Journal of Historical Research, Law and Policy

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and external factors contributing to the outbreak of famine in Iran during the First World War, based on reliable historical documents and reports.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.

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.

Due to the price differential between the governmental foreign currency rate and the free market exchange rate, foreign exchange obligations have emerged, and pursuant to Article 10 of the Law on Governmental Punishments (Taʿzirāt-e Hokūmatī), the failure to fulfill foreign exchange obligations constitutes an administrative offense, the adjudication of which falls within the jurisdiction of the Governmental Punishment Organization. However, with the enactment of the amended Law on Combating Smuggling of Goods and Currency dated January 30, 2022, under certain conditions, the non-fulfillment of foreign exchange obligations has been criminalized, and the jurisdiction for adjudicating such matters has been transferred to the Public Prosecutor’s Office and the Revolutionary Court. All cases concerning the non-fulfillment of foreign exchange obligations that were adjudicated at the first instance prior to the enactment of the Law on Combating Smuggling of Goods and Currency of January 30, 2022, but which are subsequently subject to objection or appeal after the enforcement of the said law, must still be adjudicated by the primary or appellate branches of the Governmental Punishment Organization. In the event of a jurisdictional conflict between the judicial authorities and the Governmental Punishment Organization in relation to cases involving the non-fulfillment of foreign exchange obligations, the opinion of the judicial authority shall be binding upon the Governmental Punishment Organization, notwithstanding the fact that the Governmental Punishment Organization has established a special appellate branch for goods and currency smuggling, composed of a provincial appellate judge, which issues binding decisions. Decisions of the Governmental Punishment Organization concerning the non-fulfillment of foreign exchange obligations are not subject to appeal before the Administrative Justice Court; however, if the Governmental Punishment Organization issues a ruling beyond the scope of its legal jurisdiction, an objection based on lack of jurisdiction may be filed with the Administrative Justice Court (APA citation example: Article 10, Law on Governmental Punishments, 1994/2013 revision). In any event, if the ruling of the Governmental Punishment Organization in cases concerning the non-fulfillment of foreign exchange obligations is manifestly contrary to statutory law or Islamic law, such ruling is subject to objection before the Head of the Judiciary, and upon his approval, the case may be reopened and reconsidered. This study employs a descriptive-analytical documentary research method to examine the jurisdiction of competent authorities in adjudicating the non-fulfillment of importers’ obligations arising from the receipt of governmental foreign currency.

Judicial presumption in the Iranian legal system is recognized as one of the most important instruments for proving claims and as an effective means of preventing judicial uncertainty in situations where conclusive evidence is absent or insufficient. Its flexibility, rational character, and reliance on a careful analysis of the circumstances and conditions of the case have enabled judicial presumptions to play a prominent role in generating confidence and forming the judge’s inner conviction, and in many instances to be invoked even as an independent form of evidence. An examination of jurisprudential, legal, and rational foundations indicates that whenever a judicial presumption gives rise to knowledge or sufficient assurance, it enjoys probative validity and may, like other recognized forms of evidence, play a decisive role in judicial proceedings. Given the persuasive nature of judicial presumptions, their evidentiary value depends on the degree of influence they exert on the judge’s mind. Accordingly, in cases involving a conflict between two or more judicial presumptions, the principal criterion of preference is the degree of probative force, technical strength, logical coherence, and consistency of each presumption with the circumstantial evidence and factual realities of the case. This criterion is accepted both in the principles of Islamic jurisprudence and in the practice of rational agents. The findings of this study demonstrate that whenever one presumption possesses greater persuasive capacity, it should prevail over weaker presumptions.

One of the fundamental issues in all societies is the equality of rights between women and men and the prohibition of discrimination based on gender. Offending mothers are vulnerable in all societies due to their gender and the specific conditions under which their conduct is criminalized; however, in certain regions of our country, because of some misguided traditions, lack of security, the influx of Western culture, and similar factors, they have been and continue to be exposed to greater harm. This is while the victimization of offending mothers, in view of the key role of mothers in the family system and society, the physical, emotional, and psychological characteristics of women, their social, familial, and individual status, and the fact that the mother is the foundation of the family and the guarantor of the upbringing and continuity of the human generation, is of particular importance. Crime against offending mothers, on the one hand, causes direct harm to them, and on the other hand, results in indirect harm to the family as the primary foundation of society; therefore, it was necessary to study criminal protection of offending mothers in Imami jurisprudence and Iran’s criminal laws and to examine the criminal responses adopted. Accordingly, this study examined the foundations and obstacles to offending mothers’ access to criminal justice, and the findings indicated that the principal foundations of criminal justice, derived from Islamic Sharia, take into account the aspects of victimization of mothers and their conditions; however, noticeable shortcomings exist that have led to misuse and the discriminatory nature of certain criminal laws.

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the capacity of family therapy theory for its application in the fields of criminal law and family law, based on an integrative legal–psychological perspective. The research method is documentary and library-based. The study is descriptive and analytical in nature. The research population consists of sources related to the theory of family therapy in the works of Western and Muslim scholars, as well as texts in criminal law, family law, and religious sources concerning the domain of the family. The findings of this study indicate that law, in its broader sense, is deeply influenced by psychology, and without it the definition of law remains incomplete. Family therapy minimizes judicial intervention and, in this respect, is superior to other approaches, including judiciary-centered models. An examination of statutory provisions shows the direct impact of counseling and arbitration on strengthening family relationships. Criminal institutions can also contribute to reducing crime rates. The legislative approach has been based on resolving marital disputes in counseling or arbitration centers; however, it has largely become a mere procedural formality. Ultimately, the prioritization of family therapy over judicial resolution is the principal finding of this study. In line with this objective, establishing and reinforcing a culture of counseling for families on the verge of divorce is of particular importance. Therefore, without giving centrality to the institution of family therapy within its legal system, the Islamic Republic of Iran will not achieve any of its macro-level policy objectives.

The Responsibility to Protect (R2P), as one of the emerging principles of international law, was adopted with the aim of preventing the occurrence of atrocity crimes such as genocide, ethnic cleansing, and war crimes. This study examines the international challenges of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) within the framework of contemporary international law and, using a descriptive-analytical approach, identifies three levels of challenges—conceptual, legal, and operational. Through case studies of the crises in Rwanda, Syria, and Ukraine, the article conducts a comparative analysis of the successes and failures of R2P in preventing and responding to mass atrocities. The primary objective of this research is to identify theoretical, legal, and practical challenges in implementing this doctrine and to assess its effectiveness in various crises. The main research questions include: (1) What conceptual and theoretical challenges exist in the interpretation and implementation of R2P? (2) How do legal conflicts between R2P and fundamental principles of international law affect its effectiveness? (3) How has R2P performed in the crises of Rwanda, Syria, and Ukraine? The findings indicate that R2P faces significant challenges related to conceptual ambiguities, contradictions with state sovereignty and the veto power, and failures in responding to crises. These challenges have undermined the effectiveness of the principle in addressing humanitarian catastrophes. Furthermore, the results emphasize the necessity of reforming the Security Council, strengthening regional cooperation, and improving preventive measures.

The concept, authority, and subject matter of compulsory acquisition in the legal systems of Iran and England exhibit substantial similarities, with no significant legal divergence. Although the two legal systems employ different terminologies and doctrinal vocabularies, their underlying legal concepts and the nature of the relevant legal regimes remain analogous. With respect to the authority responsible for compulsory acquisition in English law, a broad approach is adopted that even includes private bodies performing public functions, such as public-sector contractors or certain professional associations and nongovernmental organizations with a private nature that nevertheless undertake public responsibilities. In contrast, in Iran, the authority and organization empowered to undertake compulsory acquisition are limited to executive bodies, which are predominantly subordinate to the executive branch. Regarding the statutory process of compulsory acquisition, the procedure in England includes the issuance of a compulsory purchase order, notification and publication, confirmation of the compulsory purchase order, and ultimately the acquisition of the land. However, in Iranian law, the process consists of the existence of an approved development plan, the securing of financial resources, and the formal announcement of the plan through public notice and service upon the owner, followed by registration formalities. Based on the sources and documentary evidence presented, this study employs a descriptive-analytical method, and data collection has been conducted through library research. The present article seeks to answer the central question of what differences exist between the legal systems of Iran and England regarding the authority and procedure of compulsory acquisition. In England, the process involves the issuance of a compulsory purchase order, notification and publication, and confirmation of the order. In contrast, in Iran, the process requires an approved plan, the securing of financial credit, and the formal announcement of the plan through public notice, service upon the owner, and registration procedures. Under the Iranian legal system, the initiation of expropriation measures depends on the existence of an approved plan, the availability of financial resources, the necessity of implementing the plan, and its formal announcement. Unlike English law, however, citizens in Iran do not participate in the approval process or in determining the content of such plans, and no pre-approval objection mechanism has been provided for challenging the plan before its final adoption.