International Lawyers for the Ayatollahs

Why are international law blogs platforming Iranian regime propagandists?

International law academics are deeply moral people, committed to fighting the scourge of impunity and human rights abuses worldwide. To that effect, they are fundamentally troubled by the ongoing suffering in Gaza. International law experts like Prof. John Duggard have called for universities and academics to cut ties with Ariel University in Samaria, as Israeli universities are supposedly complicit in genocide, apartheid and war crimes. Having said that, it is all the more puzzling that leading international law blogs have unironically published articles on the intricacies of international law in the Iranian justice system by Iranian academics at institutions directly involved in the repression, persecution and execution of Iranian students.

On December 22, 2025, Opinio Juris published an article by Heybatollah Najandimanesh, an associate professor of international law at Allameh Tabatabaei University in Tehran, Iran, discussing new legislation that incorporates international criminal offenses into the Iranian penal code. According to Najandimanesh, the bill “highlights the emphasis of Islam on human dignity, justice, and the prevention of oppression, alongside the safeguarding of political and social freedoms within the limits of law.” The Iranian professor concludes:

Iran’s Draft Bill on International Crimes constitutes a significant and largely comprehensive effort to domesticate the core principles of ICL. Substantively, it aligns with the Rome Statute in its definitions of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and aggression, while introducing notable innovations such as corporate liability, mandatory fines, and victim-centred reparations. Its dual legitimacy—anchored simultaneously in Islamic and constitutional principles and in international legal norms—positions the Bill as a potential bridge between global standards and assertions of national sovereignty.

Only a few days after Najandimanesh waxed poetic about Iran’s dedication to “human dignity, justice, and the prevention of oppression”, Grand Bazaar merchants in Tehran began striking due to the rapid collapse of the national currency and soaring inflation. To systematically crush the uprising, Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei reportedly ordered security forces to suppress the protests "by any means necessary", resulting in an unprecedentedly brutal onslaught that peaked during a single 48-hour window on January 8 and 9, 2026. While the regime enforced a near-total nationwide internet blackout to mask their actions, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) and police forces deployed battlefield weaponry and opened fire directly into unarmed crowds and residential buildings. Medical networks, human rights organizations, and leaked hospital registries later revealed a catastrophic human toll; while the Iranian government publicly admitted to 3,117 deaths, independent human rights observers and United Nations monitors estimated that between 20,000 and 36,500 civilians were killed in the concentrated slaughter, making it the deadliest episode of state repression in the modern history of the nation.

While Opinio Juris could potentially defend its poor publication choice on the grounds that it occurred before the massacre, EJIL:Talk! recently platformed Najandimanesh once again. (Somewhat amusingly, I recently had a piece rejected by EJIL:Talk!, whose editors assured me that the article was quite good, except they just had too many submissions.) This time, Najandimanesh wonders whether Iranian victims of Israeli-American aggression can sue Israel and the United States in Iranian courts for violations of international humanitarian law. This is obviously completely tone-deaf, as the families of the 40,000 or so Iranians massacred by the regime have no recourse in the Iranian justice system. A comment pointing that out was promptly deleted by EJIL’s editors.

EJIL’s editors are not ignorant and pretending that Iran is a normal, law-abiding country is morally perverse. Amnesty International has written that the Iranian “judiciary lacked independence and was complicit in torture and other crimes under international law.” The primary vehicle for political repression within the judiciary is the Revolutionary Court system. Established shortly after the 1979 revolution to try "enemies of the state," these courts operate largely outside the purview of normal constitutional protections. Judges frequently hand down capital sentences based on ambiguous, broad religious-political charges such as Moharebeh ("enmity against God"), Efsad-fil-arz ("corruption on Earth"), and Baghy (armed rebellion).

Iranian judges systematically accept "confessions" extracted under severe torture—including prolonged solitary confinement, severe beatings, and sexual violence—as sole evidence for convictions and death sentences. Following nationwide demonstrations—such as the Woman, Life, Freedom movement—the judiciary dramatically escalates its use of capital punishment. This trend accelerated through 2024 and 2025, culminating in record execution spikes aimed at projecting internal control amid regional geopolitical tensions. As the UN Independence Fact-Finding Mission put it:

"If executions form part of a widespread and systemic attack against a civilian population, as a matter of policy, then those responsible – including the judges who impose capital punishment – may be held accountable for crimes against humanity."

Irony was once again executed by Iran’s “justice system” when in July 2025, Opinio Juris published a call by Savalan Mohammadzadeh and Mohammad Mehdi Seyed Nasseri, calling for a special tribunal for the criminal prosecution of Israel’s aggression against Iran. Nobody at Opinio Juris raised an eyebrow at their invocation of the butcher of Tehran, Ayatollah Khomeini’s supposed moral will:

The importance of establishing such a court for Iran becomes clear when we consider that Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, also emphasized the necessity of criminal prosecution of crimes committed by Israel before international criminal tribunals. To credibly claim that international criminal justice is not selectively applied, the international community must strive diligently to realize this pathway as effectively as possible.

Beyond the repugnance of relying on the call of a brutal dictator presiding over a vast state-network of repression, Iran is, of course, the leading state sponsor of terror. The October 7, 2023 massacre against Israeli citizens was financed, armed and directed by Iran, through its Hamas proxy. On October 8, 2023, Iran’s Lebanese agent, Hezbollah, launched a war against Israel’s northern border. In April and October 2024, Iran launched hundreds of drones and ballistic missiles directly towards Israel, killing civilians. Iran is clearly guilty of aggression against Israel.

Najandimanesh and Mohammadzadeh both teach at Allameh Tabatabaei University, which is deeply tied to the Iranian regime's systematic suppression of human rights, political dissent, and academic freedom. While the university itself does not operate extrajudicial execution squads, it serves as a frontline tracking, purging, and silencing ground for regime dissidents, directly feeding students into the state's prison system. In a widely reported June 2023 incident, ATU security forces violently assaulted a female student protesting strict hijab laws, slamming her head into stone steps. The university administration identifies, monitors, and hands over dissident students and faculty to the Ministry of Intelligence (VAVAK) and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). Hundreds of ATU students have been transferred to notorious interrogation hubs like Evin Prison, where they face torture, forced confessions, and heavy prison sentences. ATU acts as the filtering mechanism that strips these dissidents of their safety, exposes them to the state, and facilitates their capture.

Seyed Nasseri is a researcher at Shahid Beheshti University (SBU), which shares an almost identical track record of human rights abuses and complicity in suppressing dissent. During historic student uprisings, SBU dormitories have been violently raided in the dead of night by plainclothes vigilantes (Ansar-e Hezbollah) and state security forces. Armed with clubs, chains, and knives, these forces have broken down doors, destroyed student property, and brutally beaten sleeping students before dragging them away to detention centers. SBU security forces systematically gather intelligence, record student faces via CCTV, and hand over files to the Ministry of Intelligence. SBU students arrested on or just outside campus lines are routinely transferred to Evin Prison, where they are subjected to prolonged solitary confinement, psychological abuse, and forced confessions under torture.

Furthermore, because SBU is a top-tier science and engineering hub, the regime maintains an incredibly tight grip on its student body. Students suspected of dissent or passing information are slapped with heavy national security charges. In the worst cases, SBU students and affiliates caught in the state’s crosshairs have faced severe sentences, including flogging and death sentences, executed under the guise of “national security” or “espionage”.

Of course, handing over students to arrest, torture, and summary execution is not as bad as Jews building homes in Ariel. Still, it is rather shocking that leading international law blogs are serving as mouthpieces for Iran’s murderous regime. By platforming apologists from Allameh Tabatabaei and Shahid Beheshti universities, elite blogs like Opinio Juris and EJIL:Talk! are doing more than just showing poor editorial judgment—they are actively laundering the reputations of institutions that moonlight as processing centers for Evin Prison. Impunity, it seems, is only a scourge when it cannot be wrapped in the comforting language of anti-Western rhetoric.