جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه « دیوان بین المللی دادگستری » در نشریات گروه « علوم سیاسی »

The assassination of Iran's nuclear scientists is one of the most important and bitter events of the country in recent decades. This issue can be examined from different perspectives and the present article examines and evaluates it from a legal perspective and in a descriptive-analytical way. The main question to which this article intents to answer is what capacities are there in the international arena for the legal investigation of the assassination of these scientists and to what extent can the Islamic Republic of Iran use them in order to exercise its legitimate rights? The hypothesis and findings of this research indicate that in the current situation, in international law, there are mechanisms for the legal investigation of the assassination of nuclear scientists, which in the present case, the Islamic Republic of Iran can also use them within the prescribed framework, But at the same time, there are some gaps and shortcomings in this field, which may face challenges in the legal pursuit of these assassinations.

Third party intervention in international justice has become increasingly important in contemporary international law. Recent developments in the case of Ukraine against Russia in the International Court of Justice may force the Court to pay attention to an important point related to the procedure of the Court regarding the entry of a third country and the manner of proceeding based on Article 63 of the Statute of the Court. The present study is written in a descriptive and analytical method and based on the study of the case of Ukraine to analyse the right of entry of the third state based on Articles 62 and 63 of the Statute and Articles 81 to 86 of the International Court of Justice's Rules of Procedure for violating universal obligations. It is argued that the court, taking into account the legal rules, the judicial procedure, the principles of humanity and the public conscience on which it acts, has adopted a precise interpretation regarding the entry of the third state. The results show that in cases where the rights between the international community of countries as a common whole are involved, if the existence of comprehensive obligations is proven, the Court should adopt a broad interpretation that favors the legal entity of the entry of the third country.

IRGCQuds assassination Force commander by the US didnt comply with any legitimate defense elements and is a international violation. the courts jurisdiction in the perpetrators criminal responsibility of this terror is important. According to the legal procedure of the ICJ, America's arguments regarding the assassination will be not accepted. America claims this action was done as legitimate defense.While the court has emphasized that legitimate defense is possible against armed attacks.Although Iran, Iraq and the USA arent members of the Statute of the ICC, the assassination of the IRGCQuds Force Commander and his companions was referred to the ICC by the Security Council and at the request of the IRI. the prosecutor of the ICC can request a hearing, and this path is smooth for the member states of the statute. the main responsibility in prosecuting crimes is the jurisdiction of the court with national courts, and in case of the unwillingness or inability of national courts or the absence of an independent and efficient judicial system, the ICC will exercise jurisdiction in this matter. courts jurisdiction is complementary to the national courts, but it cannot be considered their substitute .Therefore, the national courts have the main jurisdiction in this case

Dealing with international lawsuits and cases, especially in situations that lead to the death of civilians, is one of the unjustified actions in peace and even war. One of these cases was the US military action against the Iranian passenger plane Airbus Flight 655 on July 3, 1998, which resulted in the death of 290 passengers of this plane inside the territory of Iran. Considering the depth of the incident and its political-legal consequences for the two countries, the case of handling it with the complaint of J. A. Iran was referred to the International Court of Justice, and its legal aspects will be discussed in this research. The research question is, what approach has the court used in dealing with this issue, and was this approach able to fully satisfy the rights of the injured country? The result of the article shows that the Court has used the approach of formalism instead of realism, which leads to ignoring the rights of the injured country and not identifying the aggressor, ignoring the principles and conventions related to the air rights of countries. In the international arena, the violation of Iran's territorial sovereignty has been ignored and political consideration has prevailed over legal consideration. In the end, due to the fact that the court did not deal with the content when the complaint was filed and the concern of increasing political tension between the two countries, on the other hand, the case was declared closed without the court issuing a decision, and Iran only received The US agreed to pay compensation to Iran-Air, which indicates some domestic political considerations in addition to the court's formal procedure. In this article, descriptive and analytical methods were used to investigate the issue.

The purpose of the present study is to review the judiciary mission of the International Court of Justice against the political performance of the Security Council in international disputes. The research method is descriptive-analytic and the results showed that the court should never avoid pursuit of solving important political disputes just because they are in terms of political issues and aspects, even though there were no provable principles in international laws.

abstractImplementing the Provisional Measures of the International Court of Justice by Emphasizing the Court's Order in the Case of Alleged Violation of the Iran-US Amity Treaty (1955)The provisional measure order is one of the common legal entities in domestic law and international law. Pursuant to Article 41 of its Statute, the International Court of Justice has the power to indicate provisional measure to protect the rights of the parties as well as to prevent the dispute from escalating. Relevant provisions governing the authority and performance of the Court regarding the provisional measure are provided for in the Statute and the Rules of Procedure. The court performs this action before issuing a final judgment in the litigation. In this regard, the International Court of Justice unanimously voted in favor of Iran's request for provisional measure in the alleged violation of the Amity treaty of 1955, and required the United States to take the necessary measures regarding the free export to Iran of the humanitarian needs including pharmaceuticals, medical and health supplies, agricultural and food products and spare parts and essential equipment and services for national aviation safety. The present study has descriptively-analytically examined the main question of whether the provisional measure has been implemented or not. According to the findings of this study, the United States did not implement the order, and in this regard, the International Court of Justice has established a new mechanism to monitor and report on the implementation of this order.

One of the agreements concluded by the United States of America, which was formally withdrawn more than two years after its conclusion without any practical commitment, is Borjam. There are two conflicting views on Borjam, and the source of each view is The text, form, title, and statements of the parties to the agreement. Over time and in the implementation phase of this document, the capacities and gaps of this document have become more apparent. However, according to the International Court of Justice, the name, title and form of the agreement do not interfere with the process of invoking it. The United States has effectively violated the UN Security Council (UNSC) by imposing new sanctions after the UN Security Council and extending the previous sanctions (ISA), following which Iran has filed a lawsuit with the Court alleging a breach of the 1955 Maudut Treaty between Iran and the United States. However, considering the unilateral withdrawal of the United States from Borjam, it remains to be seen whether it is possible to file a lawsuit with the Court or not? It is not possible in the text of Borjam, but considering the nature of Borjam, it does not seem unlikely to refer to the Court. The Court may not have overlooked the United States's political accountability.

The obligations that governments undertake in their bilateral or multilateral relations are only in the light of the principles and rules governing the implementation guarantee, for which executive validity can be imagined. Any behavior by the government in the outside world, if it is contrary to the obligations of that government, will undoubtedly lead to the responsibility of the government. The International Court of Justice (ICJ) examines the Equatorial Guinean Government's complaint to the French Government, the French Government's obligations and the actions taken by the French Government regarding the alleged location of the Equatorial Guinean Government, and holds the Equatorial Guinean Government accountable. Rejects the French government. The author seeks to examine the ruling in terms of international responsibility of the government with an analytical-descriptive approach according to the rules of the International Liability Plan of the government approved in 2001.

Resolving environmental disputes is an emerging issue in the international arena. International law has increasingly incorporated environmental protection as an objective, and international courts and arbitral tribunals must address environmental disputes. This Comment discusses two recent decisions: Compensation owed by Nicaragua to Costa Rica and Burlington Resources—cases decided at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), respectively. The goal is to illustrate how international courts and arbitration tribunals have decided cases involving environmental disputes and ordered reparations for environmental harm. The finding of this study is that compensation as a latent axis of responsibility has a significant role in controlling environmental hazards. However, by examining the content of two environmental votes from two different dispute resolution authorities while explaining the basic frameworks of work, this study emphasizes the importance of environmental protection. This analysis shows, in fact, the path of evolution and development of international environmental law.

One of the preliminary objections of the United States of America in the case of the Certain iranian assets of the Central Bank of the Islamic Republic of Iran, raised in the International Court of Justice following the ruling of the Supreme Court (2016) was the citation of the doctrine of clean hands. The main point of this descriptive-analytical study is to examine the US preliminary objection based on the Doctrine of the Clean Hands. The United States had claimed that the Iranian government had revoked the right to sue by supporting terrorism and the special face of Lebanese Hezbollah Has done. The International Court of Justice, while accepting the defenses of the Iranian legal team, rejected the US objections to the jurisdiction and hearing of the petition. The Doctrine of the Clean Hands has a long history in the legal literature and has been accepted by international arbitration bodies as a condition for hearing a petition, but has never been accepted by the International Court of Justice as a preliminary objection, and the Court often Examination has referred it to the mertis level. In the case of the dispute between Iran and the United States, the Court did not violate its jurisprudence .

One of the most important powers of the International Court of Justice is to issue interim injunctions, which play an important role in guaranteeing and promoting human rights. One of the most important cases in the Court that has recently led to the issuance of an interim injunction is the Islamic Republic of Iran's complaint against the United States regarding the unilateral withdrawal from the Comprehensive Joint Action Plan and the re-imposition of sanctions against the Iranian people. The main question of the present article is how and to what extent can the interim order of the International Court of Justice be effective in preventing human rights violations in Iran? The present article uses analytical and descriptive methods to explain the position of the Court's interim injunction and its measures to guarantee and promote human rights through a case study of the return of US sanctions against Iran.

The issue of the relationship between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States is one of the most important political, economic, and social issues of the region and the world in the last four decades. The Amity Treaty was signed in 1955 between Iran and the United States to protect a healthy, peaceful relationship without economic and political tensions. Although the MOU has been the source of do's and don'ts for the parties, in many cases these obligations have not been applied or have been violated by the parties, regardless of whether or not they have violated the terms of the treaty. It became possible to bring justice and jurisdiction to this organization. Now, although the United States has announced its withdrawal from the treaty and this decision has affected the proceedings of the International Court of Justice, it is possible for the Iranian government and its persons to comply with their obligations in the event of a breach of the treaty until the treaty expires. It does not preclude the claim for damages resulting from a breach of its obligations. As a result, the Court's performance in its rulings reflects the Court's approach to narrowly interpreting the Convention, on the basis of its jurisdiction, and has adhered to its decisions and findings in matters of form and jurisdiction; as the Court's view is that irreparable damages are not merely financial, but also damages to human lives.

The United States has imposed unilateral sanctions on Iran since the 1970s, following the unilateral withdrawal from the nuclear deal, posing a serious threat to the health system and patients' rights in terms of access to essential medicines due to banking and economic sanctions. Is. Given the interim ruling of the International Court of Justice to reduce US sanctions against Iran, several legal challenges can be imagined. Therefore, the main question of the research is what legal challenges the US unilateral sanctions on patients' right to health have posed in the light of the temporary ruling of the International Court of Justice? In response to this is the research hypothesis that examines the legal challenges of unilateral US sanctions in the form of human rights challenges and the challenges of violating international law. Explanatory-causal research method is obtained by examining documents related to health in Iran Legal Challenge-Unilateral Sanction-Right to Health-Provisional Verdict- International Court of Justice

One of the jurisdictions of the International Court of Justice is to give advisory opinions on any legal question at the request of the General Assembly, the Security Council, or any other entity qualified under the provisions of Article 96 of the UN Charter. Since nearly eight decades of operation, this institution has given 27 advisory opinions; a petty number, bearing in mind the concurrent evolution and development of international law and institutions. These decisions, though not having a binding nature, their review and analysis can greatly help to clarify and enlighten the minds of the lawyers. The advisory opinion of the ICJ on the legal consequences of the separation of the Chagos archipelago from Mauritius in 1965 is the newest of these few advisory opinions, which by the way has provisions against the apparent interests of two permanent members of the Security Council (the UK and the US). This article through a descriptive-analytical method and in qualitative research nature, is trying to review and analyse this decision of the court. In the end, it has been concluded that this advisory opinion, though not binding, has shortcomings especially for not paying enough consideration to the consensual nature of the policies carried on by the UK in Mauritius, and the agreement concluded between representatives of the colony of Mauritius and the United Kingdom. However, such an advisory opinion per se indicates the fair mechanism governing the UN and its organs in observing the interests of the weak nations and developing countries.

Sexual violence against women has a deep and historical context; this violence stems from thoughts about the plurality of women and their reduction to the physical body. For decades, people have abused the conflict of sexual violence as a war tactic in order to intimidate, terrorize, and control the civilian population during domestic and international armed conflicts. Inadequate services for sexual assault, survivors during war time formal disregard for the harm inflicted on women and girls, and a lack of commitment to prosecuting sex offenders have made this fact more complicated. Despite the heinous nature of sexual crimes, these behaviors were a common and unavoidable consequence of hostilities, and therefore perpetrators were not prosecuted. Following the armed conflicts in the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda and all kinds of sexual violence against women and girls during these conflicts, the international community came up with an innovative way to prosecute sex offenders. Although since the early 1990s, international criminal courts have ruled more explicitly in these areas and prosecuted criminals, unfortunately, there are still many legal and administrative gaps in this matter. The present study responded to how to prevent such acts of violence and concluded the ICC Statute is the first legal instrument to include crimes of sexual violence against women; however, it’s applicability and implementation faced numerous legal and practical gaps and challenges.

Succession of states to international responsibility has been considered as one of the most controversial issues in international law, must be scrutinized regardless of the way the related succession has been occurred. Being controversial, united nations international law commission (ILC), as the scientific institution of codification and progressive development of international law, has also repeatedly refused to deal with the issue in question. While United States of America and Great Britain Arbitral Commission (US-Britain Arbitral Commission) and International Court of Justice (ICJ), as two legal bodies for the peaceful settlement of international disputes, via their decisions and the arguments advanced, clarified the above mentioned conception, which re-affirms the role of international tribunals in the progressive development of international law, beside their main function, i.e. the peaceful settlement of international disputes. Scutinizing the decisions of these two international legal tribunals, clearly, indicates the conceptual evolution of the succession of states in respect of international responsibility. None-succession of state to international responsibility, which explicity was considered as a principle in two arbitral awards of US-Britain arbitral commission, has gone down in the ICJ, gradually. The present paper, through the comparative study of the decisions of these two international legal tribunals, addresses the conceptual evolution of the state succession to international responsibility and its scope as the international legal conception.

The main sources applicable to the International Court of Justice set forth in Article 38 of the Statute include treaties, custom and general legal principles and Subsidiary sources include judicial decisions and doctrine and fairness if agreed upon by the parties. Judicial decisions, as one of the sources of international law, can be applied by the Court in the issues raised. The practical issue is to explain precisely the status of the legal nature of judicial decisions in the jurisprudence of the Court. There are ambiguities about the role of judicial decisions among sources and especially in judicial procedure. This descriptive-analytical research seeks to find this role and position. The main question is whether the judicial decisions of the International Court of Justice are considered as an independent source of international law or not. The purpose of this study is to determine the function and status of judicial decisions in the jurisprudence of the Court. International Justice concluded that judicial decisions retain a minor role among the applicable sources in determining rights; In the justifiable causes of the verdict and the arguments of the parties, they have a justification function and in no way, like other sources, they are judged, but they are more useful in strengthening the meaning and logic of the issued verdicts.

In accordance with article 94(2) of the charter of United Nations, If any party to a case fails to perform the obligations incumbent upon it under a judgment rendered by the Court, the other party may have recourse to the Security Council, which may, if it deems necessary, make recommendations or decide upon measures to be taken to give effect to the judgment. The Council has the full authority in response to the request of the beneficiary of judgment. However, if it accepts the request, it should not review The Court's judgment in merit. Also, the Council is not required to take into account threats to peace, violations of peace or aggression (article 39) for action according to article 94(2), and has the full authority in the type of recommendations it propose or measures it adopt. Permanent members of the Council shall not have any prohibition to veto. However, there are disagreements about whether a member of the Council that is a party to the dispute and the judgment of the Court can participate in voting in the Security Council. In practice, although the issue of the implementation of the judgment of the Court in the Council has been raised four times, no significant efforts have been made by the United Nations political organ in the implementation of judgments of the UN's judicial organ. The Council's passive approach to ensuring the implementation of the Court's judgment, which is undoubtedly one of the most important ways to resolve peaceful dispute settlement in interstate relations, is contrary to the Council's primary function, the primary responsibility for the maintenance of international peace and security, and it is required for Council to use the capacities of Article 94(2) of the Charter to implement appropriately its primary duty.

The two motifs of self-fate determination and sovereignty are of the most important basic motifs ruling over global system which have been claimed through variety ways including charter of the united nations, human rights convention 1966 of organization and opinion of the international court. The contradiction between the two above motifs has been more than the past by passing the time and emergence of developments at international scopes. It is a controversial issue if a group of people have the separation right of the other country residents due to linguistic, racial or ethnic differentiations. The study of Ukraine developments shows that issuance of unilateral independence and joining to Russia at crimea region, clearly contradicts with Ukraine national governance. The study question is: what’s the status of Ukraine’s developments and crimea separation from international law and civil rights?. At this article, the investigation and explicity of crimea separation have been studied using examining the nation’s procedure specially granted bills to international court in the case of Kosovo advisory opinion in 2009, with regard to the three approaches of absolute prohibition of unilateral separation, lack of prohibition mandate of unilateral separation at international law and the doctrine of remedial separation and attempts has been done to analysis the contradiction between the two motifs of self-fate determination and nation governance right in