Journal of Historical Research, Law and Policy

Financial supervision is a core function of the modern administrative state, ensuring legality, accountability, transparency, and the proper management of public resources. In Iran, this function operates under sustained external regulatory pressure arising from international sanctions and the requirements of the Financial Action Task Force. This article examines how the simultaneous presence of these two external forces reshapes the independence and effectiveness of government financial supervision within Iran’s public law system. Using a scientific narrative review and descriptive legal analysis, the study explores the structural consequences of sanctions for domestic financial governance, including restricted access to financial data, limited international cooperation, institutional distortion, and the expansion of informal financial mechanisms. It also analyzes FATF standards as a normative and regulatory framework that promotes transparency, risk-based supervision, and enhanced detection capabilities while imposing compliance costs and influencing domestic regulatory priorities. The findings demonstrate that sanctions and FATF obligations operate through opposing yet interacting logics: sanctions encourage opacity, emergency governance, and centralization, whereas FATF requirements incentivize formalization, disclosure, and procedural oversight. Together, they generate a complex regulatory environment in which supervisory institutions may gain technical tools but lose functional autonomy. The article argues that supervisory independence in this context cannot be assessed solely on the basis of formal legal status, as functional independence is deeply shaped by external constraints and resource limitations. Ultimately, the study highlights the need for a public law perspective that recognizes financial supervision as a dynamic institution situated between sovereignty, global regulatory integration, and domestic accountability.

Social developments and the expansion of the State’s role in managing public risks have moved governmental responsibility for unforeseen incidents beyond the traditional framework of force majeure and transformed it into a legal issue with ex ante and institutional dimensions. The central question addressed in this study is whether the omission of the State’s preventive obligations in the face of foreseeable risks can constitute a basis for civil liability, and how such liability has been conceptualized in different legal systems. Focusing on the legal systems of Iran and the United States, this article examines the issue in light of the evolution of tort liability concepts, the limitation of sovereign immunity, and the institutionalization of prevention. The findings indicate that in United States law, the State’s ex ante obligations have gradually evolved from the realm of administrative policymaking into legally assessable standards, and preventive omissions, under specific conditions, have been recognized as a breach of the public duty of care. By contrast, in Iranian law, despite the existence of jurisprudential foundations and constitutional principles aimed at protecting the life and property of citizens, the predominance of an ex post approach, ambiguity in liability standards, and judicial caution have hindered the effective linkage between prevention and governmental civil liability. The comparative analysis suggests that although the United States experience is not entirely replicable, it may provide a basis for the gradual redefinition of governmental liability in Iranian law on the foundation of ex ante obligations and the legal management of risk. Employing a descriptive–analytical method and a comparative approach, this study seeks to develop a conceptual framework for the transition from a purely compensatory model of liability toward a forward-looking form of responsibility aligned with the requirements of the contemporary State.

Domestic violence, as one of the fundamental social and legal challenges, has consistently exposed women to physical, psychological, and social harm. Despite the expansion of international discourses emphasizing the necessity of criminalization and differential penal responses to this phenomenon, many legal systems still lack comprehensive legislative approaches in this field. The present study, focusing on the legal systems of Iran and Iraq, examines the challenges and legal gaps concerning the criminal protection of women victims of domestic violence and analyzes the existing deficiencies from a comparative perspective. Employing a comparative research method, this study integrates both library-based and field research. In the field section, data were collected through a researcher-developed questionnaire and an analysis of the perspectives of Iranian and Iraqi women victims. The findings indicate that the absence of a differential criminal protection framework for domestic violence against women has not only deprived judicial and executive institutions of the possibility of effective intervention but, in certain cases, has implicitly legitimized this form of violence. In both countries, existing laws generally lack independent criminalization of domestic violence, and criminal protections for women are provided within the framework of general and non-differential provisions. More concealed forms of violence, particularly psychological and sexual violence (including marital rape), do not possess an independent criminal characterization. This situation not only complicates the proof of victimization during judicial proceedings but also, in many instances, results in women’s complaints being dismissed through decisions of non-prosecution or limited to the payment of diya (blood money), thereby perpetuating the cycle of violence. Furthermore, cultural and social barriers further undermine the effectiveness of criminal protection. The findings underscore that, in order to establish effective criminal protection, the enactment of differential and specific legislation criminalizing various forms of domestic violence against women is essential. Additionally, complementary approaches—such as the application of restorative justice mechanisms and the provision of psychosocial support—may contribute to reducing women’s victimization and strengthening the accountability of the criminal justice system in addressing domestic violence.

Religious democracy, as the governance model of the Islamic Republic of Iran, presents a synthesis of divine legitimacy and popular legitimacy. This model, grounded in Islamic teachings and active public participation in political processes, has succeeded in establishing a distinct model of Islamic governance that holds particular appeal for Muslim nations in contrast to Western secular and liberal models. This article aims to examine the impact of this model on Iran’s strategic depth in the Middle East by analyzing the discourse of the Islamic Revolution, sources of soft power, and the role of political participation in enhancing Iran’s regional influence. The findings indicate that religious democracy, by creating an alternative model of Islamic governance, has played an effective role in shaping and supporting aligned movements, expanding cultural and media diplomacy, and legitimizing Iran’s foreign policy. These forms of support have not been limited to political and security dimensions but have also functioned as components of Iran’s soft power, thereby contributing to the expansion of the country’s strategic depth within its surrounding environment. Furthermore, the article demonstrates that religious democracy has contributed to the consolidation of the political system’s legitimacy at the domestic level and has also functioned as a source of soft power at the regional level. The integration of religious values with popular participation has presented a distinct image of Islamic governance that holds appeal for Muslim populations in the region and encourages their convergence with Iran. Consequently, religious democracy is not only a domestic governance model but also an effective regional strategy for enhancing Iran’s strategic depth in the Middle East. This model has facilitated the formation of allied networks, strengthened the discourse of resistance, and reinforced Iran’s position within regional geopolitical equations.

In recent decades, due to rapid urban population growth and profound transformations in the structure of Iranian cities, the country has widely faced a housing shortage. The insufficiency of housing supply and the inadequate quality of existing residential units have consistently been regarded as a major socio-economic challenge in Iran, and the provision of adequate housing—particularly for low-income urban groups—has remained a significant and complex issue. The designers and proponents of the Mehr Housing initiative, as one of the principal economic programs of the Ninth and Tenth Administrations, argued that by eliminating land costs from construction expenses and strengthening the role of the government in this process, the problem of insufficient housing supply could be resolved, the growing housing demand in the coming years could be met, and housing prices could consequently be reduced. The findings indicate that high inflation and instability in key macroeconomic variables have constituted the most significant obstacles to effective policymaking in this domain. Accordingly, large-scale housing construction projects implemented without consideration of sustainable financial resources have led to the exacerbation of government budget deficits and increased inflation, thereby making access to adequate housing more difficult for households—particularly for low-income groups. Furthermore, restricting housing support programs solely to construction activities has been among the main reasons for the unsatisfactory performance observed in this sector.

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).