مرکز امور حقوقی بین المللی ریاست جمهوری- مدیریت علمی و پژوهشی مجله حقوقی بین المللی 2251-614X 42 شماره 80 (زمستان) 2026 01 21 The International Responsibility of States for Systematic Doping مسئولیت بین‌المللی دولت‌ها در قبال دوپینگ سازمان یافته؛ مطالعه موردی فدراسیون روسیه 9 36 723637 10.22066/cilamag.2025.2053901.2695 FA مهریار داشاب استادیار دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی 0000-0002-3292-8351 حمید الهویی نظری استادیار دانشکدة حقوق و علوم سیاسی دانشگاه تهران 0009-0008-4131-8732 سپهر صارمی دانش آموخته دکتری حقوق بین‌الملل، دانشکدة حقوق و علوم سیاسی، دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی، تهران، 0009-0009-4918-0958 Journal Article 2025 02 24 1. Introduction Maintaining competitive fairness in sports and combating doping are fundamental principles in international sports law. States are obligated to ensure transparency and fairness in sports by adhering to international commitments. This study explores the international responsibility of States for systematic doping, focusing on the case of the Russian Federation. After the revelation of State-sponsored doping during the 2014 Sochi Winter Olympics, significant weaknesses in the global anti-doping system were exposed. 2. Research Gap and Objective Previous studies have primarily focused on individual athletes' responsibility or the role of sports organizations, but the role of States in systematically violating anti-doping regulations has been less explored in Persian literature. This paper addresses the gap by analyzing the international obligations of States and their potential liability for systematic doping. The central question this research seeks to answer is whether States bear international responsibility for organized doping. While this issue has been examined in English and French academic literature—particularly by scholars such as Faraz Shahlaei and David Pavot—there remains a need for further exploration in Persian-language legal discourse. 3. Methodology This research employs a descriptive-analytical method, utilizing international documents such as the 2005 UNESCO Convention, the 1989 Council of Europe Convention, WADA reports, and the 2001 Draft Articles on State Responsibility. These sources are analyzed to examine Russia's obligations under international law and the violations it committed. The research also explores the legal frameworks surrounding State responsibility for doping and how they apply to the Russian case. 4. Key Findings Russia violated its international obligations by manipulating doping samples and supporting athletes in evading anti-doping controls. The Russian Ministry of Sport and the Moscow Laboratory's involvement in these actions makes the State accountable for these violations under the UNESCO and Council of Europe conventions. According to Article 4 of the Draft Articles on State Responsibility, actions of State organs are attributable to the State, regardless of whether they are performed by different entities. The "Unity of State" principle underscores that violations by various bodies within the State do not diminish its responsibility. Russia’s actions reflect a broader pattern of State-sponsored doping that undermines international sports integrity. The existing international anti-doping framework lacks effective enforcement mechanisms to address such State violations, which this study highlights. While WADA has made strides in individual and organizational anti-doping efforts, there remains a gap in addressing State-sponsored doping. 5. Contribution to the Field This article offers a significant contribution to the field of international law by clarifying the scope of State responsibility for systematic doping violations. It provides a legal analysis of how international law holds tates accountable and offers a legal framework for State liability in doping cases. This research proposes legal reforms, such as the inclusion of a dispute resolution mechanism in the UNESCO Convention, to improve the accountability of States. Additionally, the paper highlights the importance of a cohesive, cooperative approach to combating doping across national and international legal frameworks. 6. Implications and Applications The findings of this research carry important implications for international sports law and global anti-doping efforts. First, the study emphasizes the need for reform in the legal framework governing anti-doping at the international level. It suggests that the UNESCO and Council of Europe conventions should incorporate formal dispute resolution mechanisms to address State violations of anti-doping obligations. These mechanisms would ensure that States are held accountable for their role in facilitating doping. The research also stresses the need for multilateral cooperation in anti-doping efforts. While unilateral measures, such as the U.S. Rodchenkov Act, address some doping violations, they risk undermining international cooperation and fragmenting the global anti-doping system. The study advocates for stronger international cooperation and enhanced transparency to combat State-sponsored doping effectively. Furthermore, the research has practical implications for policy-making within international organizations such as WADA. It calls for exploring legal reforms that could strengthen enforcement mechanisms and hold States accountable for their actions. The research also emphasizes the importance of information sharing and increased oversight to combat doping at the State level. 7. Conclusion The Russian Federation is internationally responsible for its role in facilitating systematic doping. The involvement of State institutions, including the Ministry of Sport and the Moscow Laboratory, in manipulating doping tests and supporting athletes violates Russia's international obligations under the UNESCO and Council of Europe conventions. The current international anti-doping framework, while robust in some respects, lacks sufficient enforcement mechanisms to hold Ss accountable for such violations. This study proposes strengthening the existing legal framework by incorporating a dispute resolution mechanism within the UNESCO Convention or requesting an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice (ICJ) regarding State responsibility for doping violations. These steps would provide legal clarity on State obligations and help prevent unilateral actions like the Rodchenkov Act, which undermine international cooperation. Ultimately, the most effective way to combat doping is through multilateral cooperation, ensuring that States are held accountable and maintaining the integrity of international sports. با توجه به اهمیت حفظ عدالت رقابتی در ورزش و مقابله با دوپینگ، دولت‌ها موظف‌اند به تعهدات بین‌المللی خود پایبند بوده و تدابیر لازم را برای حفظ شفافیت، اعتماد و انصاف در ورزش اتخاذ کنند. این پژوهش، با تمرکز بر پروندة فدراسیون روسیه، مسئولیت بین‌المللی دولت‌ها را در قبال دوپینگ سازمان‌یافته بررسی میکند. نظام مقابله با دوپینگ از دو بخش خصوصی و عمومی تشکیل شده است که در این میان، دولت‌ها نقش اصلی را در نظام عمومی ایفا می‌کنند. بدون همکاری دولت‌ها در سطوح بین‌المللی و منطقه‌ای، مبارزه با دوپینگ کارآمد نخواهد بود. پس از افشای رسوایی دوپینگ سازمان‌یافته در المپیک زمستانی ۲۰۱۴ سوچی، ضعف‌های جدی در نظام عمومی مقابله با دوپینگ آشکار شد. در این پژوهش تلاش شده است به این پرسش پاسخ داده شود که آیا با استناد به حقوق مسئولیت بین‌المللی دولت‌ها، می‌توان دولت‌ها را در قبال دوپینگ سازمان‌یافته یا دولتی مسئول دانست؟ با استناد به ماده 4 پیش‌نویس مواد مربوط به مسئولیت بین‌المللی دولت‌ها و اصل وحدت دولت، نتیجه‌گیری می‌شود که فدراسیون روسیه با نقض تعهدات خود، اصول مندرج در کنوانسیون ضد دوپینگ یونسکو (۲۰۰۵) و کنوانسیون ضد دوپینگ شورای اروپا (۱۹۸۹) را در جریان بازی‌های المپیک ۲۰۱۴ سوچی نقض کرده است.

https://www.cilamag.ir/article_723637_cc44b4fbe849423a1892479948c87b44.pdf

مرکز امور حقوقی بین المللی ریاست جمهوری- مدیریت علمی و پژوهشی مجله حقوقی بین المللی 2251-614X 42 شماره 80 (زمستان) 2026 01 21 The Approach of OPEC Member States to Addressing Climate Change and Carbon Emissions Reduction رویکرد دولت‌های عضو اوپک نسبت به مقابله با تغییرات اقلیمی و کاهش انتشار کربن 37 62 727988 10.22066/cilamag.2025.2053248.2687 FA محسن عبدالهی دانشیار حقوق بین‌الملل و حقوق محیط زیست دانشکده حقوق دانشگاه شهید بهشتی 0000-0003-1929-2587 Journal Article 2025 02 11 Climate change is now an undeniable scientific reality, and addressing its effects has become a major concern for both developing and developed countries. These changes, along with the measures taken to combat them, pose significant challenges to all nations, particularly developing states. For member states of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), the impact is even more severe. In addition to the general damage caused by climate change and the responses to it, these countries will face additional losses stemming from reduced oil revenues. Research indicates that the economic damage to the GDP of these nations is nearly five times greater than that experienced by other countries. Specifically, the ambitious goal of achieving net-zero carbon emissions will likely reduce oil revenues for OPEC states by nearly half within the next two decades. Consequently, it is essential to examine the stance taken by these nations regarding the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, particularly carbon, in the context of the global climate regime. This article aims to investigate OPEC members' participation in climate change agreements, especially the Paris Agreement, and to explore what approach these states should adopt in response to global climate initiatives and the goal of net-zero carbon emissions. It is important to note that, according to most estimates, the world's known oil reserves (excluding Shell oil) will be depleted within the next 50 years. Thus, the international community's focus on reducing carbon emissions and the targeted year of 2050 for achieving net-zero carbon make logical sense. As a result, it is inevitable that oil-exporting developing countries will need to shift toward carbon reduction. By the time global oil reserves are exhausted, nearly a third of the sources of greenhouse gas emissions will be eliminated. However, OPEC member states must create policies and strategies to facilitate this transition without completely cutting off their oil revenues or denying global access to fossil energy. A rapid decline in the demand for oil would not only inflict serious economic damage on these countries but also reduce energy supplies for millions of people. Currently, nearly one billion individuals throughout the world lack access to essential energy sources, particularly electricity. On one hand, the demand for energy does not seem to be decreasing, attributed to accelerated development, a growing global population, and the disparity between developed and developing countries. On the other hand, renewable energy has the potential to help fulfill the right to energy, one of the sustainable development goals (SDGs). Therefore, a “just and equitable transition” from carbon-based economies to a low-carbon economy is imperative. This approach must be promoted by developed countries, as it is now a pressing issue for developing nations, particularly OPEC oil countries. The experience with international treaties aimed at reducing or eliminating ozone-depleting substances, like CFCs, illustrates that global environmental conventions have an objective nature; their requirements apply even to non-member states. For instance, a ban on trading ozone-depleting substances among member states effectively restricts non-member states' ability to buy and sell these materials. A similar situation exists with the climate commitments established by the Paris Agreement, with 195 out of 198 United Nations member states now parties to this agreement. As the ambitious goals of this agreement are realized, legal buyers of oil and other fossil fuels may also vanish. Thus, the solution is not in costly isolation stemming from non-membership or lack of participation, but rather in active engagement in this international regime. This will better equip countries to transition to a Low-Carbon Economy or Circular Carbon Economy while positively influencing international policies to protect the interests of oil-producing nations. The experiences from the 28th and 29th COP of the UNFCCC in Dubai and Baku, respectively, demonstrate that OPEC member states can, through international cooperation, prevent decisions that harm their fundamental interests (such as phasing out fossil fuels) or negotiate transitions from non-renewable to renewable energy in a fair and equitable manner. امروزه تغییرات اقلیمی و مقابله با آن، به نگرانی مشترک دولتهای درحال توسعه و توسعه‌یافته تبدیل شده است. از سویی این تغییرات خسارتهای کلانی را بویژه به دولتهای درحال توسعه وارد کرده و از سوی دیگر همراهی آنها با تدابیر جهانی تقلیل و کاهش انتشار گازهای گلخانه‌ای و بویژه کربن، فشارها و هزینه‌های اقتصادی سنگینی را بر اقتصاد شکننده این دولتها تحمیل می‌کند. در این میان، دولتهای عضو سازمان کشورهای صادرکننده نفت (اوپک) فشار دوچندانی را متحمل شده و خواهند شد؛ ایده بلندپروازانه حذف کامل انتشار کربن موسوم به کربن خالص صفر، در نزدیک به دو دهه درآمدهای نفتی این دولتها را تقریبا به نصف کاهش خواهد داد. از اینرو، بررسی رویکرد این دولتها نسبت کاهش انتشارگازهای گلخانه‌ای و بویژه کربن در نظام حقوقی کارزار جهانی مقابله با تغییرات اقلیمی، ضروری است. این مقاله، با بررسی تحلیلی و تطبیقی عضویت دولتهای نفتی اوپک در اسناد جهانی تغییرات اقلیمی و بویژه توافقنامه پاریس و نحوه مشارکت آنها در کاهش انتشار گازهای گلخانه‌ای به دنبال پاسخ به این سئوال است که این دولتها چه رویکردی نسبت به رژیم جهانی مقابله با تغییرات اقلیمی و حذف کامل انتشار کربن دارند؟ در پاسخ، بنظر می‌رسد که دولتهای عضو اوپک ضمن همراهی با رژیم جهانی مقابله با تغییرات اقلیمی به دنبال رویکردی هستند که در آن ضمن تقلیل انتشار کربن ناشی از نفت و گاز، این منابع همچنان در سبد انرژی جهانی حفظ شوند. توجه به این یافته، می‌تواند ضمن آگاهی از جهتگیری آتی رژیم جهانی مقابله با تغییرات اقلیمی، تصویر روشنتری را در اختیار تصمیم‌سازان ایرانی در چگونگی همراهی با تدابیر جهانی مقابله با تغییرات اقلیمی، ارائه دهد.

https://www.cilamag.ir/article_727988_a0d958728e185bfd1e44104aa1f55310.pdf

مرکز امور حقوقی بین المللی ریاست جمهوری- مدیریت علمی و پژوهشی مجله حقوقی بین المللی 2251-614X 42 شماره 80 (زمستان) 2026 01 21 Indirect Expropriation of Intellectual Property Rights in International Investment Arbitration سلب مالکیت غیرمستقیم از حقوق مالکیت فکری در داوری سرمایه گذاری بین‌المللی 63 88 723292 10.22066/cilamag.2025.2045155.2650 FA مرتضی اسدلو استادیار گروه حقوق خصوصی دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی واحد تبریز 0000-0001-7589-0659 رضا اسدلو دانشجوی کارشناسی ارشد حقوق خصوصی، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران 0009-0000-1924-7845 Journal Article 2024 11 16 Governments can intervene in and restrict the property rights of intellectual property owners through three primary means: first, by issuing compulsory licenses for the exploitation of intellectual property rights; second, through the process of parallel importation of goods; and third, by revoking or reducing the term of protection for the investor's intellectual property rights. This article examines these three methods and analyzes the solutions and innovations provided by investment treaties in this regard. In this article, after introducing the concept of expropriation, we will delve into the methods of expropriating intellectual property rights and explore how foreign investors can be protected against the seizure of their intellectual assets. Finally, we will examine the arbitral practice of investment tribunals regarding this matter. Whether compulsory licenses for the exploitation of intellectual property rights can be considered expropriation requires an analysis of three factors: the extent of government intervention, the nature of the measures taken, and the nature of the government's act. It is important to note that this assessment can vary due to the unique circumstances of each situation. To provide a more comprehensive perspective, one must consider both the government's actions and the scope of the deprivation resulting from the issuance of compulsory licenses, as well as the conduct of the foreign investor or company in terms of its misuse of its intellectual property rights. However, if the government’s act possess the proper requirements to expropriate, namely; the actions is within the framework of the law, it is carried out in good faith, and the underlying reason is to protect the public interest and non-discriminatory in nature, then the State will not be obligated to pay compensation. The practice of investment treaties and arbitration tribunals supports this view. Although a limited number of cases can be found where investors have filed claims against host States for violations of intellectual property rights in arbitration tribunals, the reality is that there is no rich and effective judicial practice regarding investor-State disputes over violations of intellectual property rights. Arbitral awards have not played a significant role in strengthening intellectual property rights standards. This is primarily because many infringements of foreign investors' intellectual property rights are typically committed by private individuals that cannot be attributed to the state. In general, disputes regarding intellectual property rights between private individuals are resolved through the judicial institutions of the host State. Another reason is the exorbitant costs of arbitration. In practice, initiating an investment claim against a host State is very costly. Nevertheless, the investor-State arbitration mechanism is a powerful tool for creating security for foreign investment and an effective means of providing investors with peace of mind. Consequently, it can be argued that arbitration institutions can contribute to the strengthening of intellectual property rights. In the second part of this article, we have examined arbitral awards related to the subject matter. Given the novelty of this issue and the lack of a rich arbitral practice in this regard, there is a divergence of views in the awards of arbitral tribunals. The awards of arbitral tribunals support the existence of various methods of examining and evaluating this issue. It seems that one of the most effective methods in this regard is to examine the rules and practices of international intellectual property law, as stipulated in the TRIPS Agreement. This method is particularly useful when the two parties to a bilateral treaty are also parties to the same intellectual property treaties such as the TRIPS Agreement or treaties under the auspices of WIPO. In such a case, if international intellectual property law does not consider the action taken to be expropriation, the courts of the two countries in question will also not consider it expropriation. دولت میزبان تعهدات مختلفی را در برابر سرمایه‌گذار خارجی برعهده دارد که از مهمترین این تعهدات می‌توان به تعهد عدم مصادره‌ی اموال سرمایه‌گذاران و احترام به دارایی‌های آنان اشاره کرد. به‌همین‌خاطر تمامی معاهدات سرمایه‌گذاری دربردارنده‌ی مقرراتی در مورد سلب مالکیت می‌باشند. سرمایه‌گذار خارجی با انتقال اموال مادی و غیرمادی خود به کشور میزبان در اندیشه کسب سود و تولید ثروت است. در بسیاری از موارد دارایی‌های غیرمادی سرمایه‌گذاران خارجی به‌مراتب باارزش‌تر و مهم‌تر از دارایی‌های مادی وی می‌باشند و معمولاً اکثر امتیازاتی که سرمایه‌گذار خارجی در کشور میزبان بدست می‌آورد از نوع دارایی‌های فکری است. امروزه حقوق مالکیت فکری جزء لاینفک تجارت و سرمایه‌گذاری بین‌المللی محسوب می‌شود و عدم حمایت قوی از این دسته از حقوق قابل پذیرش هیچ نظام حقوقی نیست. لذا حمایت کشور میزبان از حقوق مالکیت فکری سرمایه‌گذار خارجی و عدم تعرض به آن همواره یکی از مهمترین مسایلی است که برای سرمایه‌گذاران مطرح است. در این مقاله ما بعد از ذکر مقدمه ای درخصوص مفهوم سلب مالکیت، در مورد شیوه‌های سلب مالکیت از حقوق مالکیت فکری و نحوه‌ی حمایت از سرمایه‌گذار خارجی در برابر مصادره‌ی دارائی‌های فکری آنان بحث خواهیم کرد. در آخر نیز رویه داوری دیوان‌های سرمایه‌گذاری را درخصوص این موضوع بررسی خواهیم نمود.

https://www.cilamag.ir/article_723292_ab0a816927426fd7fd04839991d9a912.pdf

مرکز امور حقوقی بین المللی ریاست جمهوری- مدیریت علمی و پژوهشی مجله حقوقی بین المللی 2251-614X 42 شماره 80 (زمستان) 2026 01 21 Challenges to the International Criminalization of Ecocide جرم انگاری بین المللی بوم زدایی:چالش ها و موانع 89 115 722000 10.22066/cilamag.2025.2016438.2479 FA محسن قدیر استادیار دانشکده حقوق دانشگاه قم شراره ابطحی دکتری حقوق بین الملل دانشگاه قم Journal Article 2023 11 25 The criminalization of ecocide faces numerous challenges at the international level, and thus, understanding and addressing these challenges is crucial for achieving environmental goals. These challenges stem not only from legal reasons but also from political, economic, and social factors. This article aims to examine and analyze the most significant challenges facing the international criminalization of ecocide. One of the primary challenges in the criminalization of ecocide is the absence of a single, clear definition of this phenomenon at the international level. While many treaties and conventions stress the importance of environmental protection, ecocide is not explicitly defined as a specific crime in many of these documents. This vagueness makes it challenging to identify and assess environmentally harmful actions, leading to ineffective penalties. Countries often have concerns about international interference in their internal affairs, which can hinder the adoption and enforcement of international laws to criminalize ecocide. Some nations may have economic or political interests in exploiting natural resources, making them hesitant to accept stringent regulations for ecocide. Additionally, the principle of national sovereignty in international relations may clash with the need for global oversight and enforcement of these regulations. Even if international regulations are established to criminalize ecocide, a significant challenge lies in the lack of resources and enforcement capabilities. Many developing countries lack the necessary infrastructure and funding to effectively monitor and enforce these regulations. Issues such as a shortage of skilled personnel, surveillance equipment, and adequate funds for investigations and prosecutions can impede implementation. A lack of coordination and cooperation between international and governmental institutions is another significant challenge in the criminalization of ecocide. Various international bodies, such as the United Nations, the European Union, the World Bank, and NGOs, may have differing goals, policies, and strategies in combating ecocide. This lack of coordination can lead to establishment of conflict between these entities, which leads to reduced effectiveness, and slow decision-making processes. This descriptive-analytical study utilizes library resources to explore the challenges and obstacles hindering the international criminalization of ecocide. The hypothesis of the research is grounded in the belief that challenges in the execution, including weak legal frameworks and political differences between countries, impede the effective implementation of global ecocide criminal laws and regulations. 2. Research Gap and Objective Ecocide, especially in its vast and complex dimensions, can have long-term and uncertain effects on the environment, economy, and societies. Scientific evidence and data for a thorough and accurate assessment of these effects are not yet fully available. This can lead to doubts about whether a particular action directly causes ecocide. In addition, scientific and technical complexities in measuring the exact amount of ecocide in some regions, especially in complex ecosystems, pose another challenge to criminalizing this phenomenon. 3. Methodology The study was conducted descriptively and analytically, via on collection of information from library sources, legal instruments, and examining secondary authoritative sources such as international reports, scientific articles, conventions, and analysis of international jurists. 4. Key Findings To overcome these challenges, one can point out to enahncing of cooperation between countries, international institutions, and civil society. Formulating a single and comprehensive definition, strengthening executive capacities, and raising public awareness are key tools to advance the criminalization process of ecocide. Additionally, providing financial and technical support to developing countries and creating transparency and global monitoring mechanisms can increase the effectiveness of these efforts. Technology can be a powerful tool in preventing and identifying ecocides. Satellite images and data obtained from drones allow for tracking environmental changes. Artificial Intelligence is also able to identify degradation patterns and provide decision-makers with the necessary warnings. It is necessary to establish mechanisms such as the obligation to provide transparent environmental reports, impose heavy fines for violations, and encourage investment in sustainable projects. Furthermore, pressures from civil society and nonprofits can encourage companies to take more responsibility. 5. Contribution to the Field This article addresses one of the main weaknesses of international law: the lack of a comprehensive and binding framework for protecting the environment from widespread destruction. The study aims to contribute to the promotion of international law’s position by highlighting its shortcomings in the field of ecocide. The article focuses on several aspects, including emphasizing the need for an international legal framework for ecocide, providing a comprehensive and accurate definition of ecocide in international law, examining gaps in mechanisms for enforcement of legal intruments at the international level, proposing amendments to the statutes of the International Criminal Court, and exploring the role of diplomacy and international cooperation. 6. Conclusion The criminalization of ecocide at the international level faces numerous challenges that must be recognized and addressed in order to achieve environmental goals. These challenges extend beyond legal barriers and also involve political, economic, social, and cultural factors. This article examines and analyzes the most significant challenges associated with the criminalization of ecocide at the international level. One of the primary obstacles in achieving the goals advocated for in this study, is the absence of a comprehensive and precise definition of ecocide in international documents and treaties. While many of these documents stress the importance of environmental protection, the lack of clarity in defining this concept makes it difficult to identify, assess, and penalize actions that could be characterized as ecocide. This highlights the need for collaborative efforts by international institutions to establish a standard definition. جهان امروز با بحران فزایندة تخریب محیط‌زیست روبه‌روست. از جنگل‌زدایی گسترده گرفته تا آلودگی آب‌ها و هوا، زیست‌بوم‌ها با سرعتی هشداردهنده در حال نابودی هستند. چارچوب‌های حقوقی و مقررات بین‌المللی موجود در برخورد با این بحران‌ها اغلب ناکارآمد بوده و پاسخگوی چالش‌های پیچیدة محیط‌زیستی نیستند. این شکاف عمیق در عدالت محیط‌زیستی، نیازمند تدوین سازوکاری جدید همچون جرم‌انگاری تخریب محیط‌زیست است. پذیرش مسئولیت قانونی و پاسخگویی مجرمان می‌تواند گامی مؤثر به‌ سوی آینده‌ای پایدار باشد. بوم‌زدایی(اکوساید) که به معنای تخریب زیست‌بوم‌ها و محیط‌های طبیعی است، به‌طور مستقیم بر زندگی بشر و سایر موجودات زنده تأثیر می‌گذارد. این پدیده، یکی از مهم‌ترین تهدیدات محیط‌زیستی در عصر کنونی شده است. تخریب محیط‌زیست نه‌تنها به منابع طبیعی آسیب می‌زند، بلکه منجر به بحران‌های اجتماعی، اقتصادی و حتی انسانی می‌شود .در عرصة بین‌المللی، جرم‌انگاری بوم‌زدایی با چالش‌های متعددی روبه‌روست. محدودیت‌های قانونی و قضایی، چالش‌های سیاسی و اقتصادی و تفاوت‌های فرهنگی و اجتماعی در نگرش نسبت به محیط‌زیست ازجملة این موانع هستند. در این پژوهش، این پرسش و فرضیه مطرح است: چه چالش‌ها و موانعی برای جرم‌انگاری بین‌المللی بوم‌زدایی وجود دارد؟ چالش‌های اجرایی، ازجمله فقدان چارچوب‌های حقوقی قوی و اختلافات سیاسی بین کشورها، مانع اجرای مؤثر قوانین جرم‌انگاری بوم‌زدایی در سطح جهانی می‌شوند.

https://www.cilamag.ir/article_722000_3722b7d5599c3064f069a44092a6eb68.pdf

مرکز امور حقوقی بین المللی ریاست جمهوری- مدیریت علمی و پژوهشی مجله حقوقی بین المللی 2251-614X 42 شماره 80 (زمستان) 2026 01 21 Philosophical Roots of Dynamic Interpretation ریشه‌های فلسفی تفسیر پویا 117 138 722734 10.22066/cilamag.2025.2052422.2680 FA زهرا محمودی کردی دانشیار دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی دانشگاه مازندران، مازندران، بابلسر. ایران 0000-0002-8126-9356 سیده عاطفه قدیری نژاد دانشجو دکتری حقوق بین الملل، دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی دانشگاه تهران، تهران، 0009-0000-7287-221X Journal Article 2025 02 10 The subject of legal interpretation and its methodology has always been an important issue in legal philosophy research, and valuable works have been written in this field. In international law, as a field that includes a dynamic and evolving legal system where those making the rules and enforcing it are the same, the issue of interpretation has a special place in theory and practice. Today, there are three main schools of thought in treaty interpretation, including the "intentionalist", "textualist" and "ultimist". According to the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, the methods of interpreting treaties under the two general categories of "mental" and "objective" interpretation are included under Articles 31 to 33. During the drafting of the Convention, the temporal aspects of the interpretation and the effect that the element of time can have on the interpretation were discussed, but ultimately removed from the final act, making the Conventionsilent on this matter. This is despite the fact that the concepts in a given treaty change over time, and this makes the correct understanding and effective implementation of the treaty require the use of a specific method of interpretation. From the perspective of the role of time in the interpretation of treaties, two methods of interpretation can be mentioned: "static" and "dynamic", which are rooted in two common approaches to treaties, respectively, the "principle of the contemporaneity of treaties" and the "doctrine of the living document". The theory of "dynamic interpretation" or "evolutionary interpretation" by considering treaties as living documents with social life aims to base the interpretation on the semantic changes of the terms of the treaty over time. Since each of the theories and methods of interpretation are rooted in philosophical opinions and legal logic, one of the important issues about dynamic interpretation is to find solid theoretical foundations for this new theory from the point of view of methodological issues and hermeneutic; an issue which has received little attention in the legal literature. The existence of controversies surrounding the concept, nature and basics of dynamic interpretation underpins the importance of research in this field. Additionally, the normative strength of the dynamic interpretation has been widely criticized. Even in the literature of international law, it is not specifically defined and its application is justified based on one or more different interpretative approaches. Notwithstanding, in the legal texts, it is not clearly specified how each of the interpretation approaches are the basis for choosing the dynamic interpretation. The silence of the VCLT on this issue adds to the existing ambiguities and challenges. In this situation, the behavior of the main actors of interpretation, especially judges of international courts, is influenced by the assumptions and intellectual and philosophical foundations that they believe in. The current research was conducted with a descriptive-analytical approach, in order to find the roots of this theory in the philosophy of international law. The paper tries to answer the question that, in which approaches and schools of international law the dynamic interpretation is rooted? To this end, the following two general sections have been presented. The first part provides an overview of the challenging concept of dynamic interpretation in international law, and the second part examines dynamic interpretation from the perspective of schools of treaty interpretation, hermeneutics, and the philosophy of international law. The present study has reached the following conclusions: · The method of "dynamic interpretation" by considering the semantic changes of the terms of the treaty during its life, fulfills the mission of updating and ensuring the flexibility of its provisions and acts as a gate-way for reflecting the common values of the international community in international law and a path to achieving justice in this legal system. · Analysis of the philosophical foundations of the theory of dynamic interpretation has shown that dynamic interpretation is a methodology of the "natural law school" due to its consideration of the developments in contemporary international law and the reflection of values in this legal system, because this school emphasizes the primacy of values such as justice and morality in understanding legal rules. · Among hermeneutic theories, the theory of dynamic interpretation is most closely related to "interpreter-centered hermeneutics". · The methodology of dynamic interpretation has shown that dynamic interpretation of value-based Generic Terms, which are often used in human rights and environmental treaties, is carried out with the attachment to the "natural law school". While the dynamic interpretation of non-value-based Terms may have roots in the school of “modern positivism” or “legal sociology”, depending on the case. Positivists choose to use the method of dynamic interpretation when it is consistent with the intention of the parties. Objectivists emphasize the changeability of treaty provisions and their relationship to social developments, and consider dynamic interpretation as a solution for harmonizing international contractual law with these developments. معاهدات به‌عنوان اسنادی زنده و دارای حیات اجتماعی، ماهیتی پویا داشته و ممکن است تحت تأثیر تحولاتی که به مرور زمان در بستر تاریخی و اجتماعی آن‌ها رخ می‌دهد، دستخوش تحول معنایی شوند؛ لذا درک صحیح و اجرای مؤثر آن‌ها مستلزم بهکارگیری شیوة خاصی از تفسیر موسوم به «تفسیر پویا» است که معاهده را بر اساس معنای جدید بازخوانی کرده و پاسخگوی ضرورت انعطاف‌پذیری و تحقق عدالت باشد. با این ‌حال، عهدنامة حقوق معاهدات به تفسیر پویا اشاره نکرده و در عمل نیز مبانی به‌کارگیری آن مبهم است. پژوهش حاضر به منظور روش‌شناسی تفسیر پویا و تبیین مبانی نظری آن صورت گرفته و در صدد پاسخگویی به این سؤال است که روش تفسیر پویا در کدام رویکردها و مکاتب حقوق بین‌الملل ریشه دارد. یافتة پژوهش آن است که تفسیر پویا به‌عنوان روشی مفسر‌محور، رویکردی ترکیبی است که بسته به ماهیت عبارت نوعیِ مورد تفسیر و تحت تأثیر بینش قضات و داوران ممکن است در مکاتب اثبات‌گرایی (نوین)، حقوق طبیعی و جامعه‌شناسی حقوقی ریشه داشته باشد.

https://www.cilamag.ir/article_722734_c3edb841480c983455e861e9a0252160.pdf

مرکز امور حقوقی بین المللی ریاست جمهوری- مدیریت علمی و پژوهشی مجله حقوقی بین المللی 2251-614X 42 شماره 80 (زمستان) 2026 01 21 A New Perspective on the “Consent” as an Inherent Element of International Commercial Arbitration تاملی نو بر «رضایت» به مثابه عنصر ذاتی داوری تجاری بین‌المللی 139 157 723338 10.22066/cilamag.2025.2056945.2715 FA محمدرضا آرام گروه حقوق خصوصی، دانشکده ادبیات و علوم انسانی، دانشگاه بوعلی سینا، همدان، ایران 0000-0001-8293-5755 فیض الله جعفری گروه حقوق خصوصی، دانشکده ادبیات و علوم انسانی، دانشگاه بوعلی سینا، همدان، ایران Journal Article 2025 04 01 The phrase that arbitration is a creature of contract and mutual consent is so intertwined with arbitration literature that the relationship between arbitration and the element of consent is considered the same as the relationship between a body and its shadow. The most important and fundamental outcome of considering consent as an inherent element of international commercial arbitration is the recognition of default jurisdiction in favor of courts. This means that, unless otherwise agreed, the parties must refer to the court to resolve their dispute. The perception of consent as an inherent element of international commercial arbitration disrupts the efficiency of the arbitration process by creating significant practical deficiencies. These practical deficiencies include the impossibility of consolidate related actions in multilateral arbitrations and the impossibility of intervention and joinder a third party without obtaining the consent of all parties to the dispute, which increases the risk of issuing conflicting awards. Additionally, the consensual nature of arbitration is, in many cases, abused as a tool to deny arbitration or create delays in the arbitration process. On the one hand, the consensual nature of arbitration prescribes various grounds upon which parties can annul the arbitral award and frustrate the efficiency of the arbitration process. On the other hand, one party to a dispute may, as a delaying tactic, bring a dispute that is subject to a valid arbitration agreement before the court, claiming that the arbitration agreement does not exist or is invalid. It is worth mentioning that considering the element of consent as inherent also confronts the legal system with a lack of coherence, because if a legal system considers consent as an inherent element of arbitration, then the element of consent must be respected narrowly and exception to it should not be allowed as a rule. This is despite the fact that today, courts and arbitration tribunals have significantly abandoned the formalist approach to the element of consent and in cases where the claimant or respondent does not consent, declare jurisdiction. Considering consent as an inherent element of arbitration not only confront the legal system with a lack of coherence but also, by creating deficiencies within the structure of the arbitration system, making it necessary to design a legal presumption to compensate for these deficiencies. In this context, the doctrine of independence of the arbitration agreement can be mentioned. While it is often referred to as a principle or a rule, it is in fact a legal presumption intended to compensate for the shortcomings arising from the consensual nature of arbitration. More precisely, if the basis of arbitration is not the consent of the parties, the design of a legal presumption based on the independence of the arbitration agreement seems unnecessary. Today, according to the modern perspective, in order to respond to international commercial requirements and properly and optimally administer the arbitration process, the default jurisdiction in favor of arbitration is emphasized. The recognition of the default jurisdiction of arbitration has various theoretical, economic, axiological and empirical reasons. The theoretical foundations of international commercial arbitration show that, in the field of international arbitration, proceedings through arbitration have become the principle, and proceedings through national courts have become the exception. The recognition of arbitration as the primary method for resolving international disputes is reinforced by the fact that there is no transnational judicial authority with general jurisdiction in the international scope that arbitration can replace. Consequently, the parties will be forced to choose between international arbitration and national judicial authorities. Since the parties prefer their own national court and do not want to be subject to the jurisdiction of the opposing party’s national court, they will refrain from referring to state judicial authorities and will ultimately refer their dispute to arbitration, an authority that guarantees the principle of impartiality more than state judicial authorities. From an economic perspective, the default jurisdiction rule is determined based on the will and preference of the majority of society, because majority defaults minimize contractual costs. In the international commercial community, it is arbitration that is chosen by the majority of commercial actors as a majority default. The default Jurisdiction rule, in addition to being the choice of the majority, should also be axiologically in line with maximizing freedom of will, which arbitration better guarantees the principle of the autonomy compared to judicial proceeding. Finally, the successful experience of compulsory arbitrations shows that consent cannot be an inherent element of international commercial arbitration and from this perspective reinforcing the default jurisdiction of arbitration. This article, using a descriptive analytical method, seeks to explain that today, like other empires that experience prosperity and decline, the empire of the element of consent in international commercial arbitration has faced decline. Accordingly, in the scope of international trade, instead of the default jurisdiction of national courts, one should speak of the primary and default jurisdiction of arbitration. <span lang="FA" style="font-size: 12.0pt; font-family: 'B Mitra'; mso-ascii-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ascii-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-hansi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-hansi-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-bidi-language: FA;">این عبارت که داوری مخلوق قرارداد و رضایت طرفینی است، چنان با ادبیات داوری آمیخته شده است که<span dir="LTR" lang="FA" style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ascii-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ascii-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-hansi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-hansi-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-bidi-font-family: 'B Mitra'; mso-bidi-language: FA;"> <span lang="FA" style="font-size: 12.0pt; font-family: 'B Mitra'; mso-ascii-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ascii-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-hansi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-hansi-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-bidi-language: FA;">ارتباط داوری و عنصر رضایت، همانند ارتباط میان بدن و سایة آن دانسته می‌شود، در حالی که دست‌کم در روابط تجاری بین‌المللی، داوری روش طبیعی حل‌ و‌ فصل اختلافات است. اکنون این پرسش مطرح می‌شود که چرا رضایت طرفین اختلاف باید عنصر ذاتی سازوکاری باشد که پرطرفدار‌ترین و معمول‌ترین روش حل‌ و‌ فصل اختلافات است؟ مقالة حاضر در صدد تبیین این نکته است که<span dir="LTR" lang="FA" style="font-size: 12.0pt; mso-ascii-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ascii-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-hansi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-hansi-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-bidi-font-family: 'B Mitra'; color: black; mso-themecolor: text1; mso-bidi-language: FA;"> <span lang="FA" style="font-size: 12.0pt; font-family: 'B Mitra'; mso-ascii-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ascii-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-hansi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-hansi-theme-font: major-bidi; color: black; mso-themecolor: text1; mso-bidi-language: FA;">امروزه اقتدار بنیادین و ذاتی عنصر رضایت<span lang="FA" style="font-size: 12.0pt; font-family: 'B Mitra'; mso-ascii-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ascii-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-hansi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-hansi-theme-font: major-bidi; color: red; mso-bidi-language: FA;"> <span lang="FA" style="font-size: 12.0pt; font-family: 'B Mitra'; mso-ascii-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-ascii-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-hansi-font-family: 'Times New Roman'; mso-hansi-theme-font: major-bidi; mso-bidi-language: FA;">در داوری تجاری بین‌المللی با افول مواجه شده است. بر همین اساس، در عرصة تجارت بین‌الملل، به جای صلاحیت پیش‌فرض دادگاه‌های ملی باید از صلاحیت ابتدایی و پیش‌فرض داوری سخن به میان آورد.

https://www.cilamag.ir/article_723338_2ec5286c8fa5acdbb8444b7e7dccc2cb.pdf

مرکز امور حقوقی بین المللی ریاست جمهوری- مدیریت علمی و پژوهشی مجله حقوقی بین المللی 2251-614X 42 شماره 80 (زمستان) 2026 01 21 The application of the principle of Equitable and reasonable utilization in the Tigris and Euphrates River Basin The application of the principle of Equitable and reasonable utilization in the Tigris and Euphrates River Basin 199 226 731530 10.22066/cilamag.2025.2039402.2618 FA اعظم امینی دانشیار حقوق بین‌الملل، دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد، ایران 0000-0003-3580-8459 محمد عابدی دانشیار حقوق خصوصی دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد احسان دریادل دانشجوی دکتری در حقوق و سیاست آب، دانشگاه مورداخ، استرالیا 0000-0003-4548-8559 Journal Article 2024 08 24 The Tigris and Euphrates river basin, spanning Turkey, Syria, Iraq, and Iran, is crucial both regionally and globally. Its utilization has become a political and security challenge. The principle of equitable and reasonable utilization, a key tenet of international law, is essential for managing this basin. This research employs a descriptive-analytical approach to explain this principle, identify its conventional and customary sources, and assess the factors affecting its application. It examines the basin's geographical, natural, and environmental conditions to evaluate how the principle is applied. The construction of dams, excessive groundwater use, and extensive irrigation have led to reduced water inflow and severe impacts on agriculture, the environment, and local communities. These issues highlight a weakening commitment to equitable utilization. Urgent cooperation among riparian states is needed to develop a comprehensive plan that ensures fair water use and sustainable ecological preservation for the Tigris and Euphrates basin. Keywords: International Law of Watercourses, Tigris and Euphrates River Basin, Transboundary Watercourses, Equitable and Reasonable Utilization. حوضۀ دجله و فرات اهمیت منطقه‏ای و جهانی دارد و مسأله بهره‏برداری از این آبراهه فرامرزی جنبۀ سیاسی و امنیتی یافته است. اعمال اصل بهره‏برداری منصفانه و متعارف، به عنوان یکی از اصول مسلم عرفی و معاهداتی حقوق بین‏الملل و از تعهدات کشورهای کناره، در حوضه مذکور ضروری به نظر می رسد. این پژوهش درصدد است به روش توصیفی-تحلیلی، مفهوم اصل مذکوررا تبیین کند، منابع قراردادی و عرفی آن‌ را ذکر کند، عوامل مؤثر در اجرای این اصل را بشناسد و چگونگی سازگاری دو اصل بهره برداری منصفانه و متعارف و اصل عدم آسیب‏رسانی عمده را معلوم سازد، و سپس با تبیین وضعیت جغرافیایی و طبیعی و محیط‏زیستی حوضه دجله و فرات، به کیفیت اعمال اصل مذکور در این حوضه بپردازد. کاهش آورد آب به این حوضه به سبب پروژه‌های توسعه‌ای، از جمله ساخت سدهای متعدد، تبعات فاجعه‌باری ایجاد کرده و التزام دولت‏های کناره به رعایت بهره برداری منصفانه و متعارف سست شده است. بنابراین، همکاری تمام کشورهای حوضه برای تدوین برنامۀ جامع استفاده منصفانه و متعارف از دجله و فرات ضرورتی فوری و انکارناپذیر است تا حقوق و منافع همگان را حفظ کند و اکولوژی منطقه پایدار و بدون آسیب بماند.

https://www.cilamag.ir/article_731530_a41c477490c87841b2c27abc238f8b2c.pdf

مرکز امور حقوقی بین المللی ریاست جمهوری- مدیریت علمی و پژوهشی مجله حقوقی بین المللی 2251-614X 42 شماره 80 (زمستان) 2026 01 21 Book Review of Davoud Hermidas Bavand, Historical, Political, and Legal Foundations of Iran’s Sovereignty over the Islands of Tunb and Abu Musa ( (Tehran: Ganj-e-Danesh Publication, 1998) Book Review of Davoud Hermidas Bavand Historical, Political, and Legal Foundations of Iran’s Sovereignty over the Islands of Tunb and Abu Musa (Tehran: Ganj-e-Danesh Publication, 1998) 229 240 734632 10.22066/cilamag.2025.2055303.2701 FA موسی کرمی دانش آموختۀ دکتری حقوق بین الملل عمومی، دانشکده حقوق، دانشگاه قم، قم، ایران 0000-0002-7536-8972 ستار عزیزی استاد حقوق بین الملل، گروه حقوق، دانشکده علوم انسانی، دانشگاه بوعلی سینا، همدان، ایران 0000-0003-3609-7644 Journal Article 2025 03 09 One of the most significant issues concerning territory in both international and domestic law is the question of islands. Islands, whether as subnational political units or as extensions of the mainland, give rise to various legal complexities. Among these, the issue of sovereignty over islands linked to the mainland remains a crucial topic in international law and politics. In recent years, some of the most notable territorial disputes have centered on sovereignty over islands between different States. A prominent example is the long-standing dispute between Iran and the United Arab Emirates over the three islands of Abu Musa, Greater Tunb, and Lesser Tunb, which, although rooted in the past, has entered a complex form between the two States since the early 1980s. This article aims to review one of the most reliable and authoritative books on Iran’s sovereignty over these islands in the Persian Gulf, titled Historical, Political, and Legal Foundations of Iran’s Sovereignty over the Islands of Tunb and Abu Musa, authored by the late Davoud Hermidas Bavand (1934–2023). Bavand was a distinguished Iranian diplomat and an expert in foreign policy and international law. The book was first published in English in 1994, followed by the first Persian translation by Bahman Aghaei, published by Ganj-e-Danesh Library Publishing in 1998. The following review is based on the first edition of the book. One of the most significant issues concerning territory in both international and domestic law is the question of islands. Islands, whether as subnational political units or as extensions of the mainland, give rise to various legal complexities. Among these, the issue of sovereignty over islands linked to the mainland remains a crucial topic in international law and politics. In recent years, some of the most notable territorial disputes have centered on sovereignty over islands between different States. A prominent example is the long-standing dispute between Iran and the United Arab Emirates over the three islands of Abu Musa, Greater Tunb, and Lesser Tunb, which, although rooted in the past, has entered a complex form between the two States since the early 1980s. This article aims to review one of the most reliable and authoritative books on Iran’s sovereignty over these islands in the Persian Gulf, titled Historical, Political, and Legal Foundations of Iran’s Sovereignty over the Islands of Tunb and Abu Musa, authored by the late Davoud Hermidas Bavand (1934–2023). Bavand was a distinguished Iranian diplomat and an expert in foreign policy and international law. The book was first published in English in 1994, followed by the first Persian translation by Bahman Aghaei, published by Ganj-e-Danesh Library Publishing in 1998. The following review is based on the first edition of the book. https://www.cilamag.ir/article_734632_b0394a161b8aaaed1272ba2bb08eaad1.pdf