perUniversity of Judicial Sciences and Administrative Services - Academic Association of University of Judicial Sciences and Administrative Servicesفصلنامه علمی قضانامه2025-1238832articleMorteza Saeedghaderimortezaghaderi.law@gmail.com1Amin Mirzamaniamin.mirzamani@yahoo.com2Ehsan ToloueiToloueiehsan@gmail.com3PhD Researcher in Private Law, Islamic Azad University, Varamin–Pishva Branch, Iran PhD Researcher in Private Law, Islamic Azad University, Varamin–Pishva Branch, Iran PhD Researchers in Private Law, Islamic Azad University, Varamin Branch, Preveza, Iran<p>This article analyzes the legal aspects of the report issued by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on May 31, 2025; a report lacking sufficient technical documentation, contradictory to previous IAEA reports, and published in a highly charged atmosphere. This report played a direct role in justifying the Israeli military attack on Iran&rsquo;s critical infrastructure and the killing of Iranian civilians on June 13, 2025. The article shows that this report, by violating the principles of neutrality, transparency, and verification, facilitated indirect participation in an international crime of aggression. By analyzing the elements of "knowledge" and "mens rea" in international criminal law, it is argued that Grossi's behavior and his contradictory and false statements at the emergency meeting of the IAEA Board of Governors on June 16, 2025, in Vienna, could be considered as complicity or facilitation in the commission of an act of aggression; a crime for which individual criminal responsibility arises, and the functional immunity of the Director General of the IAEA will not prevent prosecution. The article further examines the institutional and civil liability of the IAEA as an international organization and, by referring to the practices of other institutions, outlines the agency's responsibility for violating fundamental behavioral principles. The paper concludes by exploring the legal remedies available to the Islamic Republic of Iran and the victims of this aggression, including the pursuit of criminal and civil liability in competent international forums, activation of the UN Security Council and General Assembly, and the use of universal jurisdiction to achieve justice. One such remedy is invoking the sovereign right to withdraw from the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT) under Article 10 of the Treaty, arguing that the continuation of military aggression can be considered an "extraordinary event" that jeopardizes the country's "supreme interests." In this regard, the July 4, 2025, resolution of the Iranian Parliament concerning the suspension of cooperation with the IAEA could serve as a practical enforcement guarantee, facilitating a formal exit from the NPT in the event of continued military aggression. The article concludes by emphasizing the need for reforming the IAEA's reporting mechanisms to prevent the recurrence of such violations.</p>http://aujsas.ir/Article/52450International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) Institutional Responsibility of International Organizations IAEA Technical ReportsperUniversity of Judicial Sciences and Administrative Services - Academic Association of University of Judicial Sciences and Administrative Servicesفصلنامه علمی قضانامه2025-12383348articleAfsaneh Hajilooafsanehhajiloo@gmail.com1Department of International Law, Faculty of Law, Islamic Azad University, Science and Research Branch, Tehran, Iran<p>The Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), as the cornerstone of the global nuclear weapons control regime, is of high significance with the aim of preventing the spread of nuclear technology and weapons in non-nuclear states. However, in recent years, this regime has faced serious challenges, a significant portion of which can be attributed to the non-transparent and unofficial actions of certain countries, as well as the double standards of international organizations. Israel, with its secret nuclear program and without being a member of the NPT, operates without any official international oversight, which has led to deep concerns among regional and global countries about security balance and regional stability. Simultaneously, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), whose main mission is to monitor the implementation of the obligations of member states and ensure the peaceful nature of nuclear programs, has faced numerous criticisms regarding its unequal performance and double standards, further weakening its position and effectiveness in the international arena. This study aims to examine the direct and indirect impacts of Israel&rsquo;s and the IAEA&rsquo;s actions on the weakening of the NPT regime and the reactions of various regional and international countries. Using documented data and field evidence, this research shows that the lack of transparency and Israel&rsquo;s exclusion from the treaty has not only created a security vacuum in the Middle East but also led to a dichotomy in the implementation of obligations and oversight of other countries&rsquo; nuclear programs. Additionally, the increased lack of trust among NPT members and the double actions of some international organizations have escalated tensions and reduced diplomatic cooperation. Furthermore, the reactions of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), the European Union, and the United States have been significantly different, with each of these actors adopting a different interpretation and approach to this issue based on their own interests and policies. Based on the findings of this study, solutions such as implementing fair and inclusive oversight by the IAEA, requiring transparency in nuclear programs, and enhancing multilateral cooperation by the international community are proposed to strengthen the NPT regime to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and ensure regional and global security. Ultimately, this article emphasizes that without constructive interaction, sufficient transparency, and effective cooperation among member countries and monitoring organizations, global efforts to combat nuclear weapons proliferation will fail, and its consequences for international security will be devastating.</p>http://aujsas.ir/Article/52451NPT Israel International Atomic Energy Agency Weakening of the Regime Nuclear ProgramperUniversity of Judicial Sciences and Administrative Services - Academic Association of University of Judicial Sciences and Administrative Servicesفصلنامه علمی قضانامه2025-12384959articleSayyed Nima Norouzin.nima1376@gmail.com1Athar Darvishee athar.darvishe7531@yahoo.com2 Ghasem Tabar ghasemtabar@yahoo.com3Department of Jurisprudence and Law, Faculty of Sciences and Knowledge, Al-Mustafa International University, Qom Seminary, Qom, IranPhD Student in International Law and Supervisor and Reviewer of Al-Thaqalayn Satellite and International Network, Tehran, IranPhD in International Law; President of Al-Thaqalayn International Satellite Network, Tehran, Iran<p>The issue of children's rights has long been a focal point of international human rights and humanitarian law treaties and resolutions. However, children continue to be among the most vulnerable victims of armed conflicts. This article examines the violations of children's rights by the Israeli regime, both in the occupied territories and in recent attacks on Iran, relying on binding international legal documents. In this regard, key principles such as the distinction between combatants and non-combatants, the prohibition of attacks on civilians, and the fundamental right to life are analyzed. The findings show that many of the regime&rsquo;s actions are a clear violation of peremptory international law norms, which could lead to international responsibility and even criminal prosecution at the International Criminal Court.</p>http://aujsas.ir/Article/52452Children's Rights International Humanitarian Law Armed Conflicts International ResponsibilityperUniversity of Judicial Sciences and Administrative Services - Academic Association of University of Judicial Sciences and Administrative Servicesفصلنامه علمی قضانامه2025-12386071articleAthar Darvisheeathar.darvishe7531@yahoo.com1Sayyed Nima Norouzin.nima1376@gmail.com2 Ghasem Tabar ghasemtabar@yahoo.com3PhD Student in International Law and Supervisor and Reviewer of Al-Thaqalayn Satellite and International Network, Tehran, IranDepartment of Jurisprudence and Law, Faculty of Sciences and Knowledge, Al-Mustafa International University, Qom Seminary, Qom, IranPhD in International Law; President of Al-Thaqalayn International Satellite Network, Tehran, Iran<p>The Israeli regime's military attack on Iranian territory on June 13, 2025, which resulted in civilian casualties and the destruction of infrastructure, is a clear violation of fundamental international law principles. According to Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter and related resolutions, the use of force against the territorial integrity and political independence of states is prohibited, and it is only legitimate in cases of self-defense or collective action by the Security Council. In this attack, the Israeli regime carried out an overt act of aggression without the authorization of the Security Council and in the absence of an immediate threat. Furthermore, targeting civilians and residential areas violates the principles of distinction and proportionality in humanitarian law and even constitutes war crimes. According to Article 51 of the Charter, Iran has the right to individual and collective self-defense, subject to the principles of necessity, proportionality, distinction, and immediate reporting to the Security Council. Iran can also pursue the Israeli regime's responsibility through international bodies such as the Security Council, the General Assembly, the International Court of Justice, and the International Criminal Court. This study analyzes the Israeli regime&rsquo;s violations with reference to international documents, conventions, and rulings of international tribunals, emphasizing the legitimacy of Iran's right to self-defense.</p>http://aujsas.ir/Article/52453International Law Self-Defense United Nations Charter Aggression International ResponsibilityperUniversity of Judicial Sciences and Administrative Services - Academic Association of University of Judicial Sciences and Administrative Servicesفصلنامه علمی قضانامه2025-12387288articleFereydoun Jafarif.jafari@basu.ac.ir1Masoud Gharamanimasoud.qahremani@gmail.com2Assistant Professor, Department of Law, Faculty of Law, Bu-Ali Sina University, Hamadan, IranPhD Student in Criminal Law and Criminology, Faculty of Law, Bu-Ali Sina University, Hamadan, Iran, and University Lecturer<p>The realization of a crime requires the presence of necessary elements and conditions. Providing a comprehensive and precise definition of a crime, and scrutinizing the legal element, mental element, and material element of the crime, along with the assignability of the act to the perpetrator&mdash;these are all factors that contribute to the realization of a criminal phenomenon. Among these, examining the material element of the crime is of particular importance. Scholars of jurisprudence have specified certain conditions and restrictions for the realization of the title "mohareb" (one who wages war against God), derived from the Qur'an and Hadith. This issue is addressed under the concept of the material element of the crime in criminal law. Given that the Islamic Penal Code of 2013 has introduced changes in the conditions and elements of Moharebeh, this study seeks to analyze these developments in comparison with jurisprudential regulations to determine who has the capacity to disrupt public order through the act of drawing a weapon with the intent to intimidate people, thereby jeopardizing security.</p>http://aujsas.ir/Article/52454Moharebeh Victim Material Element Crimes Against Public SecurityperUniversity of Judicial Sciences and Administrative Services - Academic Association of University of Judicial Sciences and Administrative Servicesفصلنامه علمی قضانامه2025-123889124articleSeyyed Samsameddin Qavamisa.choupanpisheh@gmail.com1Sayyed Nima Norouzin.nima1376@gmail.com2Director of the Islamic Management Jurisprudence Foundation and External Lecturer, Qom Seminary, Qom, IranDepartment of Jurisprudence and Law, Faculty of Sciences and Knowledge, Al-Mustafa International University, Qom Seminary, Qom, Iran<p>This paper presents a comparative study of the principles of liberal and Islamic governance, with a specific focus on judicial governance. Liberal governance is based on individual freedoms, human rights, and the separation of powers, while Islamic governance emphasizes principles such as social justice, Sharia, and religious authority. The goal of this paper is to compare these two governance models in terms of their foundational principles and examine their impact on the functioning of the judicial system within each framework. Concepts such as the independence of the judiciary, individual rights versus collective rights, and oversight of the judicial system in both models are analyzed. The results of this study indicate that Islamic governance, while emphasizing justice and the protection of individual rights, incorporates its own specific mechanisms for oversight and governance. On the other hand, liberal governance, due to its emphasis on individualism and personal freedoms, supports minimal intervention and oversight in judicial matters. Finally, the paper offers suggestions for utilizing the principles of both models in various societies to enhance the effectiveness of judicial systems while adhering to principles of justice and human rights.</p>http://aujsas.ir/Article/52455Liberal governance Islamic governance Judicial governance Human rights Social justiceperUniversity of Judicial Sciences and Administrative Services - Academic Association of University of Judicial Sciences and Administrative Servicesفصلنامه علمی قضانامه2025-1238125135articleKhadijeh Ganjkhanlookhghanjkhanlou@gmail.com1Ali Ashraf Sobhanisobhanialiashraf49@gmail.com2Department of Private Law, Islamic Azad University, Zanjan Branch, Zanjan, IranAssistant Professor, Department of Law, Faculty of Law, Islamic Azad University, Abhar Branch, Zanjan, Iran<p>Non-material damages, due to their inherent complexities and the difficulty in precisely measuring them, present a significant challenge in legal systems. In Iranian law, compensation for non-material damages can be made through various means, such as apologies, financial compensation, or symbolic actions. Various methods have been proposed for evaluating non-material damages, including financial equivalence, the use of legal tariffs, and judicial assessments based on the specific circumstances of each case. In many countries, such as France, methods similar to those in Iranian legal systems exist for compensating these types of damages, with the difference that in some cases, Western legal systems utilize non-financial compensations or even criminal penalties to achieve justice. In Islamic law, non-material damages, particularly those affecting an individual&rsquo;s reputation and honor, can be compensated through financial deterrence and compensatory measures such as diyah (blood money) or 'arsh (a form of compensation). This article examines various methods of compensating non-material damages in Iranian law and compares them with legal systems of other countries.</p>http://aujsas.ir/Article/52456Non-material damages Compensation for damages Iranian law Diyah International law Damage assessmentperUniversity of Judicial Sciences and Administrative Services - Academic Association of University of Judicial Sciences and Administrative Servicesفصلنامه علمی قضانامه2025-1238136155articleSayyed Nima Norouzin.nima1376@gmail.com1Mohammad Sadeghimsadeghi@hmu.ac.ir2Department of Jurisprudence and Private Law, Faculty of Sciences and Knowledge, Al-Mustafa International University, Qom Seminary, Qom, IranAssistant Professor, Department of Private Law, Faculty of Law, Hazrat Masoumeh (S) University, Qom, Iran<p>The issue of an attorney's self-dealing is a complex and controversial topic in both Shia jurisprudence and Iranian civil law. It arises when an attorney acts as both the representative of the client and as the opposite party in a contract. This situation has long been a subject of debate due to the potential for conflicts of interest. In Shia jurisprudence, some scholars deem such transactions impermissible due to their conflict with principles of justice and the risk of undermining the client&rsquo;s rights, while others permit it under specific conditions, such as ensuring the full protection of the client&rsquo;s interests. In Iranian civil law, according to Article 698 of the Civil Code, an attorney may engage in such transactions if legally authorized and if honesty and trustworthiness are upheld. However, the legal nature of these transactions, due to the lack of independent wills and the attorney's dual role, remains a challenge. The findings of this research indicate that while such transactions may be valid under certain conditions, due to the potential for abuse, they require careful oversight and clear regulations to ensure the protection of the client&rsquo;s interests.</p>http://aujsas.ir/Article/52457Attorney's self-dealing main party impact of transaction unity of cause and effect multiplicity of contract parties