Search

The Security Council has interpreted the concept of international peace and security extensively and extended it to a wide range of issues, including the protection of human rights and the protection of human rights abuses. So that some of its decisions and actions have been beyond the limits of legal authority and competence and incompatible with the objectives of the Charter and human rights obligations and contrary to the standards of international law. The purpose article is to examine the Security Council as an extra-legal body and the shortcomings of its commitment to its obligations and responsibilities in the face of serious human rights violations resulting from Chapter VII and humanitarian interventions. Despite the council's claim of human rights protection, there has been a clear contradiction in its management behavior and performance, which not only has not reduced human rights violations in practice, but has in some cases exacerbated the council's inefficiency. The findings show that non-compliance with the limits and powers and veto power of the permanent members of the Council is one of the most important factors in the failure of the Security Council in resolving human rights issues and managing international crises. Therefore, by adopting a mechanism independent of the political interests of the permanent members and using the veto to strengthen and positive cooperation, we can pave the way for fundamental changes in the behavioral patterns and procedures of the council and proper internal monitoring of its actions and commitment to provided human rights obligations.

Following the genocide in Rwanda that killed one million people, the Rwandan government turned to Gacaca courts, which are rooted in the culture of all the people of Rwanda, in order to expedite the prosecution of those involved in this humanitarian catastrophe and reduce the prison population. In order to adapt these courts to the conditions of the crimes committed, the Rwandan government made several changes in these courts, which according to many, changed its traditional and informal nature and brought it closer to the criminal courts. This intermediate mechanism, in addition to having gains and advantages as an alternative judicial response, has also caused concern and criticism from a human rights perspective. The present article examines this intermediate mechanism and its positive and negative aspects from a human rights perspective.

The role of international arbitration in maintaining world peace and security has been largely through the peaceful settlement of international disputes as well as the development of arbitration precedents regarding international law governing the settlement of international disputes. Today, the growing role of non-state actors as new subjects of international law has become increasingly important. In addition, international and non-governmental organizations have played a constructive role in the gradual development of international law. In this study, by examining some important international arbitration cases, we seek to answer the question of How the International Arbitration has been influential in resolving disputes between governments and non-governmental actors and non-governmental actors with each other, in maintaining world peace and security and in developing international law. After analyzing the practice of international arbitration, the author comes to the general conclusion that when diplomatic efforts to resolve disputes are fruitless, the best and most effective solution is to refer to arbitration. In fact, the arbitration can resolve the dispute at an early stage and prevent it from escalating into hostilities. Accordingly, at the end of this research, suggestions addressed to the diplomatic system are also presented.

With the advent of new weapons of different nature and type of use on the battlefields in recent regional and international conflicts and the increasing development of weapons of the autonomous, intelligent, UAV and non-lethal weapons, most activists and thinkers in the field of armed conflict To study the feasibility of observing the principles and regulations governing international humanitarian law, as well as the responsibility of the states that own and use these types of weapons, and to study and analyze theoretical and practical issues in this field. to describe precisely doubts have been risen for some that the rules and principles of the philanthropy international law is completely obsolete and inefficient in adapting the new ways of conflicts. But the fact is Yet with the notable advancements in the field of technology, these rules and principles are still in use. In fact, the origins of these rules, which are the public conscience, as well as the flexibility of humanitarian law rules make it possible to adapt to new conflicts. Although new software wars, like any other emerging phenomenon, have created legal challenges for manufacturers and tensions between countries, these tensions can be reduced by regulating specific regulations. Although the general principles governing armed conflict may suffice, in this area we need to update the rules governing them so that a precautionary approach can be taken to prevent tensions between the owners of these weapons and the limits of their use in accordance with international regulations and in the light of international responsibility. Specified the type of aggravated responsibility.

Following the expansion of trade oversight intensified in recent years by the United States and the European Union; Private settlement of cross-border trade disputes has faced new problems and challenges. One of these measures is the imposition of international sanctions, which have been used repeatedly in our country. The existence of these sanctions, of course, overshadows the contracts and agreements between the sanctioned parties and other individuals, and in many cases makes their implementation difficult or even impossible. In the present article, according to the arbitration rules of international commercial arbitration institutions, including; The Arbitration Court of the International Chamber of Commerce, the Arbitration Court of London, as well as related international conventions, in particular the Convention on the International Sale of Goods, will answer the question of what kinds of effects do sanctions impose on international commercial arbitration. The conclusion of the present study is that sanctions affect international commercial arbitration in five ways: the effect on arbitrators, international arbitration centers, implementation of international arbitral awards, contract law, and contractual parties. Sanctioning states have also generally invoked unilateral sanctions as a rule of "public order" in international commercial arbitrations in order to legally justify sanctions.

In the 21st century, a wide range of human rights systems and their institutions and regulatory bodies does not exclude any of their members from their supervisory jurisdiction in implementing their mechanisms in defense of human rights in order to prove their determination to protect human rights, usually by emphasizing an introverted approach. The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC), as a regional institution, has shown a tendency toward designing minimal mechanisms for protection of human rights in Islamic states in recent years. The present article, through a descriptive-analytical method, while studying the general attitude of the Organization in the field of human rights, examines its inadequacies and weaknesses on monitoring the human rights situation in member states and the obstacles and challenges facing the recent tendency of the Organization to become a fixed practice. It appears that despite the primary positive assessment, the recent practice of the Organization in reacting to human rights violations and its limitation of the scope of this practice to a few number of states and its discriminative approach of not-reacting to the violation of human rights by other states reveal both the political bias of the Organization and inefficacy of the elements constituting the customary rule for fixation of this practice.

The principle of information flow, also known as the exchange of information, has been recognized in the field of international tax law and tools and mechanisms have been considered for its realization including the mechanisms of tax information exchange agreements. With the globalization of the international tax law, taxpayer activities are no longer limited to a specific Border, but still the tax administration needs to be restricted to their borders. Therefore, governments need more cooperation with each other and to this end, the exchange of tax information in various forms, including exchange-to-demand, automatic exchange, and spontaneous exchange of information through the conclusion of bilateral and multilateral international treaties is possible. This article critically reviews the tax information exchange agreements. The descriptive and analytical methods can be used to enter into an appropriate document to set up the exchange of information agreement between countries with different systems of income tax had hoped.

Undoubtedly, one of the most important threats and challenges to modern international law in the coming age is the Americanization of International Law by the United States. Imposing US government sovereignty and hegemony on the legal rules, procedure and performance of international organizations more than anything sacrifices the solidarity of international law advocates and the globalization process in line with strengthening the interests and national security of powers. The above process, which prefers politic and power over law, has reached its peak during the 45th President of the United States, Donald Trump, and it has been based on the transparent operation and procedure regarding international laws, despite facing accusations such as adopting contradictory measures in foreign policy, major US policies, especially in the Trump era. In the meantime, the targeted assassination of Gen. Qassem Soleimani and his companions on January 3, 2020, ordered by Donald Trump, is considered as a comprehensive manifestation of the United States' attempt for Americanization of international law. In this article, through employing the library and internet resources and using international documents, the approach of the Americanization of International Law and challenges meeting international community would be examined and scrutinized.

In international investment law, the investor's negligence is considered to be a factor which affects the determination the amount of reparation. Thus, if a causal relationship is established between the investor's conduct and the damage, the amount of claimable damage will be reduced in accordance with the role of the investor in the damage. This rule, which can always be used against the respondent, is concerned with the determination of the amount of reparation after assuming responsibility. The duty to mitigation as one of the aspects of "injured party’s negligence" refers to a situation in which an investor refuses to prevent extension of damage after creation of damage and despite its ability. The proof of the investor's negligence is, contrary to the current procedures, with the defendant. It does not affect the jurisdiction of the arbitration tribunal or the responsibility of the host state and can only lead to a reduction in the amount of reparation. Third party participation or force majeure in creation of the damage cannot be the basis for applying the "injured party’s negligence" rule. This is also the case when the international community is considered to be an injured party or when the investor's negligence is the sole cause of damage.

In the past, most armed conflicts were international, but today armed conflicts often are non-international and internal conflicts. However most of international armed conflicts rules are about international armed conflicts and some of them regulate non-international conflicts. Applicability of some of international humanitarian law rules to this kind of conflicts is doubtful. One of these rules is the principle of proportionality. This principle means that incidental and consequential damages resulting from an attack against civilians or civilian objects should not exceed the direct military advantage expected of the attack. 1977 Additional Protocol II to the 1949 Geneva Conventions which deals with the rules governing non-international conflicts has not referred to this principle. However, in accordance with what is discussed in this paper, the principle of proportionality is applicable to these conflicts.

The contribution of injured person in creating or worsening the damage caused by space objects is important in determining the international liability for those. This contribution, which is accepted only in respect of damage caused by space objects located in places other than outer space -land orair- will reduce or eliminate the international liability, depending on the extent of the contribution of the injured person. However, in cases where damage is caused by an act contrary to the international laws, this rule will not apply. In order to apply this rule, the contribution of main injured person for the damages to whom theinternational responsibility will be considered, and the contribution of state which acted the diplomatic protection of its subject or the contribution of member states of the injured International Organization are not considered. In addition, examining the rule of the impact of contribution of injured person, this paper tries to examine the issues related to this rule in the international space law.

Religious freedom is one of the most fundamental human rights which has been embodied and recognized in essential universal and regional human rights instruments, including universal declaration on human rights, international convent on civil and political rights, European convention on human rights, American convention on human rights, African charter on human and people rights and Islamic declaration on human rights. Most of these instruments provide that Freedom of religion may be subject to conditions and restrictions such as national security, public safety and protection of health or morals. European Court of Human Rights, as a judicial body of European convention, in its jurisprudence determinate the scope of margin of appreciation. In this article, margin of appreciation and States maneuver in interpretation and implementation of religious freedom were analyzed in light of the jurisprudence of European Court of Human Rights

European Court of Justice (ECJ) is the judicial body of the European Union (EU). Since its founding in 1952, ECJ has always played a prominent role in the development of the EU law. What has been studied in this article is the role of ECJ in transition of the EU law from duality (between national law of member states and EU law) to legal monism with the superiority of EU law. In implementation of its effective role, the ECJ has utilized different instruments such as Interpretation of EU law under the preliminary rulings, addressing the infringements of the EU law, recognizing the general principles of law in the form of case law, and also the principle of proportionality of regulations and domestic politics to promote the position of EU law in relation to municipal law of member states. This research partly reveals the process of EU legal integration, through the study of the ECJ case law

Compensation for damages arising from a breach of contractual obligationsshould place the injured party in the position he would have been in had thecontract not been breached. By accepting the idea of full compensation, theUNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts as well as theConvention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (1980), judicialprecedents, and international arbitration awards have recognised this approach.Despite the recognition of the principle of compensation, this theory is subject tocontroversy in Iranian law, particularly in the event of damages caused by theloss of anticipatory benefits. From justice and economic efficiency perspectivesand for the sake of adapting Iranian commercial rules with ones reflected ininternational trade instruments, and for considering the affirmative religiousjurisprudential principles, it is recommended that effective steps should be takentowards the removal of all existing legal barriers in Iranian law.

The overwhelming view concerning the unilateral secession under contemporary international law is that, in international law, there is no rule in regard to secession. some international lawyers concentrate upon the principle of respect to territorial integrity of independence and sovereign states and maintain that unilateral secession is unlawful. Meanwhile a moderate and relatively new approach has been proposed by some international lawyers so called “Remedial Secession Doctrine” that according to it, although international law supports territorial integrity of independence and sovereign states in international community, in special circumstances, a state cannot rely on its territorial integrity. The principle of Self-Determination of peoples prevails over Territorial Integrity and so, secession of a part of territory of a state by a people comprising a part of the population of the territory would be possible. Basis and foundation of such argument is relies on inverted reading of the “safeguard clause” embodied in the United Nations General Assembly resolution 2625 that repeated in 1993 Vienna declaration and program of action. this characterize the existence of the Right to Remedial Secession in National and Regional Judicial Decisions.

Attribution of private-person’s act to a state is accepted in international law insome exceptional matters. Acting under the direction or control of the state is oneof those exceptional cases; by proving state control over private persons andentities, their actions are attributable to the state. However for understanding therequired level of the control and direction, we shall review and inquiry the judicialjurisprudence in order to make these theoretical concepts more tangible. Iran-U.Sclaims tribunal, as the most prominent international arbitration, has separatedjurisdiction and the merit phase in some of its cases.From jurisdictional point ofview, the tribunal has applied a looser standard while in the merit, tribunal’sapproach has more affinity for theory of effective control. In such cases, as ageneral rule,stateshave notbeenliable for the conduct of non-state actors unlessthe tribunal could find the conduct in question intensely controlled by the state.Indeed the tribunal, in place of determining standard of control in these kinds ofcases, has not lowered the threshold for imputing private acts to statesbut treatedwith it in an exceptional manner. The purpose of present article is to examinestandard of direction and control, while the focus is on the jurisprudence of Iran-U.S claims tribunal.

There are instances in Municipal jurisdictions where Corporate legalprotections -generally granted as a result of their legal entity- isabrogated, thus empowering third parties to file claims directly againstindividuals responsible for corporate’s conducts. Similarly in InternationalLaw there are circumstances in which Corporate’s protections are liftedand International responsibility of states may arise as a result of actionstaken by private companies national to it. In such instances, there must beproof of indications that the private company in question has beenexercising sovereign power, has been superintended by the stategovernment and/or has followed its orders. Even so , where the aboverequirements are not so present altogether, state responsibility for privatecompanies conducts may still be envisaged as result of states responsibilityto protect human rights.

ماهیت تکمیلی صلاحیت دیوان کیفری بین‌المللی، متضمن نوعی هماهنگی و پویایی در ساختار قضائی و تقنینی نظام‌های ملی است تا دولت‌ها بتوانند اولویت خود را در رسیدگی و تعقیب جرائم بین‌المللی محفوظ دارند. با وجود اینکه درباره اصل صلاحیت جهانی دادگاه‌های ملی در اساسنامه دیوان مقرره صریحی وجود ندارد، اما انتظار می‌رود که با افزایش تعداد دولتهایی که بر صلاحیت دیوان گردن نهاده‌اند و نیز امکان ارجاع وضعیت از جانب شورای امنیت به دیوان، اعمال اصل صلاحیت جهانی نیز با اقبال دادگاه‌های ملی مواجه شود و حدود و ثغور آن اصل در رویه قضائی دیوان معین گردد. نیز فراتر از آن، آثار صلاحیت تکمیلی دیوان بر نظام‌های قضائی ملی در رسیدگی به جنایات بین‌المللی از جمله مباحث مهم است که زمینه تعدیل موانع و رفع معضلات پیش روی اصل صلاحیت جهانی را فراهم خواهد آورد. به این ترتیب انتظار می‌رود، مقابله با بی‌کیفری جرائم بین‌المللی، موجب ایجاد و تقویت رابطه‌ای موزون و هماهنگ میان صلاحیت‌های دادگاه‌های ملی و دیوان کیفری بین‌المللی گردد.

تلاش دانشمندان برای کنترل و درمان بیماریها هر روز افق های جدیدی را به روی جامعه بشری می گشاید. شبیه سازی که در مورد گیاهان و حیوانات با موفقیت همراه شده، از یک سو چالشهایی عظیم و پرسشهایی بنیادین را در مورد شبیه سازی انسان دامن زده است، و از سوی دیگر نوید بخش علاج بسیاری از بیماریها بوده است (شبیه سازی درمانی). مخالفت صریح جامعه بین المللی با شبیه سازی انسان، جست و جو در مبنای مشروعیت شبیه سازی درمانی در حقوق بین الملل بشر بر اساس «حق بر سلامتی» را موجه می نماید.

وجود اقلیتهای قومی، نژادی، زبانی و مذهبی در بسیاری از کشورها، واقعیتی انکارناپذیر قلمداد می‌شود.حفظ عناصری از اعضای هر گروه اقلیت را به هم پیوند می‌دهد، چندان مطلوب حاکمیت نبوده است.این چالش گاه در قالب این ادعا مطرح شده که حمایت از اقلیتها، باری گران بر کشور تحمیل می‌کند و وحدت و یکپارچگی ملی را نیز به مخاطره می‌افکند؛و زمانی نیز عدم شناسایی و در نتیجه انکار موجودیت اقلیت را دستاویز قرارداده است.با این حال، اسناد جهانی حقوق بشر حمایت از اقلیتها را حتی در قلمروی فراتر از اصل ممنوعیت تبعیض مورد توجه قرار داده و در این زمینه معدود سازوکارهایی را برای نظارت بر تعهدات بین‌المللی دولتها مهیا ساخته است.در این مقاله رشد و توسعه حقوق ماهوی اقلیتها در قالب اسناد جهانی حقوق بشر مورد تجزیه و تحلیل قرار گرفته است