حقوق بشر

In traditional international law,"Effective Authority" has been the applicable criterion in recognizing the legitimacy of governments and their recognition by other states. The United Nations also took note of this criterion in accepting representatives identified by governments. However, after the Cold War, a new criterion, the "Democratic Legitimacy," was introduced to recognize the legitimacy of new governments. Increasing attention to human rights and adherence to democratic norms in governance has strengthened this theory among jurists. The main question of this article is what is the applicable criterion in examining the "legality of governments" in international law? In this article, which is written by descriptive-analytical method and by studying books and articles, we examine the application of the theory of democratic legitimacy in the recognition of governments. By studying the change of governments after the adoption of the UN Charter until 2020, we conclude that the theory of democratic legitimacy was applied only in response to military coup d'état against democratically elected governments after the end of the Cold War. In other causes of regime change including revolutions and civil war; The New Government is recognized by the international community and credentials of its representatives accredited to the United Nations on the basis of the traditional criterion of effective authority. However, there are few exemptions such as Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan.

European court of human rights was established in 1959 as an independent court of Council of Europe in order to deal with alleged violations of human rights which has been enumerated in European Convention on human rights. Obviously, protection and evolution of human rights obligations is considered as one of the most significant concerns of this court. In addition, the protection of human rights and public interest together Are required for an efficient society. As a result, European court of human rights must use a mechanism by which it can have a reasonable and balanced operation to realize these two fundamental values. In order to approach this aim, the court uses the proportionality test, consisting of three principles of legitimacy, appropriateness and necessity. Despite its efficient results for the Court, the application of this test has its deficiency in keeping a balance between human rights and public interest. This court authorized the member states to evaluate the legitimacy of an aim by themselves, however it should be the court’s task to pass three steps of proportionality test independently. This research mainly concentrates on the evaluation of the European court of human rights from the doctrine of margin of appreciation perspective.

The “Black Lives Matter” civil rights movement has left profound effects on the international approach of the US government toward human rights. This movement reached its peak in 2020 and profoundly affected culture, politics, and policy making in the US. The two major parties reacted differently – the Democrats showed support but Republicans opposed it. These reactions help us analyze the US international policy toward human rights. US human rights policy has been embedded in the theory of “American exceptionalism”, which considered US the best incarnation of human rights and its interests as a superpower equal to its protection. But the Black Lives Matter movement challenges this narrative and claims that human rights violations are an untold part of this story. The Democrats have adopted a new approach to American exceptionalism in response which considers The US to have an exceptional potential to embody human rights values but this potential is yet to be realized. Joe Biden has also prioritized human rights more than his predecessors since 1980s by criticizing the US and also adopting harsher policies toward US allies that violate human rights. It can be predicted that the Democrats will adopt a more normative approach toward human rights in the future.

Often when speaking of supporting vulnerable victims, including women, everyone's offender-oriented approach turns to a specific criminalization or aggravation of punishment, however the question is whether such an approach is in the best interest of the victim and will lead to maximum support for her. It seems that constant recourse to criminal intervention is not only insufficient for stopping victimization of women, but sometimes criminal intervention apart from significant costs can lead to aggravation or recurrence of victimization.  It seems that providing extra-criminal protective options, decriminalization, or depenalization of behaviors that some women are forced to commit in certain circumstances provides better protection for women victims rather than focusing solely on criminal punishment. In this article, an attempt has been made to use analytical-descriptive method, while referencing the current criminal law and its shortcomings in protecting women victims, to suggest some measures such as decriminalization of abortion after rape or accepting extra-criminal options in crimes including domestic violence in light of restorative justice teachings as an alternative or supplementary approach.  

According to Article 7 of the Rome Statute, the crime of Apartheid refers to actions, policies, and courses of conduct with the purpose of maintaining an institutionalized regime of systematic racism and racial domination. Based on this definition, the word "Apartheid" will not only refer to the historical regime of South Africa (1948-1994) but is also recognized as a crime against humanity on par with torture and slavery. Due to certain similarities in legal systems and roots of establishment, Israel and the Apartheid Regime of South Africa have been considered to be analogous in various international documents sponsored by the United Nations until 1991. This study aims to analyze the historical rationale behind this recognition and the reversal of course by the United Nations General Assembly, which was initiated with the revocation of A/RES/3379 resolution (the equation of Zionism with racism). Furthermore, in the light of recent developments on domestic and international levels, it seems several unaligned trends are gaining ground in this respect to reaffirm the previous attribution of the crime of Apartheid to Israel. Through using E-Library data and employing the descriptive-analytical method, the veracity of the said trends, their projection, and their perseverance will be further discussed in this paper.

Since the adoption of the Cairo Declaration of Human Rights in Islam (CDHRI) in 1990, there was an ongoing debate between Western and Muslim states regarding the compatibility of its provisions with human rights standards. The adoption of Ten-Year Program of Action in 2005 was a turning point in the OIC human rights agenda. The establishment of the Independent Permanent Human Rights Commission (IPHRC) paved the way for the revision of the CDHRI in 2020 and it was described as a monumental success. This article shall review the in which the OIC has re-engaged to human rights after 30 years of controversies with a descriptive and analytical method. First, we will study the general framework of the revised Declaration and the challenges of the adoption process, and then we will evaluate the changes made in its content by comparing the two declarations. The paper concludes that the revised declaration may bring OIC human rights rhetoric in alignment with UN human rights language, nevertheless, the IPHRC failed to carry out its mandated task in bringing human rights standards in harmony with Islamic teachings and values, especially where it simply copied and pasted the text of international human rights instruments.

The right to attorney in judicial proceedings is one of the basic procedural rights that serves substantive rights. The question that can be raised here is “What is the meaning and characteristics of the attorney in administrative proceedings? Using a comparative and analytical method, the present article seeks to answer the above question. The findings of this article show that the British and Australian legal systems do not recognize the right to attorney in administrative proceedings as an absolute right. If the laws do not recognize the power of attorney in the administrative proceedings, it will be up to administrative courts. However, in cases where procedural fairness requires this right, the courts are sensitive to it in their judicial procedure. The procedure of the European Court of Human Rights also shows that the concepts of fairness of the proceedings and the right to attorney have been extended to administrative proceedings as well. In the Iranian legal system, the attorney is one of the basic procedural rights recognized by the Constitution and according to the approach of the Guardian Council, this right can be extended to administrative courts as well. The judicial procedure of the Court of Administrative Justice also confirms this approach and treats it as a judicial proceeding.

Discrimination and xenophobia are threats to peace, and in many occasions have led to armed conflicts. Similarly the UN Special Rapporteur on Racism, Doudou Diène finds racism and xenophobia, rather than terrorism, as “the most serious threats to democracy”. On the other hand, international struggle against non-discrimination, fascism and xenophobia, along with protection of minorities, has been concentrated on the racial and national aspects of vulnerable people, rather than the religious ones. This policy seems no more adequate when as Abdelfattah Amor, the former UN Special Rapporteur on religious intolerance states that “there are borderline cases where racial and religious distinctions are far from clear cut. Abdelfattah Amor adds, “apart from any discrimination, the identity of many minorities, or even large groups of people, is defined by both racial and religious aspects. Hence, many instances of discrimination are aggravated by the effects of multiple identities.” Similarly Diène refers to “the centrality of the amalgamation of the factors of race, culture and religion in the post-9/11 ideological atmosphere of intolerance and polarization.”

Over the past few years, two events have radically transformed American identity and global perceptions of America with respect to human rights. The first of these is the detention of “enemy combatants” at Guantanamo Bay and the second is the abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. This paper considers how Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib have altered the intellectual and popular perceptions of human rights in America and abroad. The paper argues that the very different reactions to these events in the US and abroad suggest a move toward a relativist view of human rights in the US, limited by necessity and legality, but a universalist approach to human rights abroad. Moving toward a common global understanding of necessity and legality is critical to the pursuit of universal human rights. The reactions to Guantanamo indicate a growing acceptance in the United States of a relative conception of human rights. In the winter and spring of 2003, United States military forces at Abu Ghraib prison committed a range of often gruesome violations of Iraqi prisoners.

Western discussions of human rights have led to the coalescence of two distinct positions regarding the fundamental, inalienable liberties that citizens should be able to enjoy as a matter of principle. The first, commonly known as the cosmopolitan perspective , asserts that one set of basic human rights is valid for all societies. The other claims that citizens of different societies may possess different sets of human rights, albeit ones that any thoughtful person would acknowledge to be essentially decent and appropriate to the cultural and historical circumstances of the community at hand. Among a great many prominent cosmopolitan theorists, David Held stands out as the most consistent and vociferous champion of a universalist conception of human rights. Arguably the most influential proponent of distinct packages of rights for various social milieux is John Rawls, whose controversial notion of the Law of Peoples explicitly calls on liberal societies to tolerate, if not actually respect, alternative ways in which a minimal cluster of basic rights might be articulated. This paper demonstrates first that these two, generally opposed poles of the debate over human rights have moved much closer to one another than one might expect.

The word dialogue comes from the Greek word ‘dialogos’ and is commonly used in the meaning of conversation between two people, two groups and/or communities or organizations. Dialogue is not a debate to win or lose or to convince the other of a particular way of thinking. Dialogue is communicative conversation that involves intensely creative process with a goal to create peaceful and respectful relations among participants and in a community. When religious communities or organizations nominate a representative to participate in the intra or interfaith dialogue, they make sure that their nominees are trained in the art of dialogue. First, that he/she represents the community and second, that if he/she is not trained in the art of dialogue they understand that there may be a negative impact on the intra-faith or interfaith dialogue. For a healthy intra-faith and interfaith dialogue, the organization or community representatives must be trained in rights, responsibilities and skills of dialogue. This paper will discuss some of those rights, responsibilities and skills essential for a successful dialogue in the light of those principles and guidelines initiated in the Qur’an and Sunnah.

India is home to a remarkable variety of religions, and a major challenge that the country faces today is that of conflict between various religious communities. This has taken on menacing forms in recent decades. Incidents of violence between Hindus and Muslims, in which often agencies of the state play a central role in directing anti-Muslim violence, have now become endemic in some parts of the country. This form of communal violence, generally instigated by right-wing Hindu forces, is sought to be given religious sanction and is also projected as a crusade to save the Indian “nation”, which is described and portrayed in Hindu terms. Communal violence and anti-Muslim pogroms in various parts of the country have resulted in mounting human rights violations, particularly of marginalised communities such as the country’s Muslims, who number more than 150 million.