مجله حقوقی بین المللی
پیاپی 35 (پاییز و زمستان 1385)

There are certain pieces of law enacted after the Revolution in Iran that stipulated almost restrictive regulations for the foreign investments in Iran. Among such laws are principles 44, 80 and 81 of the Constitution, the Act on Petroleum (1987), the Provisions of the Annual Budget Act for the year 1995 as were re-approved in the Annual Budget Acts of subsequent years, and finally certain parts of the Five Years Economic Development Plan Acts (the first, second and third plan Acts).As a consequence of these laws, the buy-back model was often adopted for the foreign investment transactions in Iran, in particular for upstream operation in petroleum industry.The buy-back model of contract as applied in Iran for foreign investments has been subject of long debates and criticism among the experts, from different economic points of view, however, less in the lights of the international arbitration precedents produced in oil disputes.The question of compensation payable against nationalization of foreign investment or the breach of investment contract, is one of the most important issues discussed in the international arbitration precedents. The standard of compensation developed from full to appropriate compensation. Currently, the concept of "legitimate expectation" of the parties is the criteria for calculations of the appropriate compensation.Now, the question is what will be the scope of "legitimate expectation" of the parties in buy-back contracts, if the contract is revoked or terminated by the state party.To respond, one must first examine the arbitration precedents in regard to payable compensation. The legal analysis of such precedents will certainly enable us to predict the financial features of buy-back contracts in the eyes of a proposed international arbitral tribunal engaged in examination of disputes arising out from such contracts.The subject matter of this writing is a thorough study and analysis of arbitration precedents on the question of compensation, in order to pave the way for an objective prediction of a buy-back contract, if it is the subject of dispute due to termination or nationalization.

Arising from the nature of international law, there is a general duty to bring internal law into conformity with obligations under international law. Islamic Republic of Iran as a contracting State of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966), internationally accepted that “no one shall be imprisoned merely on the ground of inability to fulfil a contractual obligation”. Although that is a non-derogable right, but it appears that the Iranian “Legal Enforcement of Pecuniary Condemnations Act (1998)” is in itself a breach of International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It is certain that Iran can not rely on her own legislation to limit the scope of her international obligations.

Une controverse sest élevée en droit et pratique judiciaire iranienne sur la question du dessaisissement du juge en cas dune clause darbitrage international. En fait, le problème est résolu lorsquil sagit dun arbitrage interne par application de larticle 454 du Code de Procédure Civile lequel permet aux parties de soumettre leur différend ne ou a naître a larbitrage dune ou plusieurs personnes. Une partie de la doctrine ainsi que la majorité des magistrats estiment que les règles de conflits de juridiction telles que larticle 971 du Code Civil et larticle 26 du C.P.C. obligent les tribunaux judiciaires de statuer sur leurs propre compétences ce qui signifierait que le législateur iranien ne connaît pas une compétence arbitrale vis-à-vis de compétence judiciaire.Cest, du reste, ce qui ressort dun important arrêt rendu en 1995 par lancien vingt-sixième Chambre civil de Téhéran dans une affaire entre une société dEtat iranien et une société privée anglaise. Bien que le raisonnement de la Cour est défendable en ce qui concerne lobligation résultant de larticle 139 de la Constitution qui exige une ratification même a posteriori du Conseil des ministres ainsi que le Parlement pour que la clause compromissoire soit valable, mais le recours du juge a des règles de conflits mentionnées ci-dessus fait penser que la compétence des tribunaux doit être supposée en tout état de cause même si la partie a larbitrage est une personne du droit prive iranien!Ainsi, on constate que la décision de la Cour est en contradiction avec deux principes bien établis du droit de larbitrage commercial international: celui qui accord a larbitre international le pouvoir de statuer sur sa propre compétence dit principe de Competenz-Competenz dune part et le principe qui interdit, au nom de lordre public international, le recours, par lune des parties a larbitrage, aux règles du droit internes afin de contester la compétence de larbitre international dautre part. En effet, après avoir présente et développe notre idée selon laquel le juge iranien est en droit, au moins en théorie, de sursoir a statuer sur le bien fonde de la clause compromissoire, nous avons pris position sur les deux principes susmentionnés en acceptant le premier et réfutant le deuxième. La raison en est que linterdiction de recours aux dispositions du droit interne en tant quun principe du droit de larbitrage international est présente par la doctrine et pratique arbitral comme une règle de lordre public international appartenant a la lex mercatoria. Or, nous estimons quen cas du recours, par une des parties, a une disposition du droit interne telle que larticle 139 qui subordonne la compétence du tribunal arbitral a lapprobation du parlement iranienne, il est logique - au lieu de le combattre par un prétendu tiers droit dont lexistence et bien fonde est fortement conteste - de revenir sur la voie classique celle la loi du contrat. Cest elle quen fin de compte déterminera la compétence arbitrale.

Le nombre de plus en plus croissant des conventions internationales du droit dauteur révèle une réalité: tout en assurant autant que possible les droits dauteur des œuvres dart et desprit et littéraires, la communauté internationale entend à faire bénéficier tous les pays des acquis et réalisations, tant sur le plan moral que matériel, qui savèrent indispensables au développement des peuples dans les domaines, économiques, sociaux, culturels et politiques:1-A défaut dune définition suffisamment établie des œuvres scientifiques, littéraires et artistiques, on se contente de faire appel à des applications en cours, ce qui rendrait possible la protection de toutes les nouvelles œuvres desprit;2-En consacrant le principe de comportement national, les parties contractantes ont mis sur un pied d'égalité œuvres nationales et œuvres étrangères, toute discrimination étant exclue;3-Les parties contractantes ne peuvent déroger aux protections minimales accordées par ces conventions, sauf exception;4-En prévoyant le droit de réserve en certain cas et adoptant progressives en plus des dispositions pertinentes, on entendait les susciter à adhérer à ces conventions.

From the perspective of the effects of adhesion of Iran to the Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), coordinating the domestic laws with the crimes subject to the Statute of the ICC is of paramount importance. As to the war crimes, considering the fact that Iran has not yet adhered to the two annexed protocols to the Geneva Conventions, adherence to the Statute of the ICC requires, regardless of the current liability of Iran in terms of international obligations, a practical acceptance of the obligations of the protocols. As to the crime of genocide and its manifestations, considering the adherence of Iran to the Convention against Genocide, there seems no problem for the country to adhere to the Statute. With regard to the crime against humanity, there exist two options both of which entail problems: choosing the option of "compliance with the regulations of the Statute of the ICC" is in accordance with the objectives of the ICC but not expedient for Iran. The second option "consideration of domestic criteria in the Islamic Penal Code", though may be troubleshooter, but by choosing this option, the general historical problem in the implementation of domestic punishments in the matter of torture would continue to remain.

Multi-ethnic texture or existence of the ethnic-religious minorities is one of the main structural elements of states all over the world. Consequently, we are sometimes informed about ethnic tensions and violence around the globe. A study in 2002 indicates that approximately 125 wars were occurred from World War II to 1997 of which 80 ones have been related to ethnic and religious disputes in a way. In search for the motif, it is found that the right of self-determination is the main cause for the wars. The conceptual evolution of the right of self-determination can be studied in three historic periods. First, it aimed at legitimizing the independence of new states created through the defeats and falls of empires as a result of the World War I. second, after the World War II, it evolved into the governance of the colonies and occupied territories and the third, since 1970, this doctrine has targeted the concept of hegemony of democracy and recognition of the minorities’ rights. Through the respect for the principals such as states’ sovereignty as well as the territorial integrity and the principal of non-interference, the international law observes the sovereignty and territorial integrity from one side and pays attention to the minorities’ interests and demands from the other side. To do this, the international law has mainly focused on the establishment of democratic regimes and on granting the right of autonomy to the minorities. This article concentrates on the conceptual evolutions, grounds and requirements for the right of self-determination in the international law.