درخت حوزه‌های تخصصی

This article examines the legality of Israel’s claim to a right of preemptive self-defense against Iran within the framework of international law. It argues that such a claim lacks any valid legal foundation and stands in stark contrast to the fundamental principles enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations as well as established international jurisprudence. According to Article 51 of the UN Charter, the use of force in self-defense is only permissible in response to an actual and verifiable armed attack. Any military action based solely on the anticipation or assumption of an imminent threat does not meet the legal threshold and is not recognized by the international legal order. The International Court of Justice (ICJ), in landmark cases such as Nicaragua (1986), the Advisory Opinion on the Wall (2004), and Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Uganda (2005), has consistently adopted a narrow interpretation of self-defense, explicitly rejecting the doctrine of preemptive force. Israel’s assertion of facing a permanent threat from Iran, absent concrete evidence of an imminent armed attack, cannot serve as a lawful justification for the use of force. Such actions not only contravene the prohibition on the use of force and the principle of state sovereignty but may also constitute a breach of peremptory norms of international law (jus cogens) and amount to an act of aggression. Furthermore, acceptance of such a precedent poses serious challenges to the maintenance of international peace and security and risks undermining the credibility of the global legal order. Drawing on authoritative sources, international instruments, and comparative legal analysis, the article concludes that Israel’s invocation of preemptive self-defense is legally unfounded and incompatible with contemporary international law.

The structure of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is based on humanistic thoughts, which has played an important role in its drafting motivations, content, and the actions of its implementers. It has specific foundations and reflections in the field of anthropology, which can be considered the anthropological bases of the Declaration of Human Rights. In this view, man, separated from origin and resurrection (eschatology), replaces God and prioritizes his own desires over God's. This descriptive-analytical article, by considering the content of the UDHR, aims to extract the foundations of human rights, which are, in fact, the foundations and reflections of humanistic thought, such as: negating the belief in origin and resurrection, negating the non-material dimension, negating gender rights, expanding and encroaching rights into other domains, negating duty-orientation, prioritizing hedonism over duty-orientation, negating dignity from religious ethics and rights, and finally, individualism.

The rapid advancement of genome editing technologies, particularly CRISPR-Cas9, has revolutionized biomedical science while raising unprecedented ethical and human rights concerns. This paper examines the implications of genetic engineering through a human rights lens, focusing on three critical challenges: threats to equality from potential genetic enhancement, consent paradoxes in germline editing, and emerging forms of genetic discrimination. Using an interdisciplinary methodology that integrates bioethics, political philosophy, and international law, supplemented by case studies like the He Jiankui affair and DIY biohacking movement, the study reveals how current governance frameworks remain inadequate against these challenges. Key findings demonstrate that unequal access to genetic technologies risks creating "genetic privilege" and new forms of biological stratification, while germline interventions pose unresolved intergenerational justice issues. Furthermore, existing protections like GINA fail to address contemporary genetic privacy risks in direct-to-consumer testing and data commercialization. The paper proposes a tripartite governance model combining international cooperation (through WHO/UNESCO frameworks and a global registry), adaptive national policies (including regulatory sandboxes), and strengthened institutional oversight (with mandatory ethics training). These recommendations aim to balance scientific innovation with ethical safeguards, preventing genetic technologies from becoming tools of inequality while harnessing their therapeutic potential. The conclusion emphasizes the need for ongoing monitoring of social impacts and development of culturally sensitive implementation strategies, as the genomic revolution continues to challenge fundamental notions of human dignity, equality, and self-determination in the 21st century.

The quest to harmonize Eastern and Western perspectives on human rights has become increasingly salient in a globalized world where cultural norms and values often clash. This paper seeks to evaluate the complexities of this issue by conducting a comparative analysis of key human rights principles within Eastern and Western contexts, with a focus on identifying areas of convergence. By exploring the historical, philosophical, and cultural underpinnings of human rights in both regions, I aim to get possibilities of gaining a deeper understanding of the fundamental principles that underpin these divergent perspectives. Through this comparative lens, I seek to bridge the gap between Eastern and Western conceptions of human rights, ultimately aiming to promote dialogue, mutual understanding, and the advancement of a universal framework that respects the diverse expressions of human dignity across different cultural landscapes.

The idea and concept of human rights is today one of the most controversial areas of research and practice, both in the domestic law of individual states and in international law and the practice of international courts. It emerged in the Western political tradition of the Renaissance and the modern era and had its first practical application with the godless French bourgeois revolution that proclaimed the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen. This idea of ​​abstract universal human rights, which supposedly belongs equally to every individual, was used from the start to systematically violate all possible rights of individuals who belonged to the nobility and clergy, but also of ordinary people who wanted to remain loyal to their religious tradition, as best witnessed by the massacres committed in the Vendée.This article explains Working on the Return of the Personalist Concept of Human Rights: from the Universal Declaration to the Documents of the Russian Orthodox Church.