Contemporary Issues in Law, Culture, and Globalization

This study aims to explore the lived experiences of stateless individuals in Tehran, focusing on how legal identity denial impacts their psychological, social, and economic well-being, as well as the coping mechanisms they employ. This qualitative study used a phenomenological approach to understand the personal experiences of stateless persons. Data were collected through semi-structured, in-depth interviews with 20 stateless individuals residing in Tehran. The participants were selected through purposive sampling, ensuring a diversity of age, gender, and ethnicity. The interviews, conducted in Persian, were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Data analysis was performed using NVivo software, employing thematic analysis to identify key themes and subthemes related to the experiences of stateless individuals. Theoretical saturation was reached by the end of the data collection process. The findings reveal that statelessness leads to significant psychological distress, including anxiety, depression, and social isolation, as participants often felt powerless and excluded from society. Legal identity denial severely restricted access to basic rights such as healthcare, education, and employment, leading to social exclusion and economic instability. However, participants demonstrated resilience, often relying on family support and informal networks to cope with their situation. Despite these coping mechanisms, the lack of formal recognition and legal status limited their ability to plan for the future and achieve social integration. The study highlights the profound emotional, social, and economic impacts of statelessness and the denial of legal identity. It underscores the need for legal reforms to address statelessness and provide stateless individuals with a pathway to citizenship or legal recognition. Additionally, the study emphasizes the importance of social inclusion and support systems to mitigate the negative effects of legal identity denial.

This study aims to explore the barriers faced by legal practitioners involved in human rights litigation in Tehran, Iran, through a phenomenological approach, focusing on the challenges encountered within the legal, social, and personal contexts. A qualitative phenomenological design was used to collect in-depth data from 29 legal practitioners engaged in human rights litigation in Tehran. Data were gathered through semi-structured interviews, and thematic analysis was employed to identify key barriers. Participants were purposively selected to represent various levels of experience and areas of expertise in human rights law. Data analysis was conducted using NVivo software, with findings derived from theoretical saturation. The analysis revealed three primary themes: (1) Institutional and Legal Barriers, which included challenges related to judicial independence, state influence, legal framework constraints, and bureaucratic inefficiencies; (2) Social and Cultural Barriers, such as public apathy, cultural resistance, professional risks, and media misrepresentation; and (3) Strategic and Personal Barriers, including psychological toll, burnout, and lack of mentorship. These barriers were found to significantly impede the effectiveness of human rights litigation and to influence the career trajectories and well-being of practitioners. The study highlights the multifaceted challenges faced by legal practitioners in human rights litigation in Tehran, emphasizing the need for institutional support, professional networks, and mental health resources. Addressing these barriers is essential to improve the effectiveness and sustainability of human rights legal practice in repressive environments.

This study aims to explore the dynamics of legal pluralism in Tehran, Iran, focusing on how individuals navigate and negotiate between multiple legal systems, including state law, religious law, and customary legal norms, within the context of a postcolonial society. A qualitative research design was employed, utilizing semi-structured interviews to collect data from 24 participants, including legal professionals, community leaders, and ordinary citizens. The participants were purposively selected to reflect a range of experiences with both formal and informal legal systems. Thematic analysis, facilitated by NVivo software, was used to analyze the interview data and identify key patterns and themes regarding legal pluralism. The findings reveal that legal pluralism is a lived reality in Tehran, with individuals regularly engaging with multiple legal systems. Participants expressed varying degrees of trust in state law, often preferring religious or customary legal systems for personal and family matters. Dispute resolution often takes place through hybrid mechanisms, where both formal and informal systems are utilized. Moreover, participants highlighted the inequalities inherent in legal pluralism, particularly the marginalization of women and minorities in both state and non-state legal frameworks. The study concludes that legal pluralism in postcolonial societies, such as Iran, is characterized by the coexistence and interaction of multiple legal systems. While hybrid systems provide flexible avenues for dispute resolution, they also perpetuate social inequalities, especially for marginalized groups. The findings suggest that addressing these inequalities and promoting more inclusive legal reforms is essential for improving access to justice in postcolonial legal systems.

The objective of this study was to explore the dimensions of informal justice, specifically community-based dispute resolution mechanisms, in Isfahan, Iran, by examining the perceptions, processes, and socio-cultural influences shaping these systems. This qualitative study utilized semi-structured interviews to collect data from 20 participants who were directly engaged with community-based dispute resolution mechanisms. Participants included community elders, local mediators, and residents familiar with these practices. The interviews were analyzed using NVivo software, employing thematic analysis to identify key themes and patterns related to informal justice practices and their impact on social cohesion. The findings revealed that community-based dispute resolution in Isfahan is characterized by mediation processes led by community elders, who are seen as culturally legitimate and morally authoritative figures. Participants perceived the system as fair and effective, with an emphasis on restoring relationships and social harmony. However, some concerns were raised regarding gender dynamics, as women’s voices were sometimes marginalized. Participants also expressed a strong sense of trust in the system, which was perceived as more flexible and culturally appropriate compared to formal legal processes. Social and cultural factors, such as respect for hierarchy and religious teachings, played a significant role in shaping the functioning and legitimacy of informal justice mechanisms. The study concluded that community-based dispute resolution mechanisms in Isfahan serve as a vital component of the informal justice system, contributing to social cohesion and conflict resolution. While generally perceived as effective and fair, there are areas for improvement, particularly in terms of gender inclusivity. The findings suggest that integrating these systems with formal legal frameworks could enhance their effectiveness and promote a more inclusive approach to justice.

This study explores the perceived legitimacy of international law among grassroots civil society actors in Tabriz, Iran, focusing specifically on international human rights law and its relevance, authority, and effectiveness at the local level. A qualitative research design was employed, utilizing semi-structured interviews to gather data from 19 grassroots civil society actors, including activists, NGO staff, and community leaders in Tabriz. Participants were purposively selected based on their direct engagement with social justice, advocacy, and human rights work. Thematic analysis was used to analyze the interview data, with Nvivo software facilitating the coding process. Theoretical saturation was reached, ensuring a comprehensive understanding of participants' perspectives. The study found that while international law, particularly human rights law, is recognized for its importance, its perceived legitimacy among grassroots actors is often questioned due to issues of enforceability and cultural incompatibility. Participants expressed skepticism about the authority of international law, noting that it is often seen as a foreign imposition that clashes with local traditions and values. However, many also acknowledged the empowering role of international law, particularly in promoting human rights and providing a framework for advocacy against governmental oppression. Despite challenges, grassroots actors play a critical role in translating international legal norms into local practice. The perceived legitimacy of international law among grassroots civil society actors is influenced by various factors, including the applicability of international norms to local contexts and the lack of enforcement mechanisms. For international law to be more effective at the grassroots level, it is essential to foster greater collaboration between international institutions and local civil society organizations and ensure that international norms are tailored to local realities.

This study aims to explore the perceptions of judicial independence among judges in a hybrid political regime, focusing on their experiences in Iran, specifically in Qazvin, and examining the challenges they face in maintaining judicial autonomy amidst political pressures. This qualitative study involved semi-structured interviews with 17 judges from Qazvin, Iran. The participants were purposively selected to provide a diverse range of perspectives on judicial independence, representing different ranks and levels of experience within the judiciary. Data were collected through face-to-face interviews, each lasting between 60 and 90 minutes. The interviews were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using NVivo software for thematic analysis. Theoretical saturation was reached during the data collection process. The study identified four key themes: the role of the judiciary, external and internal pressures, the impact of the hybrid political system, and strategies for strengthening judicial independence. Judges expressed a commitment to upholding the rule of law, but also acknowledged significant challenges due to political influence, career insecurity, and hierarchical pressures within the judiciary. The hybrid political system, characterized by both democratic and authoritarian elements, was found to create a complex environment for maintaining judicial autonomy. Judges proposed institutional reforms, capacity-building, and increased public awareness as strategies to protect judicial independence. The findings suggest that while judicial independence is valued by judges, it is severely constrained in hybrid regimes, where political interference and internal institutional dynamics pose significant barriers. The study underscores the need for structural reforms, career security, and public support to strengthen judicial independence in such political systems. Future research should explore comparative perspectives and the role of international support in promoting judicial autonomy in hybrid regimes.