Search results

This chapter offers an explanation for the mixed record of the Supreme Court since the 1960s, and considers the implications of that record for the future. The chapter emphasizes that judicial power is connected to choices made by other political actors. We argue that conventional ways of measuring the impact of Court rulings and the Court's treatment of precedents are misleading. The Court cannot be understood as a counter-majoritarian protector of rights. In both past and future, electoral outcomes determine the policy areas in which the Court will be influential, and also the choices the justices make about how to portray their treatment of law and precedents.

The purpose of this study is to demonstrate that to what extent the Iranian criminalisation of terrorism financing meets the international standards of counter-terrorism financing regime, particularly the Financing Convention and the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) Recommendations, and what is the main impediment for Iran to integrate at the international level to combat terrorism financing. Also, it tries to rate the Iranian criminalisation of terrorism financing in accordance with the FATF technical compliance rating.

This subject is analysed from an Iranian perspective by undertaking fieldwork through collecting documents in Iran and using the official documents, statements and laws, particularly the Iranian Law of Combating Financing of Terrorism (2018) from both Persian and English sources.

Iran’s terrorism financing offence is not completely in line with international counter-terrorism financing regime because of an exemption for the struggle of individuals, nations and national liberation movements with the aim of countering domination, foreign occupation, colonisation and racism. The Iranian support for national liberation movements is derived from the Constitutional Law that requires Iran supports the struggles of the oppressed for their rights against the oppressors anywhere in the world. As a result, the FATF Recommendation 5 (criminalisation of terrorism financing) would be rated partially compliant.

No article exists specifically on this research field. To the author’s knowledge, this paper, for the first time, examines the Iranian criminalisation of terrorism financing. It rates the criminalisation (Recommendation 5) based on the FATF technical compliance rating because no mutual evaluation has been conducted to date. The paper is useful for academicians, law enforcement, policymakers, legislators and researchers.