Document Type : Research Paper
Authors
1
Assistant Professor, Department of Human Rights and Environmental Law, Faculty of Law, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran
2
Assistant Professor, Department of International Law, Faculty of Law, University of Qom, Qom, Iran
3
Level 4 student of Jurisprudence and Usul, Islamic Jurisprudence, Law and Jurisprudence Complex, Qom Seminary, Qom, Iran
10.22059/jcl.2025.398395.634785
Abstract
The issue of recognition in international law or the acquired rights respected in Imamiyah jurisprudence, as a governing principle, seeks to legally punish violators of fundamental principles and peremptory rules in jurisprudence and international law, and by confronting the violator with the rejection of the intention, it invalidates the situations arising from oppression or serious violations of peremptory rules. The goal of this descriptive-analytical study, using jurisprudential and legal sources, is to conduct a comparative study of the rule of Erq zalim and the commitment not to recognize the situation resulting from a serious violation of a peremptory rule in terms of the principles and scope of coverage and the executive effects of these two legal institutions, which can be effective in better understanding the principles of international responsibility and obligations in different legal systems and strengthening justice at the national and international levels. The findings show that these two concepts, despite some commonalities, including the preventive-punitive nature of violating the mandatory rule and the occurrence of oppression, have some differences in terms of scope, including the broad scope of Erq zalim due to its focus on the oppressive act, which can go beyond violating legal obligations.
Keywords
Main Subjects