Journal of Historical Research, Law and Policy

The insurance industry occupies a strategic position at the intersection of financial markets, social welfare policy, and public regulation. Despite its critical role in risk management and economic stability, the development of insurance systems has often been evaluated primarily through quantitative indicators such as premium growth and market penetration. This article argues that such an approach provides an incomplete and potentially misleading assessment of insurance performance, particularly when persistent customer dissatisfaction coexists with apparent market expansion. Adopting an institutional–policy perspective, the study conceptualizes customer satisfaction as a core indicator of policy effectiveness rather than a secondary market outcome or a purely behavioral variable. Using a qualitative, comparative analytical framework, the article examines how insurance policies and institutional arrangements shape customer satisfaction outcomes, with a particular focus on the Iranian insurance industry in comparison with global regulatory trends. The analysis demonstrates that many insurance systems worldwide have gradually shifted from solvency-centered regulation toward consumer-centered governance models that institutionalize transparency, complaint resolution mechanisms, and qualitative performance indicators. In contrast, the Iranian insurance sector remains largely anchored in a quantitatively oriented policy logic, where growth in firms and premium volumes has not been matched by improvements in service quality, claims settlement, or dispute resolution. The findings reveal that persistent customer dissatisfaction in Iran is best understood as a symptom of policy and institutional pathologies, including weak enforcement, limited regulatory accountability, and an overreliance on numerical performance metrics. The article concludes that quantitative expansion without parallel qualitative reform fails to enhance satisfaction and may undermine the social welfare function of insurance. By reframing customer satisfaction as a policy-relevant outcome embedded in institutional design, the study contributes to a deeper understanding of insurance governance and offers a foundation for rethinking insurance policymaking in ways that align market development with trust, legitimacy, and long-term sustainability.

The expansion of digital interactions and the growing dependence of consumers on electronic commerce platforms have made it necessary to reconsider the traditional model of Iran’s criminal policy. Despite the criminalization of certain behaviors threatening the security of online transactions in the Electronic Commerce Act and the Computer Crimes Act, the existing legislative structure remains grounded in a strict, punishment-oriented approach and fails to benefit from the leniency mechanisms provided under the Islamic Penal Code of 2013. The purpose of this study is to critically evaluate the shortcomings of the current criminal policy in consumer protection, to analyze the position of these offenses within the classification system of taʿzīr punishments, and to explain the necessity of transitioning toward a differentiated and protection-oriented criminal policy. The study employs a descriptive–analytical method through a systematic examination of Iranian legislation, relevant judicial practices, jurisprudential texts related to leniency, and comparative literature on cyber law. The findings indicate that classifying consumer-related offenses within fifth- and sixth-degree taʿzīr punishments deprives them of essential leniency mechanisms of criminal policy, such as postponement of sentencing, suspension of punishment, alternatives to imprisonment, and the institution of repentance, thereby undermining proportionality, efficiency, and justice in criminal responses. Moreover, the distinctive characteristics of electronic commerce—including relative anonymity, the involvement of third parties, and dependence on technical processes—have been overlooked, resulting in the failure to establish an effective differentiated criminal policy. The findings further show that mere criminalization and the imposition of monetary penalties paid into the state treasury are ineffective in reducing consumer vulnerability. In conclusion, the article proposes a three-tier model consisting of technical prevention, professional oversight, and consumer support and compensation as a desirable framework for criminal policy; a model that can enhance public trust, strengthen the security of electronic transactions, and contribute to reforming the existing legislative approach.

Access to Central Asian markets, as a strategic economic and geopolitical priority for Iran, requires the opening of reliable transit routes through neighboring countries. In this context, Afghanistan—despite being the shortest and most natural corridor—has become part of a complex trilateral equation due to its internal instability and Pakistan’s pivotal role in its developments. This study aims to assess the feasibility and conditions of Iran–Pakistan cooperation to operationalize Iran’s transit route to Central Asia via Afghanistan. Employing a hybrid analytical framework that combines geopolitical realism (to explain competitive dynamics) and new institutionalism (to account for drivers of cooperation), the article argues that bilateral relations are situated within a field of opposing forces. On the one hand, historical rivalry, ideological divergence, project-based competition (Chabahar versus Gwadar), and interventions by regional actors (India and Saudi Arabia) and extra-regional powers (the United States and China) have created deep structural obstacles. On the other hand, the imperative to address shared security threats (cross-border terrorism) and the attractiveness of substantial economic gains from establishing transit corridors have generated unavoidable points of convergence. The article’s key finding indicates that, despite these forced convergences, the formation of a strategic alliance or a stable, institutionalized cooperation under current conditions is unlikely. Instead, the most plausible scenario is the emergence of “episodic, fragile, and project-based cooperation,” which will be heavily influenced by domestic political fluctuations in both countries and by the stability (or instability) of Taliban governance in Afghanistan. The study further concludes that weaknesses in transit infrastructure—particularly in Afghanistan—constitute a costly structural constraint, and that historical and cultural commonalities can function only as a limited soft platform for confidence-building. Ultimately, the success of any cooperation is contingent upon the intelligent management of rivalries and the transformation of shared threats into pragmatic projects, with an emphasis on a three-tier diplomacy involving Pakistan (for security), the Taliban (for economic stability), and China (for mediation and investment).

The Seljuk dynasty, in terms of territorial extent, political cohesion, and power, represents the most significant ruling dynasty of Iran after the advent of Islam, having established a formidable empire during the medieval period. In intellectual and bureaucratic domains, the Seljuks modeled their system of governance on the coherent and powerful states of pre-Islamic Iran, particularly the Sasanian Empire, and implemented Iranshahrī concepts and the notion of divine glory (farr-e īzadī) within their governmental structure. The principal architect of this form of governance in that period was Khwāja Niẓām al-Mulk, the powerful, prudent, and intellectually distinguished Iranian vizier, who succeeded in establishing a strong, orderly, and authoritative administrative system over a territory that was nearly equivalent to that of the Sasanian Empire at the height of its power. Within this context, the tension between the Iranshahrī ideology and the concept of divine glory and the theory of the sultan as God’s shadow—both derived from the political thought of ancient Iran, especially the Sasanian tradition—and the spiritual authority of the Abbasid caliphs, whose legitimacy was believed to derive from God and the Prophet and whom the Seljuks formally regarded themselves as bound to obey, provided the impetus for the present study. Accordingly, this research examines the manner in which these two political-theological concepts were reconciled and the extent of their influence on Seljuk political and governmental interactions. The findings indicate that the Seljuks, under the leadership of their powerful vizier Niẓām al-Mulk, while implementing Iranshahrī thought, the doctrine of divine glory, and the principle of the sultan’s absolute sovereignty within the Seljuk governmental structure, outwardly expressed loyalty to the caliph in order to benefit from his spiritual influence among the populace. In practice, however, they themselves made and executed all major political and military decisions and at times even intervened in the appointment and dismissal of the caliph’s ministers and officials, effectively imposing their own views upon the caliph. The present study employs a descriptive–analytical method to investigate how the Seljuks of Iran adapted the theory of the sultan as God’s shadow and the Abbasid concept of the caliph as God’s vicegerent, and to assess the impact of this adaptation on the consolidation of their political position.

The First World War was one of the most significant events of the twentieth century, whose devastating consequences affected the Iranian population despite Iran’s declaration of neutrality, leading to the occupation of the country by Russian and British forces. The northwestern regions of Iran were also repeatedly subjected to attacks by Ottoman troops. A land that had long been exposed to drought and famine due to its climatic conditions, Iran on this occasion—under the shadow of foreign invasion and as a result of internal factors such as the inefficiency of governmental agents and the absence of crisis management, hoarding of grain and food supplies, weakness of the transportation network and road infrastructure, financial incapacity and national dependency, collapse of social order and expansion of poverty, banditry and plunder accompanied by the creation of a climate of fear, population decline caused by disease and debilitation, and fragmentation of military power, along with external factors including military occupation, control of food depots, and the large-scale purchase of Iranian grain by Britain and Russia—became afflicted by a massive catastrophe that laid the groundwork for the emergence of the Great Famine in Iran concurrent with the First World War. The primary objective of this article is to explain and analyze the most important internal and external factors contributing to the outbreak of famine in Iran during the First World War, based on reliable historical documents and reports. The main research question is: What were the most significant internal and external factors affecting the famine in Iran during the First World War? This study is a historical investigation in which data were collected through library-based research and presented using a descriptive–analytical method. The findings indicate that Iran, which due to its climatic conditions had always faced the risk of drought, experienced severe famine and extensive human losses as a result of the simultaneous aggression of foreign occupiers and the exploitative practices of domestic profiteers; a catastrophe whose political and economic repercussions remained in the country for many years.

This study aims to examine international sanctions imposed on the Islamic Republic of Iran, with a particular focus on its nuclear activities, and to analyze the legitimacy of these measures from the perspective of international law. It seeks to evaluate the extent to which the sanctions conform to the principles and rules of international law and their effects on Iran’s legal and political standing within the international system. The research methodology is descriptive-analytical, with data collected through library and documentary sources. Content analysis of international documents, Security Council resolutions, multilateral treaties, and legal opinions served as the main data-gathering tool. Using a comparative approach, the legitimacy and effectiveness of the sanctions were critically assessed. Findings indicate that nuclear-related sanctions against Iran have been imposed both by the Security Council and unilaterally by major powers. Unilateral sanctions are predominantly outside the framework of the United Nations Charter, and their legal legitimacy faces serious challenges. The effects of these sanctions extend beyond economic consequences, encompassing significant political and social implications, including impacts on human rights and Iran’s right to development. Legal analysis reveals that, in many cases, the sanctions reflect power dynamics and political objectives of dominant states, undermining their legal validity due to violations of international law principles and fundamental rights of citizens. Conversely, Iran has sought to assert the legitimacy of its peaceful nuclear activities by relying on international law and employing legal diplomatic instruments. The study concludes that nuclear sanctions against Iran are driven more by political and power considerations in the international system than by justifications grounded in international law. Nonetheless, employing proactive legal strategies, strengthening legal diplomacy, and leveraging the discourse of human rights and the right to development can mitigate the harmful effects of sanctions and enhance Iran’s legal legitimacy.

Fundamental rights constitute one of the complex subjects in human rights law. These rights are achievements of the rule-of-law state, which—based on a legal structure grounded in the hierarchy of norms, the principle of the rule of law, and the separation of powers—has been formed upon a liberal foundation. In the realm of fundamental rights, it is not appropriate to distinguish between rights as constitutional or non-constitutional, nor to focus on whether they are expressly stipulated in the constitution or not; rather, what matters are the principles, values, and foundations through which the rule-of-law state conceives fundamental rights as its ultimate objective. In this regard, the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Council of France is particularly noteworthy, as this body has assumed a prominent role in the dynamism and development of fundamental rights. Consequently, understanding and comprehending the concepts and characteristics of these rights requires attention to their formative contexts, underlying foundations, and the manner of their evolution. These rights belong to the category of superior norms; in other words, fundamental rights embody a value system concerning rights and freedoms deemed fundamental, as reflected and strongly emphasized in international instruments such as human rights declarations and the two Covenants (civil and political rights; economic, social, and cultural rights).

The Ni‘matullahi order is one of the Shiʿi Sufi traditions that emerged in the fourteenth century and became actively involved in significant social and political affairs during the Safavid era. Despite governmental restrictions and pressures imposed during the Safavid period, this order attracted segments of the population and some members of the court due to its mystical teachings and its emphasis on social service. This article examines the socio-political interaction between the Ni‘matullahi order and the Imami (Twelver Shiʿi) school during the Safavid era. By analyzing the religious and political climate of the period, the study investigates the position of the Ni‘matullahi order and the role of Sayyid Nur al-Din Shah Ni‘matullah Vali and his works in cultural and social developments (Tabataba'i, 2008). The research method is based on library research and data analysis aimed at assessing the extent of the influence of Ni‘matullahi writings on Imami thought. The findings indicate that the relationship between the Ni‘matullahi order and the Imami school was neither mere peaceful coexistence nor outright confrontation, but rather a form of reciprocal interaction that contributed to the formation of Shiʿi mysticism and the consolidation of the political order of the period. In addition, the role of the Safavid government in regulating and managing this interaction to strengthen Twelver Shiʿism and maintain political stability is highlighted. This article seeks to present a clear picture of the mutual influences of mysticism and politics in Safavid society.