امیرحسین ملکی زاده

With the increasing dependence of countries to provide their most basic needs from maritime trade, the number of vessels and shipping lines increased, and this affected the growth of the number of vessels that suffered accidents such as collisions or fires in the sea. For this reason, the will of the international community was to create an international legal system in order to encourage as many vessels as possible to help each other in emergency situations with the aim of reducing the damages caused by maritime threats. This will Ended with the ratification of the Brussels Convention in 1910. In 1989, it ended with the ratification of the London Convention, according to which maritime rescue operations became the focus of attention. The purpose of presenting the present research is to answer the question of what are the positions of internal law and international law regarding the implementation or refusal of maritime rescue operations and the international legal system as a whole governing the allocation and payment of rewards resulting from the implementation of these operations? In this research, the authors used the descriptive-analytical method and in some cases the comparative method. The general result of the research, while pointing to the mandatory nature of maritime rescue and rescue operations by the commanders of vessels, emphasizes the point that the reward for carrying out these dangerous operations is subject to several indicators and Iran's maritime law is largely in line with the provisions of the Brussels Convention.

Following the US withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the reinstatement of US sanctions against Iran, and the cancellation of all oil, commercial, and economic agreements, all of which were the result of the JCPOA, Iran decided to sue the US in the International Court of Justice (ICJ) under the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Trade Relations, and Consular Rights (hereinafter the Treaty). The jurisdictional decision and temporary injunction have brought Iran closer to claiming its rights. However, the primary issues this study addressed were whether the ICJ has substantive jurisdiction and whether the final verdict will be in favor of Iran. Accordingly, the main research hypothesis was as follows: since the ICJ has substantive jurisdiction, if it renders an uncontested final verdict in Iran's favor, the US must reimburse Iran and return the situation to its pre-trial state. To answer the above-mentioned questions and examine the hypothesis, this study employed a meta-analysis method.

The Rome Statute authorized the International Criminal Court to exercise jurisdiction over crimes of aggression. In the first Review Conference of the Rome Statute in 2010, the crime of aggression and its elements were delineated and identified with the goal of protecting world peace. The present study explored the Actus Reus of the crime of aggression based on the latest amendments to ICC's Statute. The gravity and broadness of the acts of aggression mean that committing such crimes occurs through special arrangements and conditions. The crime of aggression refers to a series of actions called war management. The aggressors are convicted of this crime when specific conditions are met. At first, there is planning and then military supplies and equipment are procured, which leads to a planned attack by the military leaders. Once the act of aggression and territorial occupation is completed, the last step is war management. The Actus Reus of the crime of aggression in ICC's Statute includes the planning, procurement, initiation, and execution of the act of aggression. These are undertaken by political and military leaders in a position effectively to exercise control over or to direct the action of a state The actions must be intended for an act of aggression and are deemed violations of the UN Charter given their nature, intensity, and extent.

The margin of appreciation as an established doctrine in the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) is a methodology for precise examination of decisions of national authorities by international courts. According to this doctrine, national authorities are in a better position than international judges to decide on the better application of the European Convention on Human Rights.  In this article, the doctrine has been examined from both theoretical and practical perspectives. It has also been discussed whether the doctrine is applicable in international legal obligation of states. Although in the field of human rights the margin of appreciation for states has sometimes been approved, it cannot be extended to all international legal obligations.

Reviewing the events that took place in international wars such as World War II, we find that the leaders of countries with advanced military fleets do not hesitate to kill civilians and violate the principle of segregation. The United States has gone further and has made new alterations to article 51 of the Charter by creating new norms, such as the preemptive defense. Based on these norms, the US and the other countries that follow its military doctrine have allowed themselves to resort to force against their enemies, simply on the premise of detecting imminent threats from them, without being attacked first. The main question of the current study is to what extent is the preemptive defense acceptable in international law, and what legal and military measures should countries take when protecting civilians against imminent threats of enemies when the threatening party does not hesitate to realize their threats. The research hypothesis is that resorting to preemptive defense is not acceptable in international law; however, doing it when protecting civilians seems rational. Using a descriptive-analytical method, the authors have concluded that despite being rational, resorting arbitrarily to preemptive defense against imminent threats to protect civilians is not acceptable in current international law.

Peace of litigation has been accepted as a common practice in the civil procedure system of Iran and Canada. The main article in this field in the Iranian legal system is Article 184 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In the Canadian legal system, however, various articles refer to litigation. The main question that is considered in this research based on the descriptive-analytical approach, what are the differences between the institution of peace of lawsuits in the civil procedure system of Iran and Canada? Numerous differences are conceivable in this regard, including the fact that in the Iranian civil procedure system, litigation is cited as a purely judicial entity, while in the Canadian civil procedure system it is cited as an extra-judicial entity. This has led to the settlement of litigation in the Canadian legal system as an alternative to litigation, while its place in the Iranian legal system has not been determined.

Taking different jurisprodence by international judicial organizations in relation with control criterion, shows the contradiction on this issue. Control criterion in ICJ jurisprodence is expressed clearly in Nicaragua case. In this case ICJ examined the control criterions.In Genocide case, it once again examined this issue, However ICTY pays attention to different methods of controlloing criterions.The challenge of ICJ jurisprudence by ICTY is crucial in this regard. The investigation of ICJ jurisprdence shows that it has followed consistent process about controlling criterions in diffrent cases. Facing with challenges by other dispute settlement organizations,ICJ has emphasized on it’s jurisprudence.Effective control is utilized in relation with international responsibility of the states but the overall control is applied in relation with criminal responsibility of individuals.

Attributability is among secondary rules of international law. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) has its own methodology and review of its decisions will shed light on development of attributability of responsibility. The main question of this paper is about the rules governing attributability of responsibility in the procedure of the ICJ in view of its main goal which is to settle international disputes and set the rules of customary international law. Cases related to attributability of international responsibility are categorized under these general titles: responsibility for measures taken by state bodies; responsibility resulting from positive acts and responsibility resulting from actions taken by insurgent persons and groups. The process taken by the ICJ shows that it follows a single procedure in almost all cases. Study of the procedure followed by ICJ in the case of the former Yugoslavia is important. Faced with all challenges, the ICJ has regularly stressed on its own procedure. However, it should change that procedure when it comes to attributability of international responsibility to governments in new cases. One of the most important of such cases is terrorist armed attacks in the face of which the court should adopt a new procedure.