فصلنامه پژوهش حقوق عمومی
سال بیست و چهارم شماره 77 (زمستان 1401)

Obviously, in all jurisdictions it is required for the people to observe the laws and regulations; however, at the same time they need to have convincing reasons to obey laws and regulation. Seeking their different interests, people sometimes may break laws. However, sometimes people believe that there are morally justifiable reasons to break laws.   As a matter of fact, the research question of this paper is as follow: what is the nature of reasons that required people to observe the laws and regulations?  Generally, natural lawyers stress on the strong relationships between law and morality and they stress on moral (Not legal) reasons. Despite that, as it will be shown, natural lawyers (Specially modern ones) and positivists have similar justification regarding the observing laws and regulations, in that both of them recognizing legal reasons for observing  laws and regulations and denying the necessity and Sufficiency of moral reasons.

There is a growing stream of critics who see investment arbitration in favor of foreign investors and as a negative force as opposed to sustainable development. The phenomenon of third-party funding and its use in investment arbitration has increased such concerns. Third-party funding is basically the payment of all or a part of the arbitration costs of one of the parties of dispute by a third party funder which in return, the funder receives a percentage of the output of the award if successful. The purpose of this article is to explain and analyze the theoretical differences between pros and cons of third-party funding regarding the access to justice, screening mechanism for the claims, and the financial consequences on the host state. In this article, the advocates see third-party funding as a means of access to justice for aggrieved investors in investment claims, while the adversaries refering on the profitability of third-party funding, see this method in arbitration a form of wealth transfer from public sector to private corporations and also refer to the asymmetric structure of the investment arbitration regime as well as the risks arising from the transfer of management and control of arbitration process to the third party funders.

Assignment of the multiple competencies to the "Speaker of the Legislature" in various laws and regulations, and the necessity for his presence in various councils and assemblies, make clear the necessity for his appointment. So, the main question in this article is, what title is applied to the head of the legislature? In answer to this question, by using the analytical-descriptive method, it can be said that in the absence of external evidence and in terms of the different qualifications enumerated in different laws for the President of the Islamic Consultative Assembly as well as absurdity of this establishment, these powers are beyond the control of the Majlis and also, given the significant role of the Majlis in the legislative process compared to the role of the Guardian Council and the Expediency Council, it can be said that the title of the legislature is applicable to the "Speaker of the Parliament". If the relation of the head of the legislature with the parliament and its representatives is taken into account, then the Speaker of the parliament would be used and if his/her relation is compared with institutions and authorities outside the parliament, then the term Legislature would be proper to be applied.

The approach of liberal and Marxist thinkers, as the two dominant ideas in the twentieth century on freedom, shows their worldview on the issue of freedom and fundamental rights of individuals. The question is, which theories liberals and Marxists hold on the concept of freedom which was gained based on historical experience over the past century? Also, to what extent, are their views towards individual rights and freedoms of their citizens and recognition of these rights and freedoms in practice different from each other?! In Berlin's view, Liberals conception of freedom is negative as opposed to Marxists which is a positive conception. Having considered the historical experiences and Marxists and liberals’ views in the last century, it seems that what guarantees the free will and constitutional liberties of individuals is the negative conception of freedom while the positive conception of freedom could lead to denial of free will and ultimately tyranny. Therefore, the main purpose of this article is to study, compare and determine the status of freedom (especially the common interpretation such as negative freedom and positive freedom) in comparison with the principles and rules governing the two political ideas of liberalism and Marxism.

One of the terms mentioned in the Iranian Constitution is "Ijtihad". For most jurists, Ijtihad means extracting sharia law from the sources of sharia, which requires mastery of sciences such as Arabic literature, logic, theology, hadith and jurisprudence. But the question that this article seeks to answer concerns Imam Khomeini’s viewpoint on this matter and its role in choosing successor leader. My basic assumption is that the concept of ijtihad in Imam Khomeini's thought has developed during the years before and after the revolution, and his late thoughts in this case, while having a significant distance from the famous theory, has a great impact in choosing successor leader. Using descriptive-analytical method, we examined the meaning and function of Ijtihad regarding the constitution as well as its definition and requirements in the works of five prominent jurists. Then, we analyzed this concept regarding Imam Khomeini's thought. Finally, we looked at his practice in choosing successor leader and the effects of his late thoughts on that.

Corruption is the use of public interest for personal gain. One of the most important ways to deal with corruption is to consider the principle of transparency as one of the main pillars of good governance.Transparency makes all actions and activities visible and closes the ways for violations and the spread of corruption. The question is whether transparency in the Iranian legal system is achievable or not? In this research, through descriptive and analytical methods and use of library resources while considering the legal norms of Iran were used in order to achieve transparency and despite some shortcomings, there are sufficient resources from upstream documents to ordinary laws, and what can be stated as a challenge and a barrier to transparency is the non-compliance of laws and lack of proper supervision by executive bodies. It is relevant. To solve this problem, all executive bodies must take steps towards transparency while paying attention to the existing laws. In this regard, consolidation of employment laws and regulations based on meritocracy, strengthening transparency laws along with eliminating their shortcomings and paying attention to general policies of the government is necessary for transparency and elimination of corruption.

The strongest hypothesis as to the origin of Covid-19 indicates that it is zoonotic. The food use of products from the wild animal market in Wuhan, and its economic impacts and mortalities urged us to explain the relationship between the right to adequate food, food security and safety, and the approach to health impact assessment.In general, creating food security and safety and providing food free from any virus and bacteria is one of the gradual and cross-border obligations branching from the right to sufficient food, and it seems that the integrated and cross-border implementation of the approach in assessing the effects on health is a necessary and positive measure. Fulfilling this due obligation requires the existence of efficient legal tools in related fields, and the spread of Covid-19 lacks the presence of legal gaps in these fields. By detailed explaining of the legal and international dimensions of the above cases, this paper aims to analyze these gaps. Finally, it will come up with suggestions for the total fulfillment of the aforementioned obligations in the international law system.

Undoubtedly, jus cogens or preemptory norm is always recognized as the highest source of international law. Nevertheless, the judicial review of International Court of Justice caused doubt in the absolute priority of jus cogens when violation of jus cogens and immunity are simultaneously argued in a case. Especially, in the cases concerning the Arrest Warrant (Congo v. Belgium 2002) and the Jurisdictional Immunities (Germany v. Italy 2012), ICJ tried to separate procedural and substantive norms and declared that the norms of immunity and jus cogens are different in nature, thus they couldn’t oppose each other but immunity as a procedural norm could prevent deciding about merits. In this article, by using descriptive – analytic method, the rationale behind the decision of ICJ is analyzed in order to know that if immunity is considered procedural and jus cogens is recognized as substantive norm in international law and how these norms interact. Evaluation of doctrine shows that there is no certainty about the quality of the separation of procedural and substantive norms and their proof in international law. Therefore, the court’s decision in choosing the approach could cause an insecurity in the peremptory place of jus cogens.