Journal of World Sociopolitical Studies

Abstract The fundamental norms of the United Nations Charter, particularly the prohibition on the use of force and the inviolability of state sovereignty, have been repeatedly challenged in the modern security landscape. The June 2025 military attacks by Israel, with direct support from the United States, on Iranian territory and its safeguarded nuclear facilities represent a critical juncture in this historical context, testing the resilience of the international legal order. This article aims to provide a comprehensive legal assessment of the legality of these actions under international law. Employing a doctrinal legal research methodology, the study conducts a systematic analysis of primary legal sources, including the UN Charter, ICJ jurisprudence, and non-proliferation treaties, integrated with secondary scholarly commentaries and institutional reports. Findings demonstrate that the attacks constitute a manifest act of aggression in violation of Article 2(4) of the UN Charter and the jus cogens rule prohibition on the use of force, as they were undertaken without Security Council authorization or a valid claim to self-defense under Article 51. Furthermore, the targeting of IAEA-safeguarded nuclear facilities breached the NPT and the Convention on the Physical Protection of Nuclear Material, eroding the global non-proliferation regime. The study also concludes that Iran’s defensive response was a legitimate exercise of its inherent right to self-defense. In conclusion, the attacks underscore a profound crisis in the UN collective security system, exacerbated by the Security Council's paralysis. The article ends with normative recommendations for upholding accountability and reinforcing the integrity of international law against unilateral militarism.

Abstract This study investigates the way in which public discourse on social media reflects and shapes global power dynamics surrounding AI. Leveraging a corpus of approximately 21,000 English-language posts from Platform X (2021–2025), this study utilizes a computational linguistics framework—incorporating topic modeling, sentiment analysis, emotion classification, and named entity recognition—to analyze the construction of AI, interrogating its thematic narratives and affective investments across geopolitical contexts. Findings reveal a discourse shaped by U.S.–China technological rivalry, AI militarization, and infrastructural sovereignty, with strong currents of fear, anger, and skepticism. While Western powers and corporate actors dominate the narrative space, alternative discourses from the Global South emphasize digital dependency, exclusion, and justice. The emotional intensity and thematic complexity of the discourse suggest that publics are not simply reacting to geopolitical developments, but actively construct contested imaginaries of AI’s role in world order. This research contributes to a growing body of literature that recognizes public discourse as a critical site of informal geopolitics and underscores the need for more inclusive, responsive, and ethically grounded AI governance frameworks.

Abstract The International Legal Theory: Foundations and Frontiers (Cambridge University Press, July 22, 449 pages) is the most recent co-edited volume investigating significant schools of thought within international legal theory. The book explores the fundamental assumptions, core concepts, analytical tools, and critical challenges associated with these theoretical approaches. In terms of the scholars and the subjects that it brings together, this collection is an outstanding contribution of legal theorists and practitioners who discuss the challenges and opportunities of competing theoretical foundations of contemporary international law. The comprehensive and well-argued content of this book make it an invaluable resource for academics and practitioners engaged in the training , teaching, practice, or reform of international law.

Abstract The intensification of armed conflict in Palestine during the years 2023 and 2024 by the Zionist regime have brought the solutions for the long-standing tension in the Palestinian territories into the focus of international attention. Therefore, in this regard, solutions such as the two-state solution and similar proposals have been presented by various governments and organizations. For nearly two decades, Iran has also proposed the "Palestinian Referendum Proposal" in pursuit of a legal-political resolution to the Palestinian issue. This article investigates the strengths and weaknesses of the “Referendum Proposal” from the perspective of international law, as well as the essential requirements that need to be observed to enhance its effectiveness. Therefore, strengths such as "the centrality of human rights and international law in this plan", "compliance with democratic principles and historical facts" and its “universal acceptability”, as well as weaknesses such as "lack of a comprehensive legal perspective, particularly in the field of humanitarian law", detrimental brevity and ignoring for political realities affecting the law, have been examined. Findings indicate that the actions of various countries against Israel in international courts and international legal organizations have turned Palestine into a target for legal convergence.

Abstract For over three decades, sanctions have been a consistent feature of United States policy towards Iran. Following the lifting of nuclear-related sanctions under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2015 and United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231, in 2018 the United States withdrew from the agreement through Executive Order 13846, reinstating previous sanctions. Consequently, Iran decided to bring its case against the United States before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) based on the 1955 Treaty of Amity. The present article analyzes the ICJ's substantive jurisdiction (Merits) over this case, as well as the political and legal implications of the United States' unilateral sanctions against Iran. The research employs an analytical methodology, utilizing library research and note-taking to collect data. The research findings indicate that the ICJ's opinion is based on the illegality of comprehensive economic sanctions imposed on national security grounds, and that the Court has substantive jurisdiction over this case. Furthermore, the findings reveal that the United States' unilateral and extraterritorial sanctions not only violate Iran's sovereignty, but also infringe upon the human rights of the Iranian people. The United States' sanctions policy aligns with liberal and realist theories of international relations.

Abstract The first paragraph of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) recognizes the right to freedom of expression and prohibits party states from any arbitrary interference. The second paragraph, emphasizing that exercising this right comes with certain duties and responsibilities, authorizes the party states to restrict this right for their citizens if the specified conditions are met. One such condition is achieving one of the legitimate aims listed therein. The courts of Turkey, as a member state bound by the ECHR, have invoked these goals to justify their decisions regarding the restriction of citizens' right to freedom of expression. Nevertheless, convicted individuals who appeal these rulings before the European Court of Human Rights argue that no such legitimate aim existed, and that their right to freedom of expression has been violated. This study investigates the primary challenges faced by Turkish courts in invoking legitimate aims as justifications for restricting freedom of expression. It also elucidates the precise meaning and conditions for the eligibility of these goals based on the interpretation provided by the European Court of Human Rights.

Abstract After establishing its jurisdiction in the case of the violation of the 1955 Treaty of Amity between Iran and the United States (hereafter U.S.) on February 3, 2021, the International Court of Justice (hereafter ICJ) took a stride towards the Merits stage. In the event of a final judgment and the failure of the U.S. government to comply, the primary question that was raised was the following: What are Iran's options if the U.S. does not act upon the final decision of the ICJ? This article endeavors to address this question. The research methodology employed in this article is descriptive-analytical; through document analysis of the Court's decisions, international treaties, and relevant books and articles, specific findings have been derived. The research results indicate that Iran's options can be within the framework of the United Nations (hereafter UN) or beyond it. Options within the UN framework are predominantly theoretical, lacking effective enforcement mechanisms due to the existing power structures, including the veto power in the Security Council (hereafter UNSC), thereby lacking a guarantee of proper implementation. These options tend to be idealistic. On the other hand, options outside the UN framework, such as bargaining power and countermeasures for Iran, carry a realist aspect, allowing Iran to leverage them for the assertion of its rights.

Abstract The issue of human rights has been at the center of the world community for seventy years, since the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. Although it is difficult to define the concept of human rights, researchers believe that this concept can be extracted from those rules and norms that have initially been recognized by the majority of UN members in the form of declarations, statements, treaties, conventions, and Performance of Opinio Juris, and second, affect the behavior and conduct of political entities. The current study investigates the definition of human rights after the events of September 11, 2001. This review article argues that the concept of human rights was initially a general concept, but it evolved over time into specialized areas, such that in the third millennium and after September 11, 2021, security-related human rights issues have become more important than before, and different groups and minorities received more special attention. On the other hand, environmental and health-related human rights issues have emerged as compelling issues of the present, which have further broadened the scope of human rights.