مجله حقوقی بین المللی
پیاپی 55 (پاییز و زمستان 1395)

The Consensualism is one of the major features of the judicial procedure within the international community. This principle, rooted in the Statute of the International Court of Justice, is explained as the result of an unperfected community, i.e. current international legal order. For many lawyers, this principle is an obstacle to the realization of the concept of justice in International Law. However, the International Court of Justice in all its contentious proceedings has made efforts for the protection of that principle. At the same time, one could note a modified application of the same principle in the advisory function of the World Court. In fact, by adopting a less rigorous approach in its advisory opinions, the International Court of Justice has been able to overcome obstacles concerning the consent of States in its functions as the principal judicial organ of the United Nations.

The Republic of Panama and the Republic of Guinea-Bissau, by their special agreement dated 29 June and 4 July 2011, accepted to submit their dispute concerning the vessel Virginia G to the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS). The matter was entered into the list of cases on 4 July 2011. In its initial claim, Panama accused Guinea-Bissau of breaching its obligations under the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Guinea-Bissau filed a counterclaim on the basis of article 98 of the Rules of the Tribunal. Panama argued that this claim failed to meet the double conditions of jurisdiction and connection as laid down by the said article. That led the Court to examine the admissibility of the Guinean claim. In dismissing the objections raised by Panama, the Court determined by an order of 2 November 2012 that the counterclaim from Guinea-Bissau was indeed admissible. The claims of both parties were rejected in the judgment on the merits rendered on April 14, 2014.

Marine oil pollution usually occurs sporadically and periodically. The occurrence of such incidents attracts scholars’ attention to the threats of marine environmental pollution. Nowadays, environmental misconducts extend beyond national borders and the function of international law system has not been desirable so far. Marine oil pollution is a complicated concern with extensive dimensions that is not possible to confront with by limited solutions. The aim of this paper is the assessment of international legal aspects of confronting with marine oil pollution with special regard to criminal liability regime and its mechanisms. Deficiencies of civil liability regime on the one hand, and inadequacy of individual criminal liability on the other hand, highlight the necessity of the defense arising from corporate criminal liability. From the prospect of this paper, the combination of two civil and criminal liability systems and also the application of individual and corporate criminal liability are the most efficient solutions for deterring marine oil pollution.

This paper sheds light on one of the most important challenges posed by internet and web 2.0 to the privacy and data protection right. The fact that the internet records everything and forgets nothing, is inconsistent with the fragility of human memory. For this reason, a debate about the need to regulate the ‘right to be forgotten’ that builds on the rights of the personality, consisting several elements such as the right to privacy, data protection, and dignity has emerged in Europe.
This right which finds its rationale in the protection of privacy gives individuals the possibility to remove information about them from the Internet. Moreover, the right to be forgotten could become incompatible with other traditionally protected rights such as freedom of expression and access to information.
This paper explains the history of the recognition of the right to be forgotten which has been defined basically by Data Protection Agencies and studies a new European framework for data protection.

This paper studies the Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros project, the first case before the International Court of Justice dealing with the concept of sustainable development. In particular, this paper analyzes three related aspects of this principle addressed in the Court’s judgment: the concept of sustainable development; the principle of precautionary acts; and the principle of environmental impact. It has been concluded in this paper that both the opinion of the majority of judges and the view of the Vice-President of the Court, Judge Weeramantry, have contributed to the development of the international environmental law, but their impacts have not been comprehensive.

Over the past two decades, we have witnessed the proliferation of international courts and tribunals. Due to the absence of any hierarchical structure amongst international courts and tribunals, their creation can be described as sporadic and largely uncoordinated with possible overlaps in their ambits. In other words, two or even more courts and tribunals may simultaneously have jurisdiction to adjudicate the same dispute or parts thereof. There is no doubt that sequential or overlapping proceedings before international tribunals do raise concerns and the biggest concern seems to be inconsistent rulings. The jurisdictional conflict that leads to divergent rulings or open ignorance of another court’s jurisdiction undermines the authority of courts and tribunals. Thus, there is a need for regulating conflicting jurisdictions, especially with the recent proliferation of international courts and tribunals and the lack of any formal legally binding institutional coordination among those courts and tribunals. This study attempts to examine the potential of rules of conflicting jurisdictions as well as the general principles of domestic legal systems in settling the jurisdictional conflicts.

International criminal proceedings have been under serious criticism due to the absence of international lawmaker, courts with compulsory jurisdiction and organized sanctions which are the necessary requirements of a comprehensive and authoritative legal system. As during the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials, relying on justice could not fill the legality lacuna. Criticisms having been made during those trials and then, indicated that we should also take effort with regard to legality principles of crime and in the scope of International Criminal Law. The initial steps for the adoption and deployment of these principles have been slow but progressive. Analyzing international criminal proceedings in its basic form in Leipzig Court in the early twentieth century, the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials in the mid-twentieth century, ICTY and ICTR in the final decades of the twentieth century, as well as internationalized criminal courts, among which the special court of Sierra Leone at the end of the twentieth century, and finally ICC represents the deep and progressive evolutions and great distinctive orientations of international criminal justice system with regard to the acceptance and deployment of the principles of legality of crime and punishment. This article analyzes the process of evolution and the admission of principles on the development of international criminal law from the first generation of the courts to the International Criminal Court. This trend started with denial and failure to perform and ended in necessity and stipulation.

Human rights defined as a complex of rights and privileges which apart from any kind of discriminations are recognized for the human being. The necessity of public and particular protection of human being needs widespread effort of international society, states, and non-governmental organizations. The public protection is in regard to general population, whereas the particular one refers to special groups or the owner of special titles. Plaintiff and defendant as the outstanding samples of these titles need particular protection for their vulnerability. The attitude of the present discussion is to state kinds of plaintiff and defendant rights in the human rights instruments stressing on the European Court of Human Rights Precedents. The outcomes of the research indicate the gradual promotion in international system of human rights with regard to plaintiff and defendant rights.

One of the characteristics of the maritime law is the system of limitation of liability for owners of sea-going ships. The main purpose of this system is the development of shipping industry and increasing investment in maritime law. In this regard, efforts have been made for harmonization of international rules by International Maritime Committee that has led to the formation of International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to the Limitation of Liability of Owners of Sea-going Vessels 1924; International Convention Relating to the Limitation of the Liability of Owners of Sea-going Ships, 1957; Convention on Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims (LLMC) 1976; and Amendment Protocol 1996 in this field. Furthermore, Iran acceded to the Convention on Limitation for Maritime Claims on 30 June 2014. The accession of Iran is an effective step in the development of shipping industry of Iran at the international scale and harmonizes the rules on limitation of liability of the owner of sea-going ships. In this article, we present the general view of the system of limitation of liability. This will be based on the Convention 1976 that Iran is a member thereof. This study will merely shed light on the concept and necessity of acceptance of limitation of liability, beneficiaries, and the conditions of its application in Convention 1976.

There are complex issues despite the simple appearance and the nature of the offer with which Iranian Civil Code has never dealt with. Offer as the first will in the conclusion of a contract, before acceptance, may terminate like any other legal institutions. Revocation of offer is one of the most significant causes which can terminate the offer as the unilateral will of offeror. In this article, the revocation of offer in the most important document of international commerce, i.e. UN Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods will be studied. This Convention is one of the most important commercial documents which reflects all the ideas of commentators on both sides of the North Atlantic (Roman law– Common law). In this study, it is intended to analyze the important issues including whether offeror before acceptance, has any obligation as to keep it open or is free to revoke it? Whether an effective offer (i.e. an offer that was delivered to the offeree) can be assumed revocable or irrevocable? In addition, what restrictions should be imposed on the right of revocation of offeror? Should the offeror prove to inform the offeree of the revocation? Is it possible to revoke the public offers? The results taken from this research can cover the gaps of Iranian law about revocation of offer.