نوع مقاله : علمی پژوهشی
نویسندگان
1 کارشناس ارشد حقوق بشر، دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی، دانشگاه مازندران، بابلسر، ایران
2 استادیار گروه حقوق بین الملل، دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی، دانشگاه مازندران، بابلسر، ایران
چکیده
کلیدواژهها
موضوعات
عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسندگان [English]
Human rights violations, regardless of their severity, can be categorized and analyzed based on whether they occur as isolated incidents or as part of established and consistent practices. In the latter context, concepts such as systemic, systematic, and practice-based violations of human rights are examined within international human rights law—an issue explicitly addressed under the notion of harmful practices in certain international human rights treaties and instruments. Due to a lack of theoretical foundations, this article aims to conceptualize harmful practices and analyze their structural features and inherent risks. It further seeks to address which types of acts or conduct may qualify as harmful practices within international human rights law. The interaction between harmful practices and the notion of inhuman and degrading treatment, as reflected in judicial precedent and legal doctrine, underscores the gravity and dangers of such practices and serves as a principal motivation for this research. It is argued that harmful practices in human rights law may be understood as any persistent, uniform, and obvious pattern of inhuman conduct whose ultimate effect is the violation or denial of the fundamental rights of rights-holders. Characteristics such as repetition over time, continuity, uniformity, and pervasiveness distinguish harmful practices from isolated and sporadic human rights violations. Over time, cultural, social, traditional, and ritual foundations have reinforced these practices, thereby ensuring the persistence of such harmful patterns of conduct. This research does not aim to examine models of compulsory veiling within certain legal systems. The jurisprudence of the International Criminal Court in the Al Hassan case corroborates this position. The Court considered that the enforcement of mandatory veiling, coupled with the imposition of criminal penalties—such as imprisonment and corporal punishment—for non-compliance, provided that the contextual and material elements are met, may fall within the definition of “persecution against an identifiable group on gender grounds” pursuant to Article 7 of the Rome Statute, thereby constituting a crime against humanity. The jurisprudence of the International Criminal Court in the Al Hassan case supports this position. The Court held that the enforcement of mandatory veiling, combined with the imposition of criminal penalties—such as imprisonment and corporal punishment—for non-compliance, provided that the contextual and material elements are satisfied, may constitute “persecution against an identifiable group on gender grounds” under Article 7 of the Rome Statute, thereby qualifying as a crime against humanity.
کلیدواژهها [English]