This is a caption

This is a caption.
Mohammad Moghimi

The 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in September 2015, outlines the roadmap for the international community in the next fifteen years. This agenda is based on the principles and goals of the UN Charter and respects international law. It is rooted in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenants on Civil and Political Rights and Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the Millennium Development Declaration, and the Declaration on the Right to Development. The importance of this agenda lies in designing a comprehensive and integrated framework for achieving balanced, coordinated, and sustainable development (sustainable development is a process that envisions a desirable future for human societies in which living conditions and resource use meet human needs without compromising the environment). It is worth noting that, in summary, the right to development is the right of every individual to have fair access to material and spiritual resources available to the global community; therefore, it also creates commitments at the international level for both developed and developing countries

Recently, criticisms have been raised about the 2030 Agenda and its goals, as “education” is the fourth goal of this document. Critics believe that the principles and educational objectives of this document are in conflict with higher documents, laws, and internal regulations. For example, the 2030 Agenda includes education for “all individuals regardless of gender, age, race, color, ethnicity, language, religion, political beliefs, national or social origin, wealth or place of birth, disability, immigrants and indigenous peoples, children and adolescents, especially those who are vulnerable or in other conditions.” Critics have pointed out that the phrases “individuals with different beliefs” and “vulnerable individuals” in the interpretations of human rights institutions include groups with homosexual tendencies. Regardless of the correctness or incorrectness of this interpretation, the preamble of the document states: “…we must all work to implement this agenda, taking into account national capacities and realities and respecting national, regional, and global policies and priorities…” On the

In a broader perspective, it seems that the root of these criticisms should be sought in the theory that distinguishes Islamic humanities from Western humanities. Some believe that in mathematical and empirical sciences, there are fixed principles and formulas that are the same in all times and places, but the principles of humanities can vary depending on the land, culture, civilization, religion, and other factors of a society; therefore, Islamic humanities are different from Western humanities. The writer believes that although the nature of humanities is generally different from other sciences, humanities also have their own fixed principles. For example, in the field of law, principles such as innocence, rule of law, accountability, right to determine one’s fate, etc. are fixed in all civilized countries today and cannot be changed by land, culture, religion, etc. In fact, experience can also be used as one of the scientific sources in humanities, with the difference that the subject of experience in humanities is the most complex phenomenon of human beings and human society

Regarding human rights, if some countries have reached established and common principles based on their experiences that lead to a better life for humanity, other countries should cleverly use this experience and if they have criticisms, they should present better principles and behave scientifically and impartially towards the issue and avoid political and ideological approaches to scientific matters. On the other hand, some believe that human rights are a program that Western countries have designed to achieve their own goals and dominate the world. The writer believes that human rights are a process, not a program, based on the experience of human society that has led to the discovery and establishment of certain inherent human rights. Now, in this transition, some societies have had more or more up-to-date experiences due to certain historical, political, economic, climatic, and other elements. But this does not mean that their theories cannot be criticized and examined, as having different and diverse theories is a common practice in science, and flexibility is also one of the indicators of human rights.

Regarding the 2030 document, it seems necessary to approach it with a scientific and unbiased perspective and avoid any political or ideological interference. It goes without saying that this document, like other human works, is not immune to flaws and errors, and it is the duty of legal experts and other scholars to critically examine and contribute to the advancement and progress of legal science. Surely, if our scientists make any achievements in this field during the process of producing knowledge, they will find their place in the world in competition with Western scientific productions.

However, there are a few points worth mentioning in this regard; first, this document is not mandatory and has more of an advisory and normative aspect. Second, Iran’s representative at UNESCO has declared the right to condition it. Third, the document itself states that it should be implemented in accordance with national capacities and realities, and with respect for national and regional policies and priorities.