مهناز رشیدی

The concept of denial of justice (DoJ) has been a recurring theme in international investment disputes, yet its precise definition and application remain contentious. This paper will delve into the broad and narrow interpretations of DoJ, its relationship to the exhaustion of local remedies (ELR), and the ICJ's handling of these issues in the Certain Iranian Assets case.The Concept of Denial of Justice: Denial of justice, in its broadest sense, encompasses any violation of international law affecting aliens. This includes not only acts of the judiciary but also actions of the executive or legislative branches that impede the judicial process or undermine the rights of aliens. A narrower interpretation of DoJ focuses specifically on the lack of access to courts or the inability to obtain a fair judgment.The concept of DoJ is closely related to the principle of fair treatment of aliens, which is a fundamental tenet of international law. States have a duty to ensure that aliens within their territories enjoy the same rights and protections as their own nationals. A denial of justice can occur when a state fails to meet this obligation, either through its judicial system or through other government actions.The Exhaustion of Local Remedies Rule: The exhaustion of local remedies rule is a longstanding principle of international law that requires individuals to seek redress for alleged wrongs through the domestic legal system before resorting to international remedies. This rule is based on the idea that states should have the opportunity to rectify their own wrongs before being subject to international scrutiny.The application of the ELR rule in the context of DoJ claims is complex and subject to debate. Some argue that ELR is a prerequisite for a DoJ claim, while others contend that it is only applicable in certain circumstances. The prevailing view is that ELR is generally required unless the domestic remedies are manifestly ineffective or unavailable.The Certain Iranian Assets Case: The Certain Iranian Assets case provides a valuable opportunity to examine the relationship between DoJ and ELR in the context of international investment law. In this case, Iran alleged that the United States had denied justice to Iranian investors by imposing sanctions that prevented them from accessing US courts and enforcing their rights.The ICJ's decision in the Certain Iranian Assets case was mixed. On the one hand, the Court found that the US had violated the fair and equitable treatment standard in its treatment of Iranian investors. This suggests that the Court recognized that the US's actions had had a negative impact on the investors' rights.On the other hand, the ICJ rejected Iran's claim of DoJ. The Court reasoned that Iran had not exhausted its local remedies because it had failed to file a lawsuit in a US court. This decision has been criticized by some commentators, who argue that the Court's focus on formal procedural requirements was too narrow and failed to address the substantive issues raised by Iran.A Critical Analysis of the ICJ's Decision: The ICJ's decision in the Certain Iranian Assets case raises several important questions regarding the relationship between DoJ and ELR. First, the Court's requirement that Iran exhaust local remedies despite the challenges posed by US sanctions seems overly formalistic. A more substantive approach would have taken into account the practical difficulties faced by Iranian investors in seeking redress through the US legal system.Second, the Court's finding that the US had violated the fair and equitable treatment standard suggests that it recognized that the US's actions had had a negative impact on Iranian investors. This raises the question of whether the Court's rejection of the DoJ claim was consistent with its other findings in the case.Third, the Certain Iranian Assets case highlights the challenges of applying the ELR rule in cases where domestic remedies are ineffective or unavailable. In such cases, it may be difficult to determine whether a claimant has truly exhausted all available remedies.

The concept of denial of justice remains a complex and evolving area of international law. The Certain Iranian Assets case provides valuable insights into the challenges of applying this concept in the context of international investment disputes.The ICJ's decision in the case raises important questions about the relationship between DoJ and ELR, and the appropriate standards for determining whether a state has denied justice to foreign investors.In conclusion, the Certain Iranian Assets case highlights the need for a more nuanced and flexible approach to the concepts of DoJ and ELR. A focus on substantive justice, rather than formal procedural requirements, is essential to ensure that foreign investors are treated fairly and equitably.

The conceptual evolution of peace and security has extended the term beyond the narrow concepts of war and military threats; to the extent that today the establishment of peace and security in the international community is considered dependent on the provision of human needs and a dignified life. A humanitarian approach to the concepts of peace and security, on the one hand, and the inevitability of having access to sufficient and safe water to meet human needs, on the other, raises the idea of exploring the relationship between water resource management and international peace and security. Therefore, the main question of the research is: what is the relationship between water and international peace and security and what is the political-legal mechanism for achieving international peace and water security. Using a descriptive-analytical method in this paper, based on library data and review of the views of political thinkers and international instruments, show that water and international peace and security are closely related to each other so that water, on the one hand, can be a factor in establishing international peace and security, but on the other hand, if this valuable material is not properly managed, can be a stimulus for disrupting peace and security at various national, regional and international levels. Meanwhile, the water cooperation policies of governments facilitate and supply water security in the international community, and international law can regulate, strengthen and guarantee this cooperation.

A major part of the State’s water resources is used, in the form of "virtual water", to produce products, especially agricultural products. Today, the smart trade of virtual water is considered a way to resolve the world's water shortage crisis. This research has answered the question of what capacities does the current legal framework of the World Trade Organization (WTO) have for managing and facilitating virtual water trade? The primary hypothesis is that WTO can facilitate the smart trade of virtual water by removing trade barriers. The results of the studies indicate that only trade liberalization, regardless of the economic value of water in the production process, does not facilitate virtual water trade in line with the management of global water resources. Also, although the management of import and export of goods based on the amount of water consumed in the production process seems to violate the principle of non-discrimination in WTO, some exceptions included in the agreements of this organization can help to virtual water trade and reduce the water crisis. Using the capacities of this organization to remove agricultural subsidies that disrupt the virtual water trade and evaluating the water footprint through the creation of a labelling system are other ways to facilitate the virtual water trade.

The right to development means enabling the participation of every human in the process of economic, social, cultural and political development of society and enjoying its benefits and as a result guaranteeing of his human rights in development process. The guaranteeing of this right require laying the groundwork for its implementation at the internal level of every states and removing obstacles at this level. Therefore, the effort to find the right solution in this field has been a major part in efforts to adopting national and international programs related to the establishment of human rights based approach in development, which considered as the main goal in the right to development. This research is a descriptive-analytical method based on library resources and analysis of international documents, seeks to answer the question of what internal approach is needed to achieve the right to development?The result confirms that the removal of obstacles to the human rights based approach in development depends on the adoption of a good governance strategy and efforts to implement its pillars in any society. The hallmarks of this governance, namely, the rule of law, transparency, the fight against corruption and public participation, are tools that can be used to overcome a large number of internal obstacles to the human rights based approach in development, the obstacles such as discrimination, corruption, lack of a platform for public participation in the development process, the lack of capacity for effective participation of groups such as women and minorities in the development process.

Mnemiopsis leidyi in Caspian Sea is an example of invasive alien species that was moved to Caspian Sea by ballast water of ships through Volga- Don canal in the 1990th decade. This Plankton-eating species put many of creatures of Caspian Sea such as Common Kilkas, Sturgeons and Caspian seals at risk of distinction by disrupting the food chain. Due to the hard environmental and economic impacts of invasive alien species, the main question of this research is what obligations does international law impose on the Caspian coastal states to manage such species? In response, by using descriptive- analytical method and library resources, it was concluded that the Islamic Republic of Iran and other countries along Caspian Sea have become members of some global and regional environmental agreements which explicitly or implicitly, assigns them obligations on prevention, control and elimination of alien invasive species. International customary rules and general legal principles also impose obligations on these states to take preventive, precautionary and control measures. Violations any of primary obligations by countries or causing damage, can lead to the international responsibility of offending state or causing damage state. Therefore, international law is not challenged about existence of binding rules regarding the management of invasive alien species in Caspian Sea, but effective implementation of these rules requires further cooperation between member states.

Public law is an issue that the drafters of the constitution, as specified in the second paragraph of principle 156, have assigned revival of it to the judiciary. On this basis, the prosecutor, as the main trustee of the revival of public rights, monitors, pursues and restores these rights. The right to safe drinking water is one of the most basic human rights that is a public right. The practice of the prosecutor's office also shows that numerous follow-ups have been carried out in the field of restoration of this right in terms of public rights. Meanwhile, the order of the Bahar city prosecutor's office in pursuing the pollution of drinking water in several villages of this city is noteworthy. This article has tried to evaluate and critique the order and actions of the mentioned prosecutor in this field with a descriptive-analytical method. Therefore, the obtained result shows that the actions taken by the prosecutor are desirable and indicate the realization of the crime of threatening public health. However, the main objection to the prosecutor's order can be considered as the lack of specification on the enforcement guarantee, assuming that the prosecutor's order is revoked and the non-determination of criminal enforcement guarantee. Of course, this is more rooted in the flaws in the existing laws and regulations than in the prosecutor's office.

Militarism and the presence of non-regional forces in the Caspian Sea, has been always a deep concern of Islamic Republic of Iran. The 2018 Aktau Convention on Legal Status of the Caspian Sea sets the framework for different issues based on the generally security-related principles of national sovereignty, national integrity, equality among members, and non-use of force. Therefore, one can call that a security-oriented legal instrument among its member states aimed at ensuring the stability of the region. This article is aimed at assessing the security and defensive capacities of the Aktau Convention in preventing and combating militarism and the presence of non-regional forces in the Caspian Sea.

This article is conducted through a descriptive-analytic method and by relying on library resources.

This Convention bans, in absolute terms, prohibits the presence of any third-party armed forces in the Caspian Sea, prohibits member states to provision their territory to other states to commit aggression and undertake other military actions against other littoral states, and limits the navigation and right to passage to the ships with the flag of the littoral states. Furthermore, the Convention puts emphasis on ensuring good neighborhood and friendly relations in passage through territorial waters of the Parties and a stable balance of armaments of the Parties in the Caspian Sea. Accordingly, on the basis of the results of this article, it seems that despite undeniable lacunas, this Convention, potentially, could be considered as a good achievement for its Parties including Iran in terms of preventing and combating militarism and the presence of non-regional forces in the Caspian Sea and consequently ensuring and securing the security and stability in this region.

The legal-political system of the Islamic Republic of Iran, which is based on the convergence of the Muslims in the world as a single nation (ummah) and is required by the Constitution to base its general policy on the coalition and unity of Islamic nations, is seeking to defend rights of all Muslims and support the rightful struggle of the oppressed against the arrogant everywhere in the world. The judiciary, as one of the high sovereign bodies in this system, is committed to observe these principles and general policies. This important issue has been appropriately emphasized in the Judicial Transformation Document announced in 2021 as legal support for the Resistance Front. Therefore, given the military intervention of the Saudi-led Arab states in Yemen and the violation of the rights of the Yemeni people as a result of ignoring the rules of human rights and humanitarian law, the main question that the present study, through a descriptive-analytic method, seeks to answer is that how can the judiciary of the Islamic Republic of Iran play a role in supporting the Muslims of this country? The result is that the gross violations of human rights and humanitarian law in Yemen are clear examples of war crimes regarding which the acceptance of the principle of universal jurisdiction in the Islamic Penal Code has enabled the judiciary with the capacity to prosecute the perpetrators of these crimes. However, the use of this capacity requires the amendment and enactment of domestic law as well as the use of structural facilities in the judiciary.

Nowadays, right to water, increasingly has recognized in international documents as one of the human rights that is inextricably linked to other instances of human rights, such as the right to life, the right to health, and the right to adequate standard of the living. Recognizing this right in human rights discourse, on the one hand, obliges States not to interfere in the free access of human beings to water, and on the other hand, it rests the responsibility of providing the arrangements of water supply and access to this vital substance for them. Although the main commitment of fulfilling the obligations of the right to water is the executive bodies of a country, but the legislative and judicial institutions also have responsibilities for the full realization of this right. The question that this study has been written in order to answer it, is: what role does the judiciary of the Islamic Republic of Iran play in ensuring the right of Iranian citizens to water? The result of descriptive-analytical studies in this paper, which is obtained using library studies and review of international documents and domestic laws, is that judiciary with the main task of establishing rights and justice and reviving public rights, can guarantee the right to water in three general areas: prevention, monitoring and litigation. However, the lack of explicit recognition of the right to water in domestic law is the most important shortcoming, which has largely limited the scope of action of this body to guarantee of right to water

Environmental impact assessment refers to the processes of forecasting, identifying and evaluating the effects of projects and development decisions on the environment, human health and the well-being of society.This obligation is a key State’s Commitments to protection of environment and improvement of environmentally sustainable development. The International Court of Justice described this concept in some of its Judgements; in particular in the 2010 Judgement on the Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay and the 2015 judgement on the Construction of a Road in Costa Rica along the San Juan River and Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area . The main question that this paper seeks to answer it is: What is the legal nature and content of this obligation in the light of the ICJ case law? ICJ recognizes the customary nature of the obligation of environmental impact assessment and explains its content.The result of the descriptive-analytical studies of the ICJ Judgements in evaluating this hypothesis confirms the Court's developmental step in identifying the environmental impact assessment as a customary rule,In addition, the Court’s states that the content of the environmental impact assessment should be determined in each case, but in any way, monitoring the environmental impacts of developmental activities is not only necessary before doing them rather they need to be continued during such actions.

In July 2020, the United States of America sought to disrupt Iran's trade and economic relations with Venezuela by issuing a seizure warrant of Iranian oil tankers, which was moving to Venezuela. The decision was based on claims that there was a link between Iran's energy revenues in the activities of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps and the affiliation of some oil companies with this organization, which The United States has previously placed this organization on its sanctions list for claiming to be a terrorist. Due to the importance of this issue in the national interests of our country, the legal status of the issuance of a ban on Iranian oil shipments by the United States from the perspective of international law is the main question of this article. The results of the descriptive-analytical studies of the authors confirm that the basis of this action is contrary to the fundamental principles of international law and the seizure of oil cargo and the prohibition of the free navigation of ships are in conflict with the rules of the International law of the sea, the immunity of states and also the rules of human rights.

Following an agreement reached in 2015 on Iran's nuclear program and the regulation of the joint comprehensive plan of action(JCPOA), it was decided that all Security Council sanctions against Iran would be lifted with the adoption of a resolution by this body. However, in August 2020, the United States of America which had previously terminated its membership in the JCPOA by formally withdrawing from it, claimed that Iran had violated its JCPOA commitments and called for the activation of the Snapback and reimposition of International sanctions. This US action, sparked debates about its legal legitimacy. Accordingly, the present study was conducted in order to answer the question of how legitimate is the US action in activating the snapback from the perspective of the principles and rules of international law? The results of the authors descriptive-analytical study, based on library sources and the analysis of relevant documents confirm that JCPOA is a political agreement independent of Resolution 2231 and the United States is no longer a participating State of JCPOA after being withdrawn from this document and as a result, it lacks the legal authority to activate the snapback mechanism. In addition, the continuation of unbridled unilateralism in this country offers no other perspective to the international community, other than weakening of the United Nations and the creation of international anarchy.

Turkey, as an upstream state in the Tigris and Euphrates Basin, has initiated a project called Southeast Anatolia Project (GAP) since 1936. It has begun to build numerous dams and hydroelectric power plants on the Tigris and the Euphrates River since 1977. Considering that the implementation of this project has had and will have numerous environmental, social and economic impacts on the surrounding countries i.e., Iraq, Syria and Iran and according to experts, Turkey has not performed the environmental impact assessment process of this project correctly, the question is whether Turkey has a binding international obligation from the international law perspective to implement its commitment to environmental impact assessment. The results of this article show that, given to the international documents and procedures, today's commitment to conduct environmental impact assessment in projects that have the potential to create significant transboundary damage has been known as a mandatory customary commitment and it is necessary for all countries. Thus, Turkey was also obliged to carry out this task in the implementation of the Gap project, which by failing to comply, it has international responsibility.

US action in assassination of senior Iranian and Iraqi military officials, including the martyred General Soleimani and Abu Mahdi al-Mohandes, is a clear example of State terrorism and violates the most important rules of international law, including the right to life, prohibition of use of the force, respect for sovereignty of the States and the principle of non-intervention in domestic affairs of other countries. The Trump administration has also violated US domestic law by failing to comply with the Senate. One of the harsh revenge measures emphasized by the Supreme Leader of the Islamic Revolution can be a victory in the legal war and litigation in the courts. So, the main question in this article is, what is the legal basis for pursuing this case? The result of the descriptive-analytical study of the authors, by using the case study and utilizing library resources, shows that the most effective legal mechanisms are litigation before international court of Justice (ICJ) under the convention on the prevention and punishment of crimes against internationally protected persons, including diplomatic agents (1973), as well as trying to establish a hybrid court, in particular by concluding an agreement with UN General Assembly or organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC). However, these measures require consideration of political and legal consequences of each method and before that, the Iraqi authorities' political will to cooperate with international organizations is the main condition for any action.

After assassination of Major General Qassem Soleimani on January 2020 by the USA, an issue that arose between Iranian and international jurists from the beginning was the legal response of the Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran to the incident. This key question came to mind that which legal response to US illegal action should or can take place? In this regard, numerous opinions and guidelines were put forward by national and international jurists. Lodging Complaint in international judicial bodies, putting forward the criminal responsibility of the perpetrators, self-defense, reprisal and countermeasure, putting forward the US government's international responsibility before International Court of Justice, lodging complaint before national courts and employing human rights means to condemn US were the most important ones among these guidelines. This paper attempts to examine these legal responses within the context of existing international law and national legal rules of Iran and Iraq. The basic presumption of this article in answering the main question is that among the legal remedies available in the current circumstances lodging a complaint in International Court of Justice seems more appropriate.

Due to the increasing process of water shortage in the world, State’s competition for more access to water has increased; as water has sometimes been a source of international conflicts. On the other hand, water and water facilities have always been used as weapons or as military targets in wars. The issues of preventing water wars have been indirectly addressed by the legal rules on the use of force and the protection of water resources during armed conflicts have been sought in international humanitarian law. In the post armed conflicts, problems such as damage to water infrastructures, pollution of waters and lack of access to safe drinking water in war-affected areas, threaten not only the availability and quality of water resources, but also, they can threat international peace and security in different ways. Due to the importance of conserving water resources for peacekeeping in post-war stage and the lack of explicit legal rules in this regard, the main question of this research is that what is the most international law obligations about restoration of water resources and facilities after armed conflicts and compensation for victims? The result of the descriptive-analytical studies of the authors shows that international law has no legal vacuum in this regard and mechanisms and rules for reconstruction of damaged areas and accountability to war victims can be deduced from the principles and rules of applicable international law.

The relationship between water and human beings has always had a dual nature. On the one hand, it is human and his life that is preserved by water and on the other hand, conservation of quantity and quality of existing fresh waters on the Earth depends on human activities. With intensifying water crisis in the world, attempts to eliminate it and establish a state of water security have become one of the major concerns of the international community. The main issue is that whether international law has been able to oblige States to provide water security? In this study, this issue is examined by using library data and descriptive- analytical method. Studies show that although international law has not addressed the issue of water security directly; but on the basis of general principles of international law, we can infer obligations and impose requirements on States and thus, remedy the vacuum on water security. This study maps out such principles in order to sketch a framework for the governing rules of water security in international law.

The purpose of this study was to apply the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) method to evaluate the relationship between managers 'and executives' leadership competencies with hospital performance.

The present study was a descriptive-analytical study using leadership competency questionnaire. Evaluated indices include of communication skills, decision making, encouragement and innovation, work communication, leadership and professional skills, self-esteem, and teamwork, which measured by 5 scales. Then, three basic performance indicators of hospitals as bed occupancy rate, bed turnover ratio, mean duration or length of stay were studied. The data were analyzed using analysis of variance and Pearson correlation.

There was a positive and significant relationship between the components of managers' competence with the performance indices of the studied hospitals (P=0.01). The mean scores of leadership competencies were better in hospital managers number three than others. Hospital No 2 also gained the highest scores in terms of leadership competencies (0.55649) and performance indicators (0.55817).

Assessment of leadership competency in hospital managers and executives and performance indicators improves structures to superior systems, modernization and empowerment of personnel, transformation of hospitals and health centers, increasing productivity and reducing existing costs.

Natural and man-made disasters are an inevitable part of life which threaten various dimensions of human life. Nowadays, increasing the water crisis, in all around the world, attracts the attention of international community to the issue of water security and the role of disaster management in the sense of preparedness, response and reconstruction in order to reduce the impact of disasters in accessing water security has been taken into consideration. This investigation has studied interaction of water security and disaster management and explored the rules of applicable International law in this topic. the descriptive and analytical studies of the authors shows that although, there is no binding coherent legal document on disaster management in international law, but some provisions of various areas of it including international human rights, , international environmental law, international law of transboundary water resources and etc., impose obligations on international actors, particularly States, in the various stages of disasters including, before, during and after them, which play a significant role in providing water security. Even though, ensuring compliance with these obligations is an important challenge that requires global thinking.

Independence and impartiality of the proceedings generally used as a principle and largely overlap together. However, this two terms don’t have the same meaning.Independence in international proceedings means lack of subordination to and freedom of influence of courts and proceedings from external pressures and factors, including States, international organizations, powerful persons and etc. This concept in internal system emerges from seperation of powers Montesquieu´s theory and implies that the executive can´t influence on judiciary. But, impartiality measns lack of bias and lack of prejudice in favour of one party of the proceedings and, independence is one of the factors that supply impartiality. This principle in the international criminal courts has always been known as one of the most important principles of justice and theses courts tried, whether in their statutes and their jurisprudence, in order to legitimacy of proceedings and structures, as much as possible ensure implementation of these principles. Studying Procedures of international criminal courts including international tribunal for Rowanda, international criminal tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, special court for Sierra leone and international criminal court gives a good criterion for identifying violations of the independence and impartiality that is the detection of violations in view of “reasonable observer, properly informed” and the gross effect on the accused´s right to a fair trial. Also in proceedings, in general, independence and impartiality are principle and those who claim contrary to it, should provide strong reasons to prove it.

Sanctions on Iran shipping lines (IRISL), the major part of which consists of inspecting the ships’ cargo which their destination or departure is Iran in different marine zones, and also blocking the assets of the respective organizations found new dimensions after the adoption of the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1929. Furthermore, the European Union Council decided to designate some companies in its sanctions list, which are affiliated to IRISL multilateral and unilateral navigation sanctions against Iran. These acts are contrary to some special and general principles of international law including rules of human rights, respective bilateral and unilateral conventions and some customary rules. Accordingly, legality of the most of these sanctions can be challenged and it can give rise to the responsibility of relevant States.

International sanctions against Iran have had various effects at national level. This paper has examined the effects of sanctions on the environment، energy and technology transfer areas from the international view point. The fundamental assumption of this paper is that sanctions on the environment violate the right to a clean environment which is directly related to the right to health and the right to life. They also، breach general and special environmental law principles، including common but differentiated responsibilities principle، co-operation principle، etc. Considering the vast importance of energy in Iran’s economy، it is evident that sanctions have had widespread impacts on this part. Restricting the transfer of knowledge and technology related to nuclear activities and energy has caused problems on industry and technology.