Journal of Historical Research, Law and Policy

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.

This research investigates the roots and legal political consequences of misperception in the United States' foreign policy concerning Iran, using Robert Jervis's theoretical framework and Max Weber's Verstehen (interpretive) method. The main question of the article is: What are the most important instances of U.S. misperception toward Iran, and what consequences have these misperceptions had for bilateral and regional relations? Through a qualitative analysis of official documents, speeches, and secondary sources (2013-2023), the findings indicate that misperceptions such as ignoring the identity based role of the Resistance, the false interpretation of Iran's rational policies as expansionism, and Orientalist stereotyping have been the central axis of tensions. These misperceptions have led to the reinforcement of the Resistance and anti-Americanism discourse in Iran, the adoption of legal political decisions, the continuation of the cycle of hostility, and a reduction in the possibility of constructive dialogue. It is suggested that the United States takes a step toward reducing these misperceptions by reviewing its existing identity cultural, legal, and political assumptions about Iran and adopting a context driven approach based on an understanding of the "specific rationality" of Iran's foreign policy.

This article examines the status, rights, and legal-religious foundations surrounding political and ideological opposition in an Islamic government, drawing on jurisprudential principles, historical precedents, and constitutional interpretations. It argues that Islamic governance does not inherently reject dissent but instead evaluates it through a multilayered framework that distinguishes peaceful critique from destabilizing rebellion and internal belief from harmful public action. By analyzing classical jurisprudence, including distinctions between belief and conduct, as well as modern legal approaches to due process, national security, and media regulation, the study demonstrates that political and ideological opponents occupy a recognized and protected space within Islamic political thought. Historical models—particularly the governance of Imam Ali—serve as foundational examples illustrating tolerance toward critique, the primacy of justice, and the ethical obligation to preserve human dignity even in the presence of disagreement. The article further outlines the rights afforded to opponents, including freedom of expression, participation, belief, conscience, and access to fair legal procedures, while also highlighting the boundaries imposed to prevent harm, sedition, or foreign exploitation. Through this integrated examination, the study shows that Islamic political jurisprudence provides a balanced and coherent system that safeguards legitimate dissent while upholding communal welfare and ethical governance. The findings contribute to contemporary discussions on Islamic political theory, offering a nuanced understanding of how opposition is conceptualized within a governance structure rooted in divine sovereignty and moral accountability.

This article examines the legal-religious status, rights, and regulatory mechanisms governing doctrinal opponents within an Islamic governmental framework. Drawing directly on classical jurisprudence, constitutional principles, and historical precedent, the study distinguishes between internal belief, peaceful doctrinal dissent, intellectual heterodoxy, religious minority identity, and doctrinal subversion that evolves into tangible harm. By analyzing how Islamic law differentiates between belief and behavior, the article demonstrates that internal conviction remains inviolable, while intervention is warranted only when doctrinal activities manifest in incitement, deception, violence, or organized destabilization. The typology developed in this study identifies several categories of doctrinal opponents and clarifies the rights owed to each, including safety, dignity, property rights, due process, and freedom of private belief and worship. Historical models, particularly from the governance of Imam Ali and Imam Hasan, provide practical demonstrations of tolerance toward peaceful dissenters and proportionate intervention against violent doctrinal actors. Building on these foundations, the article proposes a rights-based model for doctrinal opposition in contemporary Islamic governance. This model balances the protection of conscience and civil liberties with the state’s duty to safeguard social order and national stability. It emphasizes procedural justice, proportionality, ethical governance, and accountability as essential components of a legitimate legal response to doctrinal dissent. The study concludes that Islamic governance contains a deeply rooted and principled framework for managing doctrinal plurality—one that can meet modern challenges while remaining faithful to its jurisprudential and ethical heritage.

South Asia, as one of the world’s key geopolitical regions, has witnessed significant developments in its economic and political relations in recent decades. Within this context, China’s Asia-oriented policy, as a central component of Beijing’s foreign policy, has played a decisive role in shaping the structure of regional cooperation and competition. The present study aims to examine the impact of China’s Asia-oriented policy on the process of convergence in South Asia. The research method is descriptive–analytical and based on library and documentary sources. The theoretical framework of the study is grounded in institutional neoliberalism, neofunctionalism, and dependency theories in order to analyze the economic, political, and security dimensions of this policy. The findings indicate that China’s Asia-oriented policy—through initiatives such as the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), and the China–Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC)—has resulted in the expansion of economic linkages and the increase of interdependence at the regional level. However, geopolitical rivalry between China and India, concerns over Beijing’s economic dominance, and the emergence of heavy debt burdens in smaller states have contributed to heightened distrust and political–security divergence. The overall conclusion of the study is that China’s Asia-oriented policy has a dual effect on convergence in South Asia: facilitating convergence in the economic dimension while hindering it in the political and security dimensions. Ultimately, genuine regional convergence in South Asia requires strategic balance between China and India as well as the strengthening of regional institutions independent from the influence of major powers.

 This study aims to analyze how judges and defendants in Iranian criminal courts use linguistic process types to construct, negotiate, and resist institutional power within courtroom discourse. This mixed-method investigation examined over 4,500 linguistic units extracted from official transcripts of twenty criminal court hearings in Iran. The dataset included diverse case types such as financial crime, theft, assault, and document forgery. Using the analytical framework of Systemic Functional Linguistics, each clause was coded for material, mental, relational, verbal, behavioral, and existential processes, while speaker identity (judge or defendant) was recorded. A Critical Discourse Analysis lens guided the interpretive examination of how linguistic choices enacted power and resistance. Two independent coders achieved an inter-coder agreement rate of 85%. Quantitative analysis included frequency distributions and chi-square tests to assess significant differences in process usage across institutional roles. Inferential statistics revealed significant differences between judges and defendants in their use of material, mental, relational, and verbal processes (p < 0.05), demonstrating systematic divergence in linguistic strategies shaped by institutional authority and role expectations. Behavioral and existential processes showed no statistically significant differences (p > 0.05). Judges predominantly utilized material and verbal processes, indicating a discourse style oriented toward action, evidence, and narrative control. Defendants relied significantly more on mental and relational processes, signaling attempts to foreground intention, perception, and identity as forms of discursive resistance within the institutional setting. Courtroom interaction in Iranian criminal courts reflects structured linguistic asymmetries that embody institutional power and individual resistance. The patterned use of process types by judges and defendants reveals how legal authority is enacted through discourse and how defendants strategically mobilize linguistic resources to negotiate identity, intention, and culpability. These findings highlight the central role of language in shaping the administration of justice and the dynamics of courtroom communication.

With the expansion of information technology and the increasing use of cyberspace, cybercrime has become one of the fundamental challenges facing legal systems, particularly in developing countries such as Afghanistan. This study examines Afghanistan’s criminal policy toward cybercrime and evaluates its challenges and shortcomings in the prevention and control of such offenses. Accordingly, the present research, using a descriptive–analytical method and through the examination of legal documents such as the Law on Combating Cybercrime and the Afghan Penal Code, analyzes the strengths and weaknesses of criminal policies aimed at addressing cybercrime. The findings indicate that Afghanistan’s criminal policy has been predominantly reactive, with limited attention devoted to the prevention of cybercrime. Factors such as a shortage of specialized personnel, weak technical infrastructure, lack of coordination among various institutions, and implementation challenges at the national level have hindered the effectiveness of existing policies in reducing cybercrime and enhancing cybersecurity in the country. Moreover, insufficient international cooperation and legal limitations in combating transnational cybercrime constitute additional challenges. To improve Afghanistan’s criminal policy, the article recommends adopting a preventive approach focused on public education, strengthening judicial institutions, and enhancing international cooperation. Such reforms would contribute to reinforcing infrastructure and taking effective steps toward reducing cybercrime.

 The criminal statute of limitations is one of the important institutions of modern criminal law and is recognized as a mechanism for extinguishing the public claim or halting the execution of ta‘zir punishments. The present study, aiming to identify the theoretical foundations and practical effects of this institution in the two prominent legal systems of Iran (based on Imamiyyah jurisprudence and the Islamic Penal Code of 2013) and the United States (based on the common-law system, the Federal Constitution, and state legislation), has been conducted using a descriptive–analytical method and a comparative approach. The findings indicate that in the Iranian legal system, the statute of limitations is recognized solely for ta‘zir offenses and encompasses three categories: the limitation of complaint, limitation of prosecution, and limitation of enforcement of punishment (Articles 105 to 113 of the Islamic Penal Code). In contrast, in the United States, the criminal statute of limitations is primarily regulated at the state level and, as a rule, does not apply to serious federal crimes (such as intentional homicide, treason, terrorism, and genocide), but for lesser and mid-level offenses, it is set between 3 and 10 years (and sometimes longer). The most important similarity between the two systems is the decisive role of the prosecutor in initiating or terminating prosecution and the shared emphasis on “public interest” and “legal certainty.” The major differences include: (a) the jurisprudential–religious foundations in Iran versus the customary and case-law foundations in the United States; (b) the non-applicability of the statute of limitations to hudud, qisas, and diyat in Iran versus its non-applicability to most serious federal crimes in the United States; and (c) the comparatively longer judicial process in Iran, resulting in a greater impact of the statute of limitations on reducing case backlogs. The results of the study suggest that the institution of the criminal statute of limitations, while preserving the rights of the accused and preventing excessive delays in adjudication, can help reduce the prison population, increase the efficiency of the criminal justice system, and contribute to situational crime prevention. It is recommended that the Iranian legislature, inspired by the U.S. experience, expand the discretionary authority of prosecutors in applying the statute of limitations and adopt shorter limitation periods for minor economic and environmental offenses.