جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه « legal regime » در نشریات گروه « علوم انسانی »

Decentralized finance (DeFi), founded on blockchain technologies and smart contracts, is rapidly becoming a powerful alternative to traditional financial systems. Compared to centralized finance, DeFi offers undeniable advantages such as increased security, speed, financial transparency, and reduced costs. However, this emerging phenomenon faces numerous legal challenges that require careful and effective legal actions. The essence of this phenomenon is the lack of dependence on the national legal regime of countries and lacking centralized monetary and banking supervision over it by national regulatory institutions. This research employs a qualitative method, utilizing library tools and a descriptive-analytical approach, to compare decentralized finance with conventional centralized financing. It examines some challenges as well as the possibility of proper and transparent organization of DFA in Iranian law and, ultimately proposing solutions for regulating the relationships of stakeholders. Considering the lack of sufficient provisions in Iranian law, it is suggested that the jurisprudence of existing legal institutions, such as recognizing an independent legal personality for smart contracts and also civil partnerships, arbitration agreements, arbitration clauses, and Article 10 of the Civil Code, be acknowledged for regulating the relationships of transacting parties until appropriate and comprehensive legislation is enacted. Finally, this research emphasizes the importance of international cooperation, academic environments, and the exchange of experiences in this field. It recommends that legislators move towards recognizing and enacting new laws and regulations aligned with DeFi’s needs, rather than remaining silent, to prevent future legal challenges and potential loss of assets.

The legal regime of common water resources remains the main concern of countries in the international river basin. In this regard, it seems difficult and unresolved just as before to determine the legal regime of these rivers, due to the different viewpoints of the coastal countries located in the basin of these rivers, on the extent and how to exploit these resources. In general, the approach of governments in the exploitation of these resources stems from two perspectives: a perspective accepts the problem of water scarcity and, with proper management, considers water as an important factor in regional cooperation. In contrast, the other one, given the certainty of conflict over natural resources, regards the conflict and crisis over common water resources as inevitable. Accordingly, the present article examines the governing principles of water resources exploitation of international rivers, assuming that the geographical location (upstream-downstream relations) and hydro-hegemonic position of coastal countries is effective in adopting the governing principles of international rivers. It has also dealt with the conformity ratio of these principles with the approaches and hydro-political attitudes of the countries in the basin of these rivers. The data and information required for the article have been collected through library method (books, publications and Internet). It seems that the adoption or development of governing principles of international rivers exploitation can be derived from the upstream-downstream position and the hydro-hegemonic status of the countries located at the basin of a river. While confirming the hypothesis and the effectiveness of hydropolitical approaches, the article has come to the conclusion that the principles with cooperation-oriented approaches of downstream countries or with low geopolitical weight and the principles with conflict-oriented approaches of upstream countries or with high geopolitical weight have received more attention and acceptance.

Influenced by the dominance of secular discourse over the rule of law, the dominant view in international law has been the removal of religion from legal relations (as a normative factor). But gradually, especially since the second half of the twenty-first century, more diverse theoretical and practical views have emerged on the relationship between religion and international law. In this regard, the legal regime of climate change in its development years has always been influenced by influential social forces in the process of climate dialogue. Countries, groups, organizations, and individuals with religious authority or representation of a belief system have increasingly been able to engage in climate dialogue through the lens of faith. This article tries to provide an analysis of how this range of social forces of the international community affects the legal regime of climate change in terms of the historical tradition, social reference groups as well as influential religious figures.

Geographical research and satellite images indicate the fact that nearly two-thirds of the earth's surface is covered by water and the remaining one-third is land. At the same time, in order to create a balance in the use of the world's waters, many international documents have been approved to enable the use of these international natural resources for all countries and nations, which include oceans, seas, rivers, open seas, continental plateaus, Archipelago, internal waters, territorial sea, waters of the area adjacent to straits and channels and deep sea area. At the same time, the importance of rivers in terms of the diversity of its uses is greater than all the above cases, and this issue has led to the conflict of interests between countries in the use of rivers and unilateralism in policy-making regarding how to use and change the course of some rivers without respecting the rights The tradition of other countries in the use of rivers should be taken into account and it seems that the time has come that if the countries along the river or along the river are not able to resolve the disputes about the rivers and approve bilateral, multilateral or regional treaties, they should ask the United Nations He sought help from the United Nations and international law, and by approving international treaties, he restored regional general order regarding the use of the river by countries.

Due to its special situation, the Caspian region has been influenced by the political action of coastal and extra-regional actors. The geopolitics of this region and its effective foundations mutually give direction and meaning to the behaviour of the actors. The entanglement of three categories - geography, politics and power and the resulting forms of behaviour have created the question of what effect do the geopolitical foundations of the Caspian legal regime have on the national security of the Islamic Republic of Iran. In addition, the impact of geopolitical factors has consequences for the Islamic Republic of Iran which has brought about this research and which is also the search for truth. The following text is of a descriptive/analytical nature and a documentary/library foundation with the theoretical application of foundations and geo-political factors. The output of the research shows that geopolitics and its foundations, while creating the behavioural pattern of "opportunity" for the Islamic Republic of Iran, has provided the behavioural pattern of "insecurity" for this country. To be more precise, the geopolitics of the Caspian legal regime and its foundations, despite creating some opportunities for the Islamic Republic of Iran, the national security of this coastal player in the context of the geographical location and territorial space in the context of historical and civilizational developments, characteristics and the natural nature of the coastal area, territories and access to the sea and the territorial extent of the maritime country have been overshadowed and challenged.

Caspian Sea legally is from the water of the coastal countries and it's ownership is limited to these countries. Before the collapse of the Soviet Union, Caspian Sea was used in common by Iran and Soviet Union. The laws of the Caspian Sea were based on the treaties in 1921 (Amity contract) and 1940 (Business and Trekking contract). For a while after Iran and Russian war, Turkmen chai Contract at 1838 regulated the relationship between Iran and Soviet Union around Caspian Lake. From 1921 to Soviet Union collapse, Amity and Business and Trekking contracts were as a legal source for regulating of these two countries behavior related to the Caspian Lake. After the contract between Iran and Soviet Union at 1940 they announced the Caspian as a common Lake between them. Following Soviet Union collapse and increasing the coastal countries from 2 to 5 ones, problems in the legal regime of the Caspian Sea were created. In this descriptive study the researcher investigated the position of Iran, Russian and newly independent coastal countries related to the Caspian Lake.

With the creation of new coastal States in the Caspian shore, there was no territorial replacement that would affect Iran's coastal access to the Caspian Sea. The new coastal States all succeeded to the former Soviet Union in the latter’s territory. The concept of being a Soviet successor means that a “replacement of one State by another in the sovereignty over the territory” of the Soviet Union has occurred. The international legal principle of "land dominates the sea" is the point of departure for determining the coastal State's maritime rights. The existence of equal shipping rights in the Caspian, envisioned in the Treaties of 1921 and 1940, does not equate with the existence of a comprehensive legal regime for this Sea. The determination of a ten-mile fishing area along the coast of each State under the 1940 Treaty, was itself based on the principle of "the land dominates the sea". It shows that the allocation of this area during the time of the Soviet Union was also based on the length of the coast of the littoral States. Signature of the Aktau Convention by the Government of Iran implies the lack of persuasive strength of the position of equal and common sovereignty as advanced by the maximalist view of some Iranian writers, but the participation itself is a realistic measure  corresponding to international law and international relations.

Numerous treaties in the field of human rights have entrusted express legal obligations to States in order to respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms of all individuals under their territorial jurisdiction. Yet, the existence of a state of public emergency of significant magnitude may put States in special circumstances that are unable to fulfill some of their human rights obligations. In order to avoid legal confusion in such circumstances, the International Human Rights System tries to reduce human rights violations by means of providing a legal mechanism. The rapid outbreak of COVID-19 can be considered as an example of the realization of a state of public emergency that threatens the lives of all human beings. Accordingly, many States have adopted measures and arrangements for derogation from human rights treaties by declaring a state of emergency. This article seeks to answer what may be the legal regime governing the States derogation from the human rights treaties and how it would correct its shortcomings and deficiencies, especially in the era of the COVID-19 pandemic. The hypothesis put forward in the present article is that the existing legal regime, despite its legal strengths, has certain shortcomings and deficiencies. The findings of the present study show that there is the possibility of States' derogation from some of their human rights obligations in the form of the derogation clause; yet, some reforms in the existing legal regime seem necessary.

Exploitation of resources in outer space, while having endless benefits for humanity, has remained an unattainable human ambition due to the technical weakness of access to these resources. However, the technical dimension is not the only weakness of the exploitation and acquisition of resources in outer space, but in line with the principle of the common heritage of humanity, the lack of a specific legal regime regarding the exploitation of resources in outer space has also led to many problems regarding the ownership of the outer space, the resources extracted from it, and the use of the resources obtained, which opens the way for a broad interpretation of issues. Using an analytical-descriptive method, the present article seeks to examine the legal status of the acquisition of astronomical objects and the resources available in these objects, and in this regard, by considering the relevant international documents and experiences from human activities in other areas of the planet, seeks to provide legal solutions to human activities beyond this planet. Accordingly, by examining the relevant documents, it is concluded that the supremacy and integration of international regulations in the field of acquisition of the outer space resources paves the way for attaining the macroeconomic goals and the promotion of social welfare on an international scale, and prevents the encroachment of space powers and the occurrence of numerous disputes.

Over the last decades, the buy-back contract model kept evolving over the last 3 generations. Despite its significance, it was always faced with heavy criticism. After sanctions against Iran and the occurrence of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), there was a crucial need of international investment by joining foreign investors and domestic contractors on behalf of the host government. Thus, there was a vital need for an enhanced model contract after changes in laws allowing this agreement. Because most of Iran’s current reservoirs have been depleted, it is essential to do sustainable exploitation with a maximum efficient rate of recovery including prioritizing the use of shared reservoirs. This lead to the enactment of a new model of oil and gas contracts called Iranian Petroleum Contracts, also known as IPC. This new model has its own flaws in the legal regime and is faced with criticism just as with the previous model. This paper attempts to analyze and respond to these critical arguments. Although there are some gaps in the model, especially in the operating phase, it can pave the way for the advancement of legal and fiscal regimes leading to further foreign investment and future contracts, in hopes to strengthen Iran’s position in OPEC and world trade of oil and gas for long-term.

Establishing the legal regime of the Caspian Sea is one of the consequences of the collapse of the Soviet government and the succession of subsequent countries. Since the collapse of the Soviet Union in December 1991, despite the holding of nearly 40 expert meetings and four summit meetings and the signing of two documents on military security and environmental cooperation, the issue of establishing a comprehensive legal regime for the Caspian littoral states has faced challenges and problems. Moscow had prevented Iran from achieving its right by applying a decision-making model based mainly on the P4+1 (although the Baku-Ashgabat dispute still remains strong). In 2018, the Convention on the Legal Regime of the Caspian Sea was agreed upon by five countries, and many problems seemed to have been resolved, but the designation of an international authority in the event of a dispute between countries is one of the issues that has been ignored in this convention and its line of origin and delimitation has not been specified. One of the strengths of this convention is that it has put an end to the ambiguities and questions raised over the years and has introduced the Caspian Sea as a lake. However, it should be noted that commenting on the effectiveness of the Convention to clarify the situation in the Caspian Sea takes time.

The interaction of national legal systems with international legal order needs to be reviewed. This paper describes the state of the current international legal order in a generalized framework, focusing on one of the recent examples of these international components- the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) as a “legal regime”- in the virtue of verifying the capacity of the Islamic Republic of Iran's national legal system to face this situation and evaluating the distinct principles of Iran's Constitution on the Islamic Consultative Assembly. In this way, the general pattern of the position of Iran's legal system is criticized. Accordingly, the exercise of parliamentary competence is possible and necessary concerning the deal with recommendations of FATF under the principles of 77 and 125 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

After collaps of former Soviet Union, Caspian Sea geopolitic region has recived new identity and become an active region with a new fuction. In this regard, connection between interests of the world actors such as United States, European Union, Turkey and China with the coastal countries has intensified the situation and complexity of the region; in the way that competition between the Great powers in the region has activated the strategic aspect of the regional activities. In this relations, existence of the energy source and attention to the region as corridor of business and transportation and also its role as a connection course between Europ and Asia, has resulted to some consequeces for regional countries in the field of political independence, democracy, stability and security and in particular the legal regime. Therefore, this research hypothises that the West strategy in the Caspian region, aimed at supplying its energy interests, has caused ambiguity conserning borders and the legal regime of Caspean Sea.

In spite of widespread efforts on the part of Iran to develop a non-oil-dependent economy, experts believe that the prominent position of oil and petroleum products in the Iranian economy, particularly in relation to import/export operations is still undeniable. The main purpose of this study is to emphasize that the presence of a country in the international trade arena is significantly influenced by the legal regime governing the import/export of such products. On the other hand, it is inferred that oil, rather than being an economic commodity, is a political one, and this explains why it is the focus of attention in many states with oil-based economies. Despite the fact that scholars have not paid much attention to the legal regime governing customs import and export so far, it is imperative that the opportunities, barriers and requirements of the  Iran's presence in the dynamic sectors of the oil trade (including exports and imports) globally with respect to the regime Internal law be investigated. Failure to pay attention to the oil export sector makes the economy more vulnerable to these fluctuations, and this can affect the stability of the financial market and foreign exchange rates. According to the existing resources, since the theory of relative superiority is based on the basis that a country is specialized in the production and export of goods that can produce the product at relatively low cost, this should lead to the encouragement of the production and export of goods. The obvious application of this theory in Iran is the production and export of petroleum products, because the production of petroleum products can be done at a very low cost with regard to crude oil resources in Iran. The legal regime governing import/export of petroleum and non-petroleum products also pinpoints many differences in terms of tax exemptions and export incentives.Over the past few years, the World Bank Business Unit has been exploring the business environment in different countries and has used 10 indicators to measure business environments in the country, the eighth indicator of which is foreign trade. The company measures the three factors that businessmen are facing to trade in different countries in order to measure the ease of trade and how customs operate in different countries. These factors are: 1. Costs for clearance or administrative procedures; 2. When they are doing business; 3. The number of steps to be taken and the number of documents that must be prepared; in fact, this indicator is the indicative of the efficiency of customs in different countries. According to the World Bank's rating based on the ease and difficulty of transnational trade in the countries of the world in 2017, Singapore was ranked first, Afghanistan was ranked 183th and ranked last, and Iran was ranked 120. One of the most important problems in the customs system of Iran is the large changes in customs regulations and regulatory instability, which causes not only traders but also customs officials themselves to be confused and ambiguous. Regarding comparative law, since it seemed reasonable to learn from legislative experiences in other countries, particularly those countries with economic conditions similar to those in Iran, the author investigated the legal regimes practiced in the field of import/export. Certain measures adopted by some of the studied countries to create economic advantage were of particular interest: for instance in Brazil, an international airport is allocated for the transportation operations required for the import/export of petroleum products in the United States, the detailed legislation in compliance with natural resources is enacted; in the European Union, serious efforts are being adapt to  international trade rules, Especially in Turkey, tax exemptions for /export of the specific products, and apply  , the concept of “Single Trade Window” in Singapore has been implemented for creating economic advantage. Similar measures can also be considered in Iran for the purpose of improving the present economic situation in the country. In the economic justification for the reduction of trade barriers, it can be included that if a country reduces trade barriers, its economic benefits will not only come to its trading partners, but also the country itself will benefit from this decline because its consumers are cheaper and better. And manufacturers in the country will also be more competitive through competitive pressure. It should be noted that the sensitivity and importance of this in the export of petroleum products to countries has led to identifying the tools and factors in it and attempting to expand exports. Regarding oil and oil products, the undeniable capacity of a country is in fossil fuel transit which improves its position in the oil market. Iran's position on oil transit routes is unique, and it is essential that this capacity is investigated and  full use. .

Caspian Sea is a closed sea, which has not a determined legal regime until now. The main problem is originated from geographical conditions. In the 1982 convention, establishment of legal regime for closed sea are limited for costal states. Caspian Sea is a critical region due to non-comprehensive agreement for delimitation. Specific geopolitical conditions after Soviet collapse provide territorial delimitation, regional influence, and competition between regional and infra-regional powers. Geopolitical parameters could influence delimitation and increase reach to maritime regions. These parameters consist of intraregional relationships patterns, territorial delimiting, regional influence, competition, presence and threat of regional and infra-regional powers which evaluated according to the 1982convention. The present study is aimed to investigate the role of geopolitical conditions as effective geographical parameters to establish Caspian Sea legal regime using content and data analysis method based on library resources. Utilization of hydrocarbon resources in Caspian Sea and its transportation caused to presence of infra-regional states with different economically and strategically interests. Entrance of infra-regional states caused reaction of regional states which challenge stability in the region and makes a competence between these states. This competition initiated a conflict and new security problems which produced the most problems in the regional security, ethnic conflicts, benefits disagreements between regional and infra-regional states, competition and political conflicts. Accordingly, infra-regional states started political contest to control and utilize energy resources in the Caspian region. This contest could be making the biggest world chaos in the region. Russia and Iran are more sensitive to this impact as compared to other states. The US, moreover, attempts to make various policies to ban Russia and Iran impact. It seems that the solution for the Caspian Sea legal regime dramatically affected by infra-regional politics and geopolitics and their competition. This competition can delay legal regime establishment. The results revealed that utilization of hydrocarbon resources and transportation could pave the way to infra-regional states entrance with different economical and strategic interests in the Caspian Sea. Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan states are intended to attract infra-regional states because of inconvenience to regional states. The regional states (Iran and Russia) recognize the presence of infra-regional states such as the US as a threat and would like to compete with this phenomenon.

The Caspian Sea is the largest water basin which enclosed by land within Eurasia continent. The Caspian Sea is unique in many reasons: the large deposits of oil and gas, valuable fishery resources; including 90% of the world’s stock of sturgeon, important transportation routes; connecting the European part of Russia, Transcaucasia and Central Asia and significant geopolitical situation. Caspian Sea bordered by Russia in north, Iran in south, Azerbaijan in west and Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan in east. The unexampled characteristics of the Caspian Sea leads to having a problematic identity and stopped its prepared legal classification. Setting the legal regime of the Caspian Sea has begun since the collapse of Soviet Union; however there has not been any agreement over its legal regime between Caspian Sea coastal countries. This could have roots in the absence of international legal regulations in order to implement a legal regime for these types of seas in the Sea convention of 1982. Having 320 articles, this convention mentions the enclosed seas solely in articles 122 and 123. Based on the maritime law view point, the legal status of the Caspian Sea should also be determined when the coastal states factually recognized which body of law applies to delimitation of the waters and the resources of the subsoil. Besides legal problems, geographical factors play a role in determining this sea legal regime. These factors are more likely to be geomorphological, hydro-ecological, geo-biological, geo-economical, and geopolitical. Geomorphological factors are considered the most important one and had a profound role in sea convention in 1982. Many of these articles are affected by geomorphological factors, playing an undeniable role in setting the legal regime of the Caspian Sea.
This article is a descriptive-analytic study based on library research. In this library research documents and the analysis of their contents such as regulations and rules, maps, satellite pictures, geographical data systems, and census soft wares came to be made use.
One of the major problems in determining the Caspian Sea legal regime is the absence of clarified international rules in delimiting of such enclosed seas. The articles in Convention on the Law of the Sea of 1982 not only does not clarify the legal regime of the Caspian Sea, but suffers some inconvenient misunderstandings, leading to a misjudgment by each coastal countries for their own right. On the one hand, in order to reach an agreement for settling the legal regime, these countries have no choice but to refer to some of the articles of the Sea Convention. On the other hand, geographical factors play an important role in providing the aforementioned articles. Besides, these factors are of crucial importance, whether the convention or any other possible agreement be implemented. As it was mentioned earlier, geographical factors are more likely to be implemented in structure in convention, being the basic factor in delimitation. Besides, if the Convention or any other agreement is performed in the Caspian Sea, these factors will come to be very practical. The reason is that the coastal countries are totally different, enjoying these factors. Geomorphological factors such as the shape of the coast, its length, the shape of gulfs, islands, high tides, the rivers entrance, and natural bays have profound influence in determining the original straight line and extending sea areas of the coastal countries. In addition, sea bed shapes, its steep, ant the type of the sediments are influential in extending diffusing of sea sources. That is why the countries do not reach any solar agreement in proposing the earlier regime right. Benefiting a vast number of fossil and none-fossil sources specifically in continental shelf, The Caspian Sea is off greatest importance for the coastal countries, claiming more portions, consequently leading to disputations and controversies in setting the borders. This, in return, could damage the regime right procedure setting. Then, considering the geomorphological factors, each coastal countries limits and delimits could be clarified and a unified strategy could be achieved in order to accelerate the regime right procedure setting of the Caspian Sea for each country’s share.
The most challenging problem in setting the regime right in the Caspian sea is the absence of sufficient rules in the sea conventions for delimitating its limits which has roots in its geographical conditions (being an enclosed sea). Proposing the best solution to this is more likely to have to do with geographical, specifically geomorphological conditions. According to the convention of 1982, the countries with the most coastal length and least steep and also best morphological factors (estuary, gulf, delta, islands, underwater cliffs, and continental shelf) in determining the legal regime have a better opportunity of extending sea areas. Therefore, Kazakhstan, the Russian Federation, Turkmenistan, and Azerbaijan, respectively have more sea area. Iran, having the least coastal area, being convex, being more limited, having least geomorphological factors have the least chance in extending sea area. That is the reason why Iran does not agree with the convention 1982 and looks for appropriate strategies in order to improve its improper geomorphological features. So seeking a proper legal regime, all Caspian Sea coastal countries ought to agree upon a better strategy than the ordinary proposals of the convention in order to facilitate the geomorphological conditions for setting the legal regime. The last but not the least, It is to mention that setting a constant legal regime in the Caspian Sea, considering the geomorphological conditions based on convention of the year 1982 without implementing the method of proposing it, is not possible- since it lacks every countries benefits. The results showed that Kazakhstan, Russia, Turkmenistan and Azerbaijan possess optimum geomorphological condition in order, in determining the legal regime. Among all of these countries, Iran is in the worst position that demands adopting optimal policies to optimize existing conditions.

The Caspian Sea is the largest water basin that enclosed by land within Eurasia continent. This sea that referred to Caspian in the global map, has strategic importance because oil and gas storage and caviar fish. The most important problem that originated in bio geographical parameters is the lack of a determinate legal regime. According to the 1982 convention, only the littoral states are responsible for establishing of the closed sea Legal regime. The lack of consensus on which delimitation is suitable, Caspian has turned into one of the critical areas. One of these crises is the environmental problems. Economic problems of the newly established countries, cause the excessive use of marine resources, particularly oil and gas. Poor technology and lack of independent environmental monitoring of regional and global organizations, failure to comply with the standards required for the exploitation and transportation of oil and gas resources. In addition, various contaminants is severely threatened the Caspian Sea life.For this reason in this paper, by the librarian research, the role of bio geographical factors in the setting the regime right in the Caspian sea from the perspective of the political geography of the sea was investigated.Factors that threaten the Caspian Sea bio geographical plays an important role in determining the legal regime and include oil pollution, ship and floating population (urban, rural), industrial facilities, artificial islands, environmental contaminants and rivers and in accordance with the 1982 Convention and also due to the geographical conditions of the Caspian Sea, were evaluated. The results show that the countries of Azerbaijan, Russia, Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan to produce more oil pollution and setting the regime right in the Caspian sea that's likely to oppose their activities. However, after Russia and Kazakhstan, Iran has most polluted rivers, but due to the beaches damage caused by oil pollution is agree to determining of the pollution deterrent legal regime of the sea.

Caspian Sea, after soviet collapse became to tense and volatile environment, due to competing regional and international powers, that led to spread the process of militarization in the region. Since every kind of political and military interaction in this region is crucial for national security of I.R.Iran, this article based on library method and we distributed questionnaire among 55 persons of elites with using likert.The purpose of this research is to identify stressors affecting of this militarization process on I.R.Iran’s national security. Findings of research, by examining the four factors such as, “Caspian energy, differences between Russia and the west, US efforts to isolate Iran in the region and between countries in the Caspian sea about the legal regime”, show this conclusion that each of these factors play own role in militarization of this region and led to some threats for I.R.Iran national security.