فصلنامه پژوهش حقوق عمومی
سال هجدهم شماره 51 (تابستان 1395)

On September 22, 1980, Iraq launched an invasion against Iran. The Iraqi army, trained and influenced by Soviet advisors, had organic chemical warfare units and a wide variety of chemical materials and delivery systems. The continuous use of chemical weapons by Iraq against Iran during the war was indeed in violation of Iraq's obligations under 1952 Geneva Convention Protocol and also the principals of international humanitarian law. However taking a look at Iran-Iraq war demonstrates that two aspects of responsibility in this case could be distinguished. While the perpetrators of war crimes are responsible for the acts in their individual capacity, the State is also responsible for its international wrongful acts. In this article the different aspects of the case will be examined in theory and practice.

As a new discipline, legisprudence is raising for the purpose of overcoming the challenges of inappropriate deployment of legislation and legislative inflation. Legisprudence as an interdisciplinary study uses the theories and findings of sciences for analyzing and studying the legislation and law making process. Ruling according to law and by law, has led to repetitive recourse to the legislation by governments and this in turn has led to increase of the volumes of legislation; a situation which is in conflict with rule of law. Promulgating laws which have formal and substantive flaws has decreased the quality of legislations and has made the countries legal system inconsistent. As a result the aforementioned situation causes the inefficiency in governance. Assessment of expected and unexpected consequences of legislation from the cost-benefit point of view and paying attention to these consequences in pre-legislation, legislation and post- legislation stages are parts of theoretical attempts for improvement of quality of legislation which is developed in legisprudence. The main aim of legisprudence is to enhance the quality of legislation and its ultimate goal is to assist in the realization of rule of law and good governance.

There are changes in the roles and missions of the government in administration of society affairs, has changed budgeting and financial management systems of government. Increase "economics", "efficiency" and "effectiveness" of the budget, the allocation of resources through a focus on measurable objectives, increasing accountability of the authorities to grant more freedom such as special features of performance budgeting compared to other methods of budgeting that has persuaded the governments for planning to establish such a manner.
The existence of a comprehensive budget law, the definition and act of the objectives and activities of the executive organizations by the legislature with the approval of the rule of law, applying the audit system base on performance by regulatory authorities, the authority to the legislature and government accountability, including the legal basis for the establishment of the performance budget. Despite the structural and legal problems in the country, none of these elements are not fully funded that in this study, it focus on the most basic legal requirements of the budget.

Foreign investment are made by means of concluding a contract between the foreign investor and a public institute or entity of the host state.On the other side, the host state is often a part of a bilateral or multilateral investment treaty with the national state of the investor.Each of these documents forecast their special mechanism for settlement of investor-state disputes.In numerous cases,these contracts are sources of investment disputes and a lot of claims arise out of breaches of international legal obligations arising from or relating to underlying contracts, which is a new question in the international arbitration domain.Since the two SGS v.Pakistan and SGS v.Philippines decisions by arbitral tribunals, the question of how treaty-based tribunals should deal with claims arising out of the contractual relationships,was recently asked and considered. Both of the aforementioned tribunals dealt with assessing jurisdiction over claims of breach of contract.Although, these arbitrations finally resulted in two different awards, they has provided useful guidance toward determination of the scope of jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunals over disputes arising out of the investment contracts.The subsequent tribunals taking into account arbitral practices, tried to present an analytical approaches concerning assessment of jurisdiction in settlement of disputes arisingfrom contractual relationships

The Arab coalition’s military intervention in Yemen crisis (2015) which is led by Saudi Arabia can be studied through different aspects in the international law’s system. The secondary rules of international law which decide the breach of primary rules of international law and their consequences, is one of these aspects. Principally, each state is responsible for its own wrong doings, but in some cases, other considerations and necessities such as rule of law and reparation of injured party, requires a state to be held responsible regarding another state’s wrongful act. One of these cases is derived international responsibility which results from aiding or assisting another state which commits an international wrongful act. The use of cluster munitions by Saudi against positions in Yemen and armed this state with these munitions by third state/states could be examined in the light of the derived international responsibility. Using the principles of this type of responsibility, this article tries to resolve whether the third party state/states that have armed Saudi Arabia with cluster munitions, have responsibility in Saudi's usage of cluster weapons.

Statute of limitations is an obstacle to sue and prosecute crimes. According to the nature of the actions, nature, purpose, effects and rules governing statute of limitations will be different. In relation to the breach of the rules governing the prohibition of the use of chemical weapons at the time of international conflict, both types of statute of limitations emerge. Considering the passage of time from the end of the Iran-Iraq war, the statute of limitation in cases involving the use of chemicals weapons during the war would be a defense in national and international courts. In this article, through explaining the statute of limitations in national and international legal systems, I conclude that although it is possible to prosecute and punish perpetrators of the use of chemical weapons during Iraq-Iran war before the national courts, statutes of limitations have posed a major obstacle to reparation claims.

Despite periodic efforts to codify the international rules governing flows of foreign investment in a single multilateral instrument, these rules continue to exist in a bewildering patchwork of bilateral and regional treaties which have proliferated since the late 1950s. With regard to the lack of such a comprehensive codified law on foreign investment, Bilateral Investment Treaties (BITs) came into existence in order to provide more protection for foreign investment. These treaties impose further obligations on the host States in order to ensure the security of the foreign investor. However, the host States are obliged simultaneously to respect and protect human rights. Thus, it seems that the controversy lies in the interplay of fundamental human rights obligations in BITs which have brought negative impacts on human rights issues thereof.