligence to deliberate harmful actions, which not only endanger patients’ health but also undermine public trust in the medical system. This paper provides a comprehensive analysis of the criminal and legal dimensions of medical crimes. Acts of medical malpractice, arising from failure to adhere to standard care protocols, are typically addressed under civil law; however, in cases where they result in severe injury or death, they may also attract criminal liability. Conversely, intentional acts, such as administering harmful substances, sexual abuse of patients, or falsification of medical records, are directly subject to criminal prosecution and carry severe penalties including imprisonment, fines, and revocation of medical licenses. Additionally, financial crimes and fraud within healthcare systems have widespread implications on public resources and societal trust. The examination of these crimes indicates that their consequences extend beyond individual patients, affecting overall public health, healthcare costs, and quality of medical services. Preventing medical crimes requires strengthening professional education, establishing transparent reporting systems, enforcing strict oversight, and implementing legal reforms that balance patient protection with the rights of healthcare practitioners. This analysis provides a comprehensive perspective on the intersection of law, ethics, and medical professionalism, highlighting the urgent need for preventive measures and accountable practices to safeguard both patients and society.

Abstract Legal precedents play a fundamental role in shaping the reasoning and outcomes of judicial decisions across various legal systems, particularly in common law jurisdictions. By adhering to the doctrine of stare decisis, courts ensure consistency, predictability, and fairness in the application of law. This reliance on precedent provides litigants and society with a sense of stability, allowing individuals and institutions to anticipate legal consequences and organize their affairs accordingly. Beyond stability, precedents also facilitate the gradual evolution of legal doctrines, enabling courts to refine or reinterpret principles in response to shifting social norms, political contexts, and technological innovations. At the same time, the use of precedent is not without challenges. Strict adherence may entrench outdated or unjust decisions, while excessive flexibility risks undermining legal certainty and judicial legitimacy. The globalized nature of contemporary legal practice further complicates this dynamic, as courts increasingly engage with transnational jurisprudence and comparative precedent. This paper argues that the true significance of precedent lies in its dual role as both a guardian of continuity and a catalyst for change. By balancing respect for established rulings with responsiveness to new realities, courts can ensure that the law remains both stable and adaptable, preserving its legitimacy while addressing emerging challenges. The broader implications of precedent extend beyond legal reasoning, shaping democratic governance, economic stability, and social justice in profound and lasting ways.

Abstract Artificial Intelligence (AI), as one of the most advanced technologies of the 21st century, has increasingly entered the world's judicial systems and has transformed judicial decision-making processes. With its ability to analyze large volumes of data, identify complex patterns, and predict outcomes, this technology enables the acceleration and increase of accuracy in the process of handling cases. In this regard, AI can help judges and lawyers make more accurate and objective decisions based on evidence and information, thereby promoting judicial justice. In addition, the use of intelligent systems in predicting the risk of committing a crime or returning to the criminal justice system greatly contributes to decisions related to conditional release or setting bail. Also, text analysis and behavioral pattern recognition tools in criminal and legal cases can reduce the possibility of human errors and unintentional biases. However, the use of AI in decriminalization also comes with significant challenges and concerns. The most important of these challenges is the issue of transparency and understandability of algorithms; because AI decisions may be ambiguous and uninterpretable for human users and even judges due to technical complexities. Also, the risk of algorithmic discrimination resulting from inappropriate training data or biases in the data can jeopardize judicial justice. Concerns related to privacy, data security, and liability in the event of errors are also important concerns. Ultimately, the impact of AI on judicial decision-making processes depends largely on how it is designed, monitored, and the legal and ethical frameworks governing its use.