Journal of Human Rights, Law, and Policy

This study aims to explore the subjective legal and emotional experiences of individuals affected by citizenship revocation in Tehran, with a focus on the multidimensional impacts of this form of legal exclusion. A qualitative research design was employed using semi-structured interviews with 30 participants who had experienced citizenship revocation or its direct consequences. Participants were selected through purposive sampling in Tehran. Data collection continued until theoretical saturation was reached. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using NVivo software, following thematic coding procedures including open, axial, and selective coding to identify core themes. Three major themes emerged from the data: (1) legal disempowerment and administrative injustice, highlighting arbitrary decisions, lack of legal representation, and procedural opacity; (2) emotional and psychological consequences, including identity disruption, chronic fear, stigma, and emotional numbness; and (3) social marginalization and exclusion, characterized by breakdown of social networks, denial of basic services, structural discrimination, and barriers to employment and education. Participants described citizenship as a precarious and revocable status, experienced profound distrust of institutions, and faced systemic ethnic discrimination. These findings reveal the extensive legal, social, and psychological harms caused by citizenship revocation. Citizenship revocation functions as both a legal and emotional mechanism of exclusion that significantly disrupts affected individuals’ lives. The study underscores the urgent need for transparent legal processes, safeguards against statelessness, and social interventions to mitigate the harms of denationalization. Reframing citizenship as an inalienable right is essential to uphold human dignity and social inclusion.

This study aims to develop a grounded theoretical understanding of how individuals construct their legal identity and experience citizenship through interactions with legal systems in Tehran, Iran. A qualitative grounded theory approach was employed, involving 24 purposively selected participants from diverse legal backgrounds including undocumented residents, naturalized citizens, stateless individuals, and legal professionals. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews until theoretical saturation was reached. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using open, axial, and selective coding with the assistance of NVivo software to inductively generate themes and construct a theoretical model of legal identity formation. Four main themes emerged: (1) Legal Recognition and Status, highlighting the centrality of documentation and bureaucratic navigation; (2) Law as a Symbolic Boundary, illustrating how legal frameworks signify belonging or exclusion; (3) Lived Experience of Legal Encounters, revealing fear, anxiety, and reliance on mediating institutions; and (4) Identity Negotiation and Agency, showing participants’ strategies of resistance, compliance, and collective identity formation. The findings underscore citizenship as a dynamic process constructed through ongoing interactions with the state’s legal apparatus, marked by both empowerment and marginalization. Legal identity is not a fixed status but a fluid and contested process shaped by institutional practices, social narratives, and individual agency. In contexts of legal ambiguity such as Iran, citizenship emerges through complex negotiations that reflect broader socio-political power relations. Policy reforms must address procedural barriers, discrimination, and the lived realities of marginalized populations to transform legal identity from a site of exclusion into one of genuine inclusion.

This study aims to examine the role of informal legal systems in protecting minority rights among tribal communities residing in Tehran, focusing on how these systems operate alongside and in interaction with formal state legal frameworks. A qualitative research design was employed using semi-structured interviews with 24 participants, including tribal elders, community mediators, legal scholars, and minority rights advocates. Participants were purposively sampled from diverse tribal backgrounds in Tehran. Data collection continued until theoretical saturation was reached. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed thematically using NVivo software to identify major themes and subthemes related to informal justice mechanisms and minority rights protection. Three main themes emerged: (1) community-based dispute resolution, highlighting the central role of elders and tribal councils in restorative justice practices; (2) protection of collective rights, emphasizing the preservation of land, language, religion, and cultural autonomy through customary norms; and (3) interaction with formal legal systems, revealing tensions, adaptations, and selective collaborations between tribal and state legal frameworks. Informal systems were found to provide accessible, culturally relevant dispute resolution and rights protection, despite lacking formal recognition. Participants noted both resilience and challenges within these systems, including gender disparities and marginalization by state institutions. Informal legal systems remain vital to safeguarding minority rights in tribal communities, offering culturally grounded and effective mechanisms for conflict resolution and identity preservation. However, to enhance their protective capacity and legitimacy, these systems require formal recognition, gender-inclusive reforms, and supportive integration with state legal frameworks. Legal pluralism approaches that respect cultural diversity while promoting universal justice standards can facilitate such integration.

This study aims to identify and explore the barriers to justice faced by transgender individuals detained in correctional facilities in Tehran, focusing on institutional, legal, psychological, and socio-cultural challenges. A qualitative research design was employed using semi-structured interviews with 23 transgender individuals who had experienced detention in Tehran. Participants were selected through purposive sampling until theoretical saturation was reached. Data were analyzed thematically using NVivo software to extract key themes and subthemes regarding barriers to justice within detention settings. Four main themes emerged: (1) institutional discrimination, characterized by misgendering, lack of gender-affirming policies, unsafe housing assignments, medical neglect, and abuse by prison staff; (2) psychological harm and isolation, including identity suppression, social exclusion, retraumatization, and self-harm; (3) structural legal obstacles, such as ambiguous legal recognition, lack of knowledgeable legal counsel, discrimination in judicial hearings, and barriers to updating legal documents; and (4) social and cultural hostility, involving stigmatization by inmates and family rejection, cultural misconceptions, and institutional erasure of transgender identities. Participants reported pervasive denial of rights, exposure to violence, and systemic exclusion that undermined their access to justice and personal dignity. The study highlights the multifaceted and intersecting barriers that impede transgender detainees’ access to justice in Tehran. Institutional policies, legal frameworks, and cultural attitudes collectively contribute to systemic discrimination and psychological distress. To promote equity, reforms in correctional practices, legal representation, healthcare access, and staff training are urgently needed. Further research should extend to diverse populations and include institutional perspectives to inform culturally sensitive interventions.

This study aims to explore the dimensions of cultural exclusion experienced by marginalized ethnic groups within national legal frameworks in Tehran, focusing on how legal institutions perpetuate structural, symbolic, and psychological barriers to justice. A qualitative phenomenological approach was employed, involving semi-structured interviews with 27 participants from diverse cultural minorities residing in Tehran. Participants were selected through purposive sampling to ensure varied representation. Data collection continued until theoretical saturation was reached. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed thematically using NVivo software through open, axial, and selective coding. Three main themes emerged from the data: (1) Structural disparities in legal systems, characterized by unequal access to legal representation, bureaucratic barriers, discriminatory law enforcement, and lack of multilingual services; (2) Symbolic marginalization and legal invisibility, including cultural blindness in legal texts, suppression of customary laws and cultural symbols, stereotyping in judicial reasoning, and neglect of historical discrimination; (3) Psychological and social impacts of exclusion, such as legal alienation, internalized marginalization, emotional distress, social stigma, and inhibited civic participation. Participants reported pervasive feelings of distrust, fear, and humiliation when engaging with legal institutions, which contributed to disengagement from formal justice and civic processes. Cultural exclusion in national legal frameworks is a multifaceted phenomenon that extends beyond procedural barriers to encompass symbolic and psychological dimensions, ultimately undermining justice and social cohesion. Addressing these issues requires systemic reforms, including the institutionalization of multilingual legal services, cultural competence training, recognition of customary laws, inclusive policymaking, and legal literacy initiatives. This study contributes empirical evidence from Tehran that underscores the urgent need for culturally responsive legal systems to promote equity and inclusion.

This study aims to explore the legal consciousness of ethnic minorities working within state institutions in Tehran, focusing on how they perceive, interpret, and navigate legal norms amid institutional and ethnic challenges. A qualitative research design was employed using semi-structured interviews with 21 ethnic minority participants employed in various governmental institutions in Tehran. Participants were purposively sampled until theoretical saturation was reached. Data were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed thematically using NVivo software to identify key themes and patterns related to legal consciousness. Three main themes emerged from the data: (1) perceptions of legal norms and justice, highlighting a gap between formal legal equality and practical disparities, limited institutional trust, and reliance on informal legal knowledge; (2) navigating ethnic identity in institutions, characterized by identity concealment, workplace discrimination, stereotype resistance, and the role of informal support networks; and (3) coping strategies and legal agency, including strategic compliance, legal adaptation, collective voice, emotional resilience, and external advocacy reliance. Participants expressed ambivalence toward institutional legal frameworks, balancing compliance with subtle resistance. The intersection of ethnic identity and institutional roles created complex experiences of marginalization and agency within bureaucratic power structures. The legal consciousness of ethnic minorities in Iranian state institutions is multifaceted, shaped by experiences of exclusion, institutional distrust, and adaptive strategies. Enhancing institutional transparency, promoting diversity and inclusion, and strengthening complaint mechanisms are vital to improving legal engagement and fostering empowerment among minority employees.

This study aimed to explore how individuals in post-conflict Tehran construct and interpret their experiences of legal healing through their engagement with justice mechanisms. Using a qualitative phenomenological design, the study recruited 26 participants from Tehran who had been involved in legal processes following experiences of conflict-related trauma or injustice. Data were collected through semi-structured, in-depth interviews and analyzed thematically using NVivo software. Theoretical saturation guided the endpoint of data collection. Participants were selected through purposive sampling to ensure diversity in gender, age, and background, allowing for a rich understanding of legal healing as a lived experience. Three primary themes emerged from the data: (1) Restoring trust in legal institutions, encompassing perceptions of procedural fairness, access to legal support, and accountability of perpetrators; (2) Emotional and psychological dimensions of healing, including testimonial validation, emotional safety, and the reclamation of dignity; and (3) Legal healing as a collective social process, highlighting the roles of community solidarity, symbolic justice, and cultural-religious narratives. Participants emphasized the importance of being heard, supported, and acknowledged within legal settings, while also noting that procedural delays, retraumatization, and lack of institutional empathy could hinder healing. The role of NGOs and community courts was found to be particularly significant in enhancing legal engagement and emotional restoration. Legal healing in post-conflict contexts is a multidimensional and deeply personal process shaped by institutional legitimacy, emotional recognition, and collective experiences of justice. For legal systems to contribute meaningfully to post-conflict recovery, they must go beyond formal adjudication and incorporate trauma-informed, culturally sensitive, and participatory approaches. These findings provide insight into how justice processes can be restructured to serve both legal and emotional needs in societies emerging from violence.

This study aims to explore how indigenous legal perspectives critique, reinterpret, and resist the dominant framework of universal human rights law, with a focus on identifying culturally grounded conceptions of justice, law, and legal authority. Using a qualitative research design grounded in interpretivist epistemology, data were collected through semi-structured interviews with 21 participants residing in Tehran, including legal scholars, community elders, cultural advocates, and human rights practitioners with indigenous heritage or expertise. Participants were selected through purposive sampling, and data collection continued until theoretical saturation was achieved. All interviews were transcribed and analyzed thematically using NVivo software, following a coding process that included open, axial, and selective coding to identify key categories, subthemes, and conceptual patterns within the data. The analysis revealed four overarching themes: (1) critique of the universal human rights framework, including perceived cultural incompatibility, epistemological colonialism, and legal exclusion; (2) indigenous conceptions of justice centered on relational accountability, restorative practices, and spiritual cosmology; (3) the limits of current legal pluralism, characterized by tokenistic recognition and structural subordination of indigenous law; and (4) decolonial strategies such as the revitalization of customary law, community-based legal education, and intercultural legal dialogue. Participants emphasized the need for meaningful recognition of indigenous legal systems and called for a transformation of legal norms to accommodate multiple epistemologies. The study underscores the epistemic and structural limitations of dominant human rights discourses in addressing indigenous legal realities. It advocates for a paradigm shift toward genuine legal pluralism and decolonial engagement that affirms indigenous sovereignty, legal authority, and cultural specificity in shaping justice.