مجله حقوقی بین المللی
پیاپی 33 (پاییز و زمستان 1384)

A little noted but notable thing in international law is the fact that states ever comply with its stipulations and strictures voluntarily, this denoting to the legitimacy of the international system and the existence of the international legal community. International obligations erga omnes, including those deriving from the principles and rules concerning the basic rights of the human person are referred to as associative or community obligations, abiding by them is entailed not by the specific consent of a member in a strictly contractual sense, but by the mere fact of membership in the community, the former being identified as assumed. Hence, the ICJ in it’s advisory opinion on the Genocide convention has affirmed that the principles underlying the convention were binding on states “even without any conventional obligation”. So, as judge Tanaka in his dissenting opinion to the judgment in the south west Africa cases, second phase (1966) put it: Human rights derive from the concept of the human being as a person. States do not create human rights, but only confirm their existence. Thus, human rights exist independently of the will of states. As a result, states which do not recognize this principle [i.e. the protection of human rights] or even deny it’s existence are nevertheless subject to it’s rule. The Second World War featured several states massive betrayal of the lives and liberties of persons, including even their own civilians, as such, it created better understanding of the inextricable connection between international protection of human rights and the maintaining of world peace. The subsequent canon of human rights laws, ratified voluntarily by a large number of states, conferred, as against the governments, the right to be let alone, to individuals. Of the various indicators of individual autonomy, freedom of conscience is probably the most fervently desired by individuals and certainly has been the most strenuously resisted by authorities. Reference made by the court in connection with international obligations erga omnes to the basic rights of the individual shows that the international community is, in the court’s view, an unorganized body distinct from the single states which constitute it; this community “as a whole” is founded on some fundamental principles. This is the conclusion which can be derived from this judgment.

War and peace are perfectly distinctive and each one of them has specific legal results. They are, historically, simultaneous with human being. Muslims, as soon as Islam was founded and established its stability, made political and legal relations with the followers of other religions. Islamic nation often had bilateral relations with the other nations. The fundamental question in this article is that whether these relations with others are based on war or peace?There are 2 theories regarding political-legal relations of Muslims with the followers of other religions and non-believers.The owners of first theory maintain to principality of war, according to the second theory peace is prior upon war.On my opinion the true doctrine is the second theory which believes in principality of peace. According to this view, the essential rule in relation between Muslims and the others is Peace, which is eternal and natural. War, however, is accidental and not normal. Islam by its nature and all other divine religions radically are opposed to fighting and blood shed. If Islamic injunctions ordered us to be equipped, it would be only because of defense for the followers of Islam.Considering holy verses of Quran, tradition of prophet (Peace be upon him) and his holy household indicates that in Islam peace is essential. According to this point of view relation of Islamic territory {Darulislam} with the other non-Islamic countries {Darulkufr or Darulshirk} is peaceful, because of contracts, cease fire and neutrality. hence a country that is combating against an Islamic country by breaching a treaty or by conducting an aggression is called territory of war {Darulharb}. Otherwise it is neutral or it has a league with Islamic country is referred to as {Darulhiad}.The nature of the political and legal relation between Muslims and other non-Islamic countries, first of all, is peaceful, friendly and is based on dignity and peaceful co-existence. It is legalized by a contract, in neutrality and cease fire. A war according to this doctrine is exceptional and accidental, it is permissible, only in some rare circumstances and it is, when Islamic country has no remedy for its inevitability. So, out of necessity an Islamic country is obliged to acquire, modern and advanced equipments and armaments in military and security fields, if they want to be free, developed and independent, and to have powerful, dignitive, wisely and expediently relations with other countries.

Since the semantic field of the term “Torture” in the international law is taken into consideration, this research does not enter into the domain of the internal law; and approches only the views of international law.By examining the international documents and jurisprudence of the courts, this hypothesis is studied that despite of the presence of the prevailing standard about the appreciation of the meaning of “torture”, there are other standards adopted by international documents and jurisprudence of the courts.To examine this hypothesis, firstly, the prevailing standard is studied. According to this standard, “torture” is the official behaviour or punishment which brings about much pain or suffering and is used to result in special purposes such as collection of information or confession.

The stark evolution & development of trade in the recent century have marked up the necessity to regulate new rules & statute or at least to amend the existing rules and statute in order to meet the merchants’ new needs & demands.One of these subjects and rules in the contracts of sale, wether national or international, is the buyer’s right to terminate the contract in the case of his inability to return the goods which have been received from the seller in the execution of the contract and at the same time wish to terminate that.The survey of the effect of this inability to exercise the buyer's right to terminate according to the International Sale of Goods Convention (1980, Vienna) and the Iranian Laws has been the core of our study and I have tried to answer some of the significant questions relevant to this subject.The outcomes of this article indicate that the general tendency of the Convention leads to avoid the buyer’s right to terminate when the buyer is inable to return the goods. Although the permission to terminate has a gravity in the Iranian Law, but one can defend the theory of avoidance from the right to terminate due to today’s new needs and demands.