human rights
Mahnaz Rashidi
Abstract
Nowadays, right to water, increasingly has recognized in international documents as one of the human rights that is inextricably linked to other instances of human rights, such as the right to life, the right to health, and the right to adequate standard of the living. Recognizing this right in human ...
Read More
Nowadays, right to water, increasingly has recognized in international documents as one of the human rights that is inextricably linked to other instances of human rights, such as the right to life, the right to health, and the right to adequate standard of the living. Recognizing this right in human rights discourse, on the one hand, obliges States not to interfere in the free access of human beings to water, and on the other hand, it rests the responsibility of providing the arrangements of water supply and access to this vital substance for them. Although the main commitment of fulfilling the obligations of the right to water is the executive bodies of a country, but the legislative and judicial institutions also have responsibilities for the full realization of this right. The question that this study has been written in order to answer it, is: what role does the judiciary of the Islamic Republic of Iran play in ensuring the right of Iranian citizens to water? The result of descriptive-analytical studies in this paper, which is obtained using library studies and review of international documents and domestic laws, is that judiciary with the main task of establishing rights and justice and reviving public rights, can guarantee the right to water in three general areas: prevention, monitoring and litigation. However, the lack of explicit recognition of the right to water in domestic law is the most important shortcoming, which has largely limited the scope of action of this body to guarantee of right to water
International Law
Mahnaz Rashidi
Abstract
US action in the assassination of senior Iranian and Iraqi military officials, including the martyred General Soleimani and Abu Mahdi Al-Mohandis, is a clear example of State terrorism and violates the most important rules of international law, including the right to life, prohibition of the use of the ...
Read More
US action in the assassination of senior Iranian and Iraqi military officials, including the martyred General Soleimani and Abu Mahdi Al-Mohandis, is a clear example of State terrorism and violates the most important rules of international law, including the right to life, prohibition of the use of the force, respect for the sovereignty of the States and the principle of non-intervention in domestic affairs of other countries. Trump administration has also violated US domestic law by failing to comply with the Senate. One of the harsh revenge measures emphasized by the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution can be a victory in the legal war and litigation in the courts. So, the main question in this article is, what is the legal basis for pursuing this case? The result of the descriptive-analytical study of the authors, by using the case study and utilizing library resources, shows that the most effective legal mechanisms are litigation before the international court of Justice (ICJ) under the Convention on the prevention and punishment of crimes against internationally protected persons, including diplomatic agents (1973), as well as trying to establish a hybrid court, in particular by agreeing with UN General Assembly or organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). However, these measures require consideration of political and legal consequences of each method and before that, the Iraqi authorities' political will to cooperate with international organizations is the main condition for any action
Ahmadreza Tohidi; Mahnaz Rashidi
Abstract
Independence and impartiality of the proceedings generally used as a principle and largely overlap together. However, this two terms don’t have the same meaning.Independence in international proceedings means lack of subordination to and freedom of influence of courts and proceedings from external ...
Read More
Independence and impartiality of the proceedings generally used as a principle and largely overlap together. However, this two terms don’t have the same meaning.Independence in international proceedings means lack of subordination to and freedom of influence of courts and proceedings from external pressures and factors, including States, international organizations, powerful persons and etc. This concept in internal system emerges from seperation of powers Montesquieu´s theory and implies that the executive can´t influence on judiciary. But, impartiality measns lack of bias and lack of prejudice in favour of one party of the proceedings and, independence is one of the factors that supply impartiality. This principle in the international criminal courts has always been known as one of the most important principles of justice and theses courts tried, whether in their statutes and their jurisprudence, in order to legitimacy of proceedings and structures, as much as possible ensure implementation of these principles. Studying Procedures of international criminal courts including international tribunal for Rowanda, international criminal tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, special court for Sierra leone and international criminal court gives a good criterion for identifying violations of the independence and impartiality that is the detection of violations in view of “reasonable observer, properly informed” and the gross effect on the accused´s right to a fair trial. Also in proceedings, in general, independence and impartiality are principle and those who claim contrary to it, should provide strong reasons to prove it.
