seyed mustafa meshkat

Nowadays, theft of nuclear material and devices to commit terrorist acts constitutes the most important nightmare for the international community. In this way, the activists of the international law system criminalized nuclear theft, to combat offenses related to nuclear technology, in the 1979 Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material. Considering the aforementioned instrument and the Convention on Nuclear Terrorism 2005, the terrorist and non-terrorist aspects of nuclear theft have been taken into account. the findings of this paper show that the Iranian legislature, despite the appropriate measures, such as the criminalization of not declaring the theft of radiation sources, has not still established a strong criminal policy, especially for nuclear theft in its terrorist aspect. nevertheless, the Federal legislature of the United States of America has criminalized nuclear theft in both terrorist and non-terrorist aspects. In this way, the accurate and narrow explanation of nuclear theft, establishing the proportion of criminal punishments, and recognizing the universal jurisdiction is an important framework that builds the United States criminal policy to combat nuclear theft. The purpose of this paper is to analyze the legal policy of Iran and the Federal of the United States of America tackling nuclear theft and also to introduce a deterrent criminal policy against nuclear theft.

One of the causes that constitute hate crime is the gender identity of victims. Although trans people believe in a gender that opposite from which assigned at their birth, they behave against their biological identity. This behavior that resulted from their gender identity disorder makes them as a proper sibling for the victimizing of a hate crime. In this context, combatting violence against trans people is required to create a criminal and non-criminal strategy. In this way, the legislator of the United States at both Federal and State levels consider trans people as a protected group in hate crimes. In addition, non-criminal measures, including in the area of education on the gender identity disorder of trans people, anti-discrimination legislation in workplaces, education, legal assistance, and the fitting of shelters are considered to combat violence against trans people. On the other hand, Iranian legislator has not yet been created adequate protection policies in the face of violence based on gender identity disorder. All in all, the aim of this paper is to analyze the United States policy on combatting hate crime against trans people and then establish a comprehensive strategy on how to deal with the aforementioned issue.

One of the nightmares of humanity in the current century is an occurrence of a nuclear incident. Nuclear incidents depending on the type of nuclear facility and material could have devastating damages. Following to nature and power of nuclear energy, any nuclear incident could impact a large area for a long-term period. Nuclear damages have a variety ranges from environmental pollution to the death of a large group of people. To confront it, initially, we should prevent to occur of these hazardous incidents and then fully prepare to deal with victims of nuclear incidents. In this way, a rapid, timely, and efficient system of compensation is vital. Regarding the scope of nuclear damages, it is necessary to draw a compatible liability model of compensation. In this way, nuclear liability was created in the early 1960s. This sort of liability is a new legal topic that attempts to create a proper system to compensate such victims. However, the international nuclear liability model has been changed several times to date. The occurrence of nuclear incidents especially the Chernobyl disaster in 1986 led to a revolution in the civil liability system for nuclear damages. This incident has expressed shortcomings and gaps in compensation when many people have entitled to a nuclear incident and need to prompt and sufficient compensation. This issue does not only include international law but also encompasses national laws. Thus, following nuclear incidents, national legislations have also been updated. Among them are the United States of America and Japan. These legal systems have experienced two severe nuclear incidents. The Three Mile Island and Fukushima Daiichi incidents, which occurred in the United States and Japan in 1979 and 2011 respectively, are among the most important nuclear events so far. Following the Three Mile Island and Fukushima Daiichi incidents, Either Japan and the United States of America have updated the nuclear liability systems. Therefore, the purpose was to develop the scope of liability of nuclear operators and to establish public funds to rapidly provide compensation to victims of nuclear incidents. Japan and the United States of America are considered two roughly appropriate civil liability for nuclear damages that supportive measures of victims of nuclear incidents are taken into account. Even in some aspects, these legal systems act better compare to international law. For instance, the legislature of Japan has established the nuclear liability model that does not have an upper limit. This issue causes to lift any limitation on the compensation of victims of nuclear incidents. The United States of America has also taken proper measures to compensate victims of nuclear incidents. Among the measures is to provide two tiers of compensation. The aim of this compensation scheme is to take assurance of an efficient compensation of victims resulting from a nuclear incident. As earlier mentioned, the occurrence of nuclear incidents could clearly demonstrate shortcomings and gaps in a legal regime of nuclear compensation. It is better to say, one of the most important effects of the tangible experience of nuclear incidents and their compensations is to evaluate and test the civil liability system resulting from nuclear incidents. In other words, the occurrence of such incidents can better answer the question of whether the existing liability system has been compatible with the severity of such incidents and damages. It is clear that such analyzes and assessments could lead to the identification of a framework for a civil liability system compatible with nuclear damages in countries such as Iran, which are deprived of such systems. Such countries that have not yet experienced a nuclear incident have the opportunity to establish a compensation model with a minimum of shortcomings and gaps. However, this paper attempts to explore the legislative systems of Japan and the Federal of the United States of America and along with that to determine and evaluate the impact of the Three Mile Island and Fukushima Daiichi incidents on the nuclear civil liability system by relying on a descriptive-analytical study method in order to finally establish dimensions of the liability system compatible with the type and amount of nuclear damage (huge damage).

Accessing or attempting to access nuclear material in order to carry out terrorist acts is the most important nightmare of the international community in the current century. The activists of the international law system aimed at counteracting nuclear terrorism in the form of the Convention for the Suppression of Acts of Nuclear Terrorism in 2005. Thus, the recommendation to criminalize a certain set of actions and to draw up appropriate sanctions against them is a criminal strategy adopted in the face of nuclear terrorism. In this way, Iran, by not joining the convention, has not yet carried out an independent criminalization of nuclear terrorism; nevertheless, the national legislator, following an innovative action by using jurisprudential doctrines, clarifies the crime of Efsad-e-fel-arz [corrupt on earth] in Article 286 of the Islamic Penal Code 2013. Accordingly, it is found that the definition of the crime as a result crime, the ambiguity in the psychological pillar and not consisting of certain instances of nuclear terrorism is among the most important challenges facing nuclear terrorism. Thus, during this study, the intention was to take the pathology of compatibility of Efsad-e-fel-arz [corrupt on earth] and Moharebeh against nuclear terrorism and then the numbers of solutions were proposed

Nuclear smuggling has emerged, as a new manifestation of smuggling, with the discovery and operation of nuclear energy in the life of human society. The issue of controlling the import and export of nuclear material and devices that have been considered by international instruments, including the Convention on the Protection of the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material. This matter has led some governments to criminalize the illegal smuggling of materials, devices, and nuclear science separately. On this path, Canada, as one of the countries that exploit nuclear technology, has adopted a cynical approach in the area of criminality and the designation of a criminal sanction against nuclear smuggling. On the other hand, the activists of Iran's criminal system, by introducing a law on the smuggling of weapons, ammunition, and weapons and ammunition holders, have described the case of nuclear smuggling, namely the trafficking of radioactive materials as criminal offenses. Nevertheless, in order to have an up-to-date and dynamic criminal policy against the aforementioned behavior, it is necessary to compare national penal provisions to Canadian laws that have a comprehensive view of the various manifestations of nuclear trafficking and threats of committing it. Eventually, appropriate criminal punishment for dealing with nuclear smuggling will be outlined.

In order to stop reliance on the oil economy and finance the yearly budget of the country, safeguarding tax revenues and benefitting from them are ever the more necessary. Tax evasion is thus criminalized not only in Iran but also in most countries. However, the criminal strategy can only be effective if it is properly developed and implemented. The amendment of the Direct Tax Law in 1394, brought about a better level of performance from Iranian legislators in comparison to their performance on previous regulations. Also, by expanding the criminal scope of tax evasion, more activities were categorized as tax evasion, but this approach was not formulated in a way that would act as a powerful and deterrent tax evasion strategy. Hence, the use of disproportionate financial penalties, the lack of legal consequences for those attempting to evade taxes, the lack of explicit and general legal consequences and penalties for conspiring to evade taxes, and the lack of specification of the prosecution and investigation stages are only part of the most important holes within the Iranian legislative system against tax evasion. On the other hand, the Canadian Legislative System has adopted a better criminal justice policy in aspects of criminalization, penalization, and specialization in criminal proceedings to counter tax evasion. Therefore, this paper intends and aims to draw up and recommend a preventative and effective tax evasion strategy by analyzing and comparing the penal rules of Iran and Canada.

The discovery and focusing on different advantages of application of nuclear energy do not mean to neglect the power of this type of energy to develop and expand activities that violate the safety and security of the community and its followers. Among these behaviors is nuclear blackmail that along with the threat of using the destructive power of nuclear energy, the illegal demands of individuals are asked to enforce. In this respect, England and Wales' penal system is one of the few systems around the world that have independently reacted to the commission of nuclear blackmail. Thus, both terrorist and non-terrorist dimensions of nuclear blackmail are separately criminalized. Contrary to England and Wales' penal system, the legislator of Iran has not yet paid attention to criminalize nuclear blackmail. In this regard, the purpose of this research is to study and analyze the penal laws of Iran and England and Wales against nuclear blackmail and to suggest a proper criminal strategy in related the beforementioned behavior.

The dispersal of radioactive material is one of the environmental crimes that has both terrorist and non-terrorist dimensions. In this regard, the activists of the international law system with the ratification of the conventions on the physical protection of nuclear materials and suppression of acts of nuclear terrorism in 1979 and 2005, respectively, considered non-terrorist and terrorist dimensions of dispersal of radioactive material. In this way, the legislator of Iran in 2013, considered a wide range dispersal of hazardous substances as one of the instances of Efsade-fel-arz. In addition to the use of ambiguous words and phrases, the necessity of result of the criminal offense and special malice has led to incomplete coverage in terms of dispersal of radioactive material. Muharebeh and threats against public health are other crimes that have challenges and deficiencies in response to the dispersal of radioactive substances. On the other hand, US Federal Lawmakers have clearly and completely criminalized dispersal of radioactive material in both terrorist and non-terrorist dimensions. In the meantime, the purpose of this paper is to review the laws of Iran and the United States against dispersal of radioactive material and then introduce a proper criminal reaction about aforementioned act.

Anticruelty to animals is included in the humanitarian approach, which also has an anti-violence function. On this occasion, the criminal law activists have criminalized several forms of animal abuse an and create punishments against them. The scope of the animal abuse is not included physical abuse, but in a broad view, it also covers animal neglect abuse. In this way, the United States criminal justice system at the federal and state levels has developed a strategy for effective and efficient animal abuse. Of course, this is not limited to the comprehensive criminality of animal species, and various criminal and non-criminal measures have been put in place in the face of these acts. On the other hand, national legislators have adopted an incomplete approach to animal abuse. In this regard, during this paper, attempts are made to map the peculiar criminal policy for animal abuse by measuring and analyzing the criminal rules of Iran and the United States.

Waste crime is a new title in the literature on criminal law, which has a significant part of environmental crimes. In this context, smuggling and illicit disposal of nuclear waste are among the most important aspects of waste crime. In fact, the radiation power of nuclear waste and its environmental impact have made it necessary to combat smuggling and illicit disposal of nuclear waste. In this regard, combating against the aforementioned acts require that the legislative system organizes in a proportionate manner. On this basis, it is appropriate to establish clear and transparent rules for the export, import and disposal of nuclear waste and criminalizing each of these acts of smuggling and the illegal disposal of nuclear waste with the creating of proportionate punishments. Therefore, by studying the Iranian and federal legislation of the United States, it was discovered that Iranian legislator, in addition to not creating an updated and integrated regulation on nuclear waste management, has not yet to make appropriate criminal responses to the illegal disposal of the wastes. On the other hand, the federal legislator of the United States has adopted an appropriate approach to both nuclear waste management and the smuggling and illegal disposal of them. In the meantime, during this paper, it attempts to study the criminal law of Iran and the United States about the smuggling and illicit disposal of nuclear waste.

Nuclear testing is not only a threat to peace and security of the world, but it could cause different levels of environmental pollution in accordance with the forms of its occurrence. Although the activists of international law regime have created the Antarctic Treaty, the Partial Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, The Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons in 1959, 1963, 1996, and 2017, respectively, but the aforementioned instruments have inadequacies and ambiguities that are caused not to create a suitable legal strategy to confront nuclear testing. Accordingly, the most important flaws of the aforementioned treaties are the lack of transparent definition of the nuclear test and explosion and their scope, the neglect of civil responsibility and the drawing up of the mechanism for compensating for nuclear tests, the creation of difficult conditions for their entry into force and, the possibility of a withdrawal clause. Furthermore, there is no explicit mandate to ban nuclear testing among other sources of international law. Therefore, during this essay, it aims to recognize and remove the flaws in the field of nuclear testing by explaining the legal system governing the prohibition of this type of testing in international law.