Public Law
keivan eghbali
Abstract
The suspension of the human rights is one of the solutions which was designed to strike a balance between the need to respect human rights and human freedom and safeguarding of public interests in the emergency status. In the meantime, in order to prevent any possibility of misuse of authority in recognizing ...
Read More
The suspension of the human rights is one of the solutions which was designed to strike a balance between the need to respect human rights and human freedom and safeguarding of public interests in the emergency status. In the meantime, in order to prevent any possibility of misuse of authority in recognizing the necessity or non-necessity of the suspension of the human rights by government, some preconditions have been provided. In this context, due to the implicit recognition of the possibility of suspension of human rights within laws of Iran, the present study aims to investigate with a descriptive-analytical method whether the judicial oversight in the process of suspending human rights can play an effective role in preventing possible human rights violations in this process? The results indicate that after review of existing jurisprudence one can conclude that judicial oversight of the judiciary on implementation of preconditions of the suspension can play an effective rule in protecting the rights of the citizens. It is important to note that in the entire supervisory process, three basic criteria and principles, namely the rule of law, judicial independence and impartiality, must always be at the forefront of the work of the relevant institutions in the judiciary; Criteria that each of them depends on appropriate guarantees by the judiciary.
Tavakkol Habibzadeh; keivan eghbali; Najmeh Samiei Nasab
Abstract
One of the main examples of the use of chemical weapons during modern armed conflicts is the widespread use of these weapons against Iranian soldiers and civilians and even Iraqi citizens, by the Iraqi army in the imposed war resulting in thousands being martyred or injured. Meanwhile, due to the need ...
Read More
One of the main examples of the use of chemical weapons during modern armed conflicts is the widespread use of these weapons against Iranian soldiers and civilians and even Iraqi citizens, by the Iraqi army in the imposed war resulting in thousands being martyred or injured. Meanwhile, due to the need to protect its citizens, the Islamic Republic of Iran, given the severity of the harm done to the Iranian victims of chemical attacks and their families, has the task of facilitating the litigation of these individuals from the perpetrators of the attacks. In this regard, the judiciary is also of a pivotal task for facilitating the domestic litigation of Iranian victims of chemical attacks through internal judicial mechanisms. In this framework, although the domestic courts have competence to proceed in this case, but with regard to the non-criminalization of international crimes in Iran's domestic laws, the criminal or civil litigation of Iranian chemical victims and their families from Iraqi authorities and also, the people who helped the Iraqi Ba'ath army to achieve chemical weapons are subjected to the exact criminalization of international crimes, including the use of chemical weapons as an example of war crimes. On the other hand, according to the principle of judicial immunity of states, only the international responsibility of the United States for helping the Iraqi army to be armed with chemical weapons is litigious before the domestic courts of Iran, within the framework of the principle of countermeasure.
homayoun habibi; keivan eghbali
Abstract
Organized gangs usually are considered as a threat for security of human societies. But today, rising of a new generation of organized gangs, is resulted in serious worries about birth of a new kind of rebels and consequently fear about creation of a serious threat for states sovereignty on behalf them. ...
Read More
Organized gangs usually are considered as a threat for security of human societies. But today, rising of a new generation of organized gangs, is resulted in serious worries about birth of a new kind of rebels and consequently fear about creation of a serious threat for states sovereignty on behalf them. In fact, tendency of the new generation of gangs to control on the land of a government, the their high level of organization and using widespread violence by them, make such a similarity between these groups and rebel groups that some experts consider them as a new kind of rebels and acclaim that acts of governments against these kind of gangs must be seen as a non-international armed conflict. But The analysis show that there are important differences between new generation of gangs and opposed armed groups in relation to goals, structures and so each one of these phenomena must be considered as a different phenomena.
