<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<ArticleSet>
  <Article>
    <Journal>
      <PublisherName></PublisherName>
      <JournalTitle>Legal Studies in Digital Age</JournalTitle>
      <Issn></Issn>
      <Volume>5</Volume>
      <Issue>Serial Number 14</Issue>
      <PubDate PubStatus="epublish">
        <Year>2026</Year>
        <Month>01</Month>
        <Day>01</Day>
      </PubDate>
    </Journal>
    <ArticleTitle>Challenges of Transnational Enforcement of Iranian Court Judgments in Defending Human Rights and Combating International Crimes</ArticleTitle>
    <VernacularTitle>Challenges of Transnational Enforcement of Iranian Court Judgments in Defending Human Rights and Combating International Crimes</VernacularTitle>
    <FirstPage>1</FirstPage>
    <LastPage>17</LastPage>
    <Language>EN</Language>
    <AuthorList>
      <Author>
        <FirstName></FirstName>
        <LastName></LastName>
        <Affiliation></Affiliation>
      </Author>
      <Author>
        <FirstName></FirstName>
        <LastName></LastName>
        <Affiliation></Affiliation>
      </Author>
      <Author>
        <FirstName></FirstName>
        <LastName></LastName>
        <Affiliation></Affiliation>
      </Author>
    </AuthorList>
    <PublicationType>Journal Article</PublicationType>
    <History>
      <PubDate PubStatus="received">
        <Year>2025</Year>
        <Month>06</Month>
        <Day>01</Day>
      </PubDate>
    </History>
    <Abstract>&lt;p&gt;In the contemporary international order, the enforcement of national judicial decisions in the transnational sphere faces multiple legal and political obstacles. This challenge becomes more critical when international crimes and the actions of powerful states are involved—contexts in which doctrines such as official immunity, the principle of state sovereignty, and the inequitable structure of international institutions effectively undermine enforceability. This study, focusing on Iran’s judicial experiences—particularly the case of the assassination of General Qasem Soleimani—seeks to examine the various mechanisms of enforcement and to reveal their points of failure. The findings indicate that the limited network of extradition and mutual legal assistance treaties, states’ invocation of human rights barriers, Interpol’s refusal to intervene in politically sensitive cases, and political pressures arising from sanctions and geopolitical considerations collectively create a deadlock in the execution of Iranian judgments abroad. Moreover, international practice demonstrates that the double standards of major powers disrupt global justice more than any other factor. Nevertheless, continued legal pursuit, utilization of the capacities of foreign national courts, and the strengthening of judicial diplomacy and regional cooperation may partially compensate for this deficit. The most practical recommendation is that Iran, by revising its domestic legal frameworks and developing proactive initiatives in the international arena, should endeavor to preserve its documentation and legal narrative while seeking alternative paths to justice, thereby gradually contributing to the formation of new norms in international law.&lt;/p&gt;</Abstract>
    <ObjectList>
      <Object Type="keyword">
        <Param Name="value">enforcement of judgments</Param>
      </Object>
      <Object Type="keyword">
        <Param Name="value">international crimes</Param>
      </Object>
      <Object Type="keyword">
        <Param Name="value">transnational challenges</Param>
      </Object>
      <Object Type="keyword">
        <Param Name="value">Iranian courts</Param>
      </Object>
    </ObjectList>
    <ArchiveCopySource DocType="pdf">https://www.jlsda.com/index.php/lsda/article/download/254/222</ArchiveCopySource>
  </Article>
</ArticleSet>
