Basra studies journal

This research addresses the concept of media incitement from a legal perspective by analyzing the regulatory framework governing it at both national and international levels. It clarifies the boundary between freedom of expression, as a right guaranteed in international conventions and national legislations, and unlawful media incitement, which poses a threat to public order and social peace.
Media incitement is a complex legal phenomenon involving the use of media, whether traditional or digital, to disseminate messages that encourage individuals or groups to commit acts of violence, hatred, or discrimination against certain groups, thereby threatening social and international stability. This incitement manifests in various forms across both traditional and digital media, with online platforms facilitating the rapid dissemination of ideas and information that may be inciting.
At the international level, media incitement intersects with the right to freedom of expression, a fundamental right guaranteed in numerous international legal instruments, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. While freedom of expression is a core right, international law imposes strict limitations on media incitement that leads to violence or discrimination, in order to protect social peace and human rights. It also encompasses the legal standards applied by courts to determine when media speech constitutes incitement to violence or hatred and is therefore subject to criminalization under international law.

External conditions affecting a legal act are among the issues that sometimes limit the validity of the act, while at other times they may serve as a basis for the enforceability of certain obligations. These conditions do not form part of the act itself but relate to external matters.
Moreover, these conditions may be personal, relating to the parties involved in the legal act and closely connected to them. They can be relied upon in some acts to enforce certain obligations, prevent their waiver, or expand the scope of some provisions. Other conditions are material in nature and do not pertain to the parties themselves, but rather to material circumstances, such as prior dealings between the parties, the surrounding conditions of the act, and the interest that establishes a right for one of the parties or third parties.
This study details these issues and conditions throughout the research, including the introduction and conclusion.

With the rapid advancement of information technology, cybersecurity has become essential for protecting digital infrastructure and ensuring national security. Iraq faces growing challenges in securing its cyberspace, necessitating a comprehensive legal framework to combat cybercrime. This study aims to analyze Iraqi cybersecurity legislation, assess its alignment with international standards, and identify gaps while proposing measures to address them.
The findings indicate that the current legal framework is insufficient to keep pace with evolving cyber threats, lacking clear regulations and effective mechanisms for mitigating such threats. The study recommends updating cybersecurity laws, adopting international best practices, and enhancing cooperation among relevant entities to ensure a more effective response to cyber threats.

This study addresses the topic of “The Role of Administrative Oversight in the Protection of the Administration’s Digital Records,” emphasizing its relevance in the modern era of technological advancements, particularly with the widespread use of computers and the Internet. The misuse of these technologies has led to various unlawful acts affecting society from security, social, and economic perspectives, creating risks that were unforeseen when criminal laws were originally drafted, resulting in legislative gaps in addressing such offenses.
Given the significant influence of digital platforms on individuals and communities, it has become essential to impose restrictions on these platforms through competent security and oversight authorities. These authorities are responsible for monitoring any website or publication that disrupts public order—the primary objective of the executive authority or government. Accordingly, the executive authority must exercise its role in supervising the digital environment in accordance with constitutional provisions governing rights and freedoms, as well as the laws and regulations regulating its functions. By utilizing digital technologies and specialized tools, these authorities work to prevent and address activities in the digital sphere that violate public order.

This study examines the concept of punitive damages in the context of balancing criminal legislation and judicial practice. The research is divided into two sections. The first section addresses the concept of punitive damages, its definition, objectives, and characteristics, as well as its subjectivity by explaining its elements and legal nature. The second section is devoted to clarifying the acts that warrant a ruling for punitive damages and examining similar applications within Iraqi legislation.
The study reaches several conclusions and recommendations. Principally, punitive damages are not alien to legal thought in Arab countries with a Latin-based system, such as Iraq and Tunisia, even though Iraqi law does not explicitly use the term “punitive damages,” which is reflected in the similar applications observed in practice. The key recommendation is that the Iraqi legislator should adopt a clearer, more detailed, and illustrative approach, formally integrating the concept of punitive damages alongside the penalties prescribed for criminal acts under the Penal Code.

This study examines the phenomenon of reversal in the rulings of the Supreme Administrative Court, which is considered one of the most significant judicial tools contributing to the development of judicial jurisprudence and the promotion of justice. The research analyzes the concept of administrative judicial reversal, identifies its justifications and characteristics that distinguish it from traditional judicial jurisprudence, and highlights its unique role as a mechanism for correction and development.
The study concludes that reversal in the rulings of the Supreme Administrative Court is a double-edged sword. On one hand, it serves as an effective means for developing judicial jurisprudence and achieving justice; on the other hand, it may undermine legal certainty if not guided by clear standards and carefully designed mechanisms to reconcile conflicting judgments. Accordingly, the research recommends establishing explicit legal guidelines for practicing reversal, while reinforcing judicial independence as a fundamental condition for achieving the desired balance.

Contemporary societies face new challenges in mental and behavioral health due to rapid developments in digital communication technologies. Among the most prominent emerging phenomena are so-called "digital drugs" or "binary taps." These consist of audio frequencies broadcast through headphones and are believed to produce psychological or neurological effects akin to traditional drugs. These digital substances are often used online, and some users report experiencing euphoria, relaxation, or detachment from reality. This has raised concerns regarding their relationship with "cyber addiction" or "digital addiction," indicating a state of psychological and behavioral dependence on technological media.
This study analyzes the relationship between digital drug use and the culture of cyber addiction by examining its psychological and neurological foundations, social contexts, and legal and health implications. It also discusses the lack of societal and educational awareness regarding the dangers of these practices and the absence of explicit legislation criminalizing their use or monitoring their spread, particularly among adolescents and young adults.

This research addresses the settlement of international disputes by peaceful means. The devastations, tragedies, and suffering caused by wars over generations whether through the loss of human lives or the destruction of civilization have prompted jurists, politicians, and all those concerned with international affairs to seek methods to end such wars and prevent the international disputes that arise from them. International disputes are understood as contradictory claims between two or more international legal persons, the resolution of which must be carried out in accordance with the rules of international law governing dispute settlement. For a dispute to be considered international, it must involve international legal persons; however, the disputing parties do not need to be of the same nature. Thus, a dispute may arise between two states, between a state and an international organization, or even between two international organizations.
The peaceful settlement of international disputes holds clear importance for the international community, as it contributes to strengthening social, political, and economic relations. Conversely, failure to settle international disputes by peaceful means, and the persistence of international conflicts and disagreements, leads to tensions in international relations and may escalate disputes and wars, making the use of force inevitable.

The special nature of investment contracts, arising from their connection to the host country’s development plans and the differing legal and economic positions of their parties, makes determining the governing legal system of such contracts a highly sensitive matter, often tied to conflicts of interest among the parties. This sensitivity has given rise to various theories regarding the identification of the applicable legal framework for these contracts.
Defining the rights and obligations of investors within the territory of the host state through a precise and organized legislative and contractual framework alone is insufficient to reassure investors and encourage investment. Effective mechanisms must exist to protect these rights in the event of their breach.
Although there is mutual cooperation between the host state and investors in delineating these rights and obligations in terms of scope and content, disputes may nevertheless arise regarding the precise interpretation of the rights enjoyed by investors and the obligations imposed upon them, particularly if the host state fails to fulfill its commitments.
According to established rules of private international law, determining the law applicable to international contracts requires reference to the principle of party autonomy, also known as the freedom of will, which allows the parties to choose the law governing their contract. This principle is now well-established within the framework of private international law.

The administration possesses mechanisms through which it fulfills public needs, including administrative decisions. Although the administration is committed to applying the law when issuing its administrative decisions, individuals may question their validity, prompting them to object. The Iraqi legislator has provided a formal mechanism for objection, known as grievance, which is mandatory.
Despite its advantages, this mechanism poses certain challenges. Many cases are dismissed by administrative courts due to individuals’ failure to file a grievance, the limited period for submitting grievances, the absence of a clearly designated authority to review grievances, and the formal requirements governing the process.
This study concludes that the mandatory grievance should be retained, with improvements: extending the grievance submission period from 30 to 60 days and specifying the authority responsible for reviewing the grievance explicitly within the administrative decision.

The harm resulting from terrorist financing arises immediately upon the commission of the financing act itself. In conclusion, it may be affirmed that the concept of international responsibility for terrorist financing is established when a state fails to comply with its international treaty obligations concerning the suppression and prevention of terrorist acts and their financing. Such a breach engages the state’s responsibility and exposes it to international sanctions that may be imposed by other states. Furthermore, it obliges the violating state to provide appropriate compensation to other states or to their nationals whenever harm results from its negligence or failure to implement its obligations. In addition to treaty-based commitments, there are also general obligations and principles of international law which require states to respect the independence, sovereignty, and stability of other states. This implies that even in the absence of a specific provision explicitly criminalizing the financing of terrorism, states remain under a duty to suppress and combat terrorist financing in all its forms and manifestations. International responsibility for terrorist acts may arise directly, when such acts are carried out in the name of the state or on its behalf, or indirectly, as a result of its negligence, failure, or collusion in fulfilling its international obligations. In either case, the state is bound to make full reparation for all damages and consequences that flow from such acts.