Arguing that human rights treaties by their nature are different from other international agreements, this Article deals mainly with such questions as succession of states in respect of human rights treaties and reservations to such instruments.  In contrast to other treaties, which are generally “inter-states exchange of interests”, human rights documents are protective instruments according to which states parties undertake to restrain their discretion as regards fundamental rights and freedoms both internally and internationally. This is why adopting different approach to offer a proper theoretical framework as to the above questions seems to be necessary. In addition to author’s classification of human rights treaties into six categories, the idea of automatic succession of states to human rights instruments and invalidity of certain reservations to these treaties are main contribution of this study.

Providing the legal systems with stability and dynamism requires the existence of stable rules and at the same time with a necessary degree of flexibility to ensure that the legal system would be practical and effective if important and real changes occur in social situations. International judicial authorities, in the course of litigation, identify the basis and reality of the rules and legal principle through interpretation and adaptation with the subject matter of the cases, and in this way, meet the needs arising from developments in the international situation. The European Court of Human Rights, whose main function is to resolve disputes arising from the European Convention on Human Rights, in some cases, through the use of a static interpretation, against dynamic interpretations, has insisted on the provisions of the Convention and, in some cases, having due regard to the structure of the European community, used the evolutionary and dynamic interpretation of the provisions of the Convention. The Court, in many cases, referred to a concept called “ the European Consensus” to justify implementing the dynamic interpretation of the Convention and responded to the new situations. This approach has been faced with various agreements and disagreements. The European Court of Human Rights by applying the dynamic interpretation method takes into account the will of States as a key element in the evolution of rules and obligations in international law and at the same time has undermined the need for expressing State’ s will to accept these developments. In this way, the human rights rules and obligations enshrined in the Convention are evolving with changes in the requirements of the present time and social realities.

Article 30 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties lays down general rules for resolving conflicts between treaties. The said Article does rules to be applied to all treaties. Subsequent to the adoption of the Vienna Convention, some scholars suggested that the provisions of Article 30 were not appropriate for resolving conflicts between human rights treaties and, therefore, a special rule was needed. The rule advanced in this regard was the principle of the "more favorable provision". The present article attempts to describe the content of this principle and to evaluate its practical significance.

The challenge between international law and the Iranian legal system has always been a controversial issue, either at domestic or international level. These challenges not only are related to the ideological and theoretical differences, but also the incorporation and implementation of international obligations (from the practical perspective) have always been faced with various difficulties.....

Bilateral Investment Treaties as one of the most common instruments of the conclusion of foreign investment treaties, particularly in recent years has played an important role in establishment and development of foreign investment in-between the states. Considering developing flow of significance of human rights obligations and its corresponding activities specially since 2016, together with conclusion of certain bilateral investment treaties towards this trend and as the role of New Generation bilateral treaties in determination and consolidation of Human Rights obligations became more apparent, a survey regarding different aspects of this role and terms of its development will be of great advantage and necessity that in this article has been tried to dealt with

At first, it was assumed that the Margin of Appreciation Doctrine exists only in the human rights treaties and particularly in the European Convention on Human Rights, while the Margin of Appreciation Doctrine is considered as a right for States in many non-human rights treaties due to specific conditions and rules that govern some international treaties such as the existence of optional obligations or ambiguity, insertion of non-precluded measures clauses and existence of positive obligations. Therefore, in international treaties, the granting of this right to States would enable them to choose and adopt the best decision, according to the circumstances and necessities related to the public interest. Accordingly, the traditional views which believed in the conflict of the margin of appreciation doctrine with adherence to international obligations have been adjusted. There are concerns about the abuse of freedom of action, and powers granted to the States, that leads to an opposition with authorities granted under the framework of the margin of appreciation doctrine to States. Of course, these concerns were obviated somewhat with regard to the fact that, international judicial courts have relied on review standards to supervise on State powers.

In modern treaty practice, there is a temporal gap between the conclusion of treaty negotiations and adoption of the text or signature, on the one hand, and the entry into force of treaty on the other. This is because in many States the entry into force of a treaties is subject to the completion of proceedings necessary for ratification or approval. But sometimes immediate application of a treaty upon conclusion of its negotiations may for different reasons be crucial for states. The provisional application of treaties is an effective mechanism to achieve this objective, and now has become a common practice. This mechanism is codified in Article 25 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. But just two allotted paragraph of that article can't answer all questions regarding the provisional applications of treaties mechanism. Thus, provisional application needs more clarifications. Therefore, examination of different aspects of provisional applications of international treaties mechanism is the purpose of this article.

In the contemporary era, the concept of "good governance" has replaced the traditional notion of absolute sovereignty by emphasizing responsibility, transparency, and accountability in relation to human rights. This article, using a descriptive-analytical approach, examines the characteristics of good governance from the perspective of international law and human rights. Findings indicate that states must uphold their international human rights obligations by adhering to the principles of good governance, including the rule of law, citizen participation, and social justice. This shift in perspective has led to a transformation in the concept of sovereignty and strengthened international oversight mechanisms. In the field of international law, as in other areas, good governance is not considered an independent or self-sufficient principle but is instead founded upon other values and principles. Within this field, good governance is based on four key pillars: the rule of law, accountability, participation, and transparency. Although other components of good governance have also been identified in the context of international law, it is in the light of the existence and realization of these four primary components that additional aspects of good governance—such as anti-corruption and effectiveness—can manifest and evolve. This study, written with a descriptive and analytical method, aims to explore the role of good governance in realizing human rights. The results demonstrate that the four components—rule of law, accountability, participation, and transparency—are all intrinsically related to human rights and are universally recognized within the international human rights system. Therefore, the concept of good governance in the realm of international law has been effectively integrated under the umbrella of human rights. Human rights provide a strong legal basis for good governance in international law and have rendered it binding upon the subjects of this legal system. With respect to the possibility of realizing good governance in international law, there is little doubt concerning the feasibility of achieving participation, accountability, and transparency. However, since international law is not entirely independent from politics, the potential for fully establishing the rule of law within this legal system warrants further contemplation. The notion of good governance brings together the values of rule of law, accountability, participation, and transparency under a unified concept, allowing each to contribute its capacities to overcoming the barriers faced by the others.

Background: International law has undergone tremendous changes in recent decades. One of these developments is the humanization process of international law, which has been identified as human rights in the international arena. Human rights have a universal nature and function and are not limited to time and place. Therefore, the ethics of human rights is universal. This category of ethics should be considered in the seas as it is considered on land. Human ethics dictates that all people in the sea have their human rights without any discrimination. There is no reason to deny and disobey the ethics of human rights at sea. Therefore, the present study was formed with the aim of investigating the ethics of human rights in the marine environment. Conclusion: One of the most important areas where the concept of human rights ethics can be applied is the environment of seas and oceans. Among the important cases that can be mentioned in this context are: drug and psychotropic drug trafficking, piracy, maritime terrorism, marine environment, slave trade, common heritage of humanity, immigration and asylum, rights of seafarers and forced labour on ships and vessels and so on. The lack of a comprehensive human rights treaty that covers all the above-mentioned issues in the field of seas is well felt, and there is room for effective measures to be taken in this regard by the relevant international institutions, headed by the United Nations.