جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه "مصونیت" در نشریات گروه "علوم سیاسی"

Acquiring responsibility in international and domestic conflicts, always has encountered with obstacles. In these conflicts we face with action and non-actions that not prohibited from the perspective of international rights and do not have the nature of the offending action. But just committing them, causes imposition extensive damage to the sides of the conflict and even third parties. The question you can do here is: why not pay attention and the success of governments and international organizations that's important. International peace and security it has always been impressed internal and international conflicts. Lack of all-inclusive definition of responsibility in internal and international conflicts, faces global equations of peace with vague variables. Acquiring responsibility in international non-prohibited acts in the rights of hostilities, by defining and identifying new weapons and its degradation range in various human and environmental spheres and ultimately their application it will be possible in the form of conventions and international treaties in the conflict's rights. In this regard, revision and correction Lahe's agreement, Geneva conventions of 1949 and 1977 protocols, is necessary and essential. Sea battleship as the most comprehensive war in the past and most likely in the future, has always been accompanied by international implications and has provided incentives international responsibility of the parties to the conflict. A war with the advancement of technology and sea weapons, will have extensive human implications and environmental.

The government is responsible for its act and omission of act about the environmental pollution. Judicial and legal rules such as rules of "Use your own property in such a manner as not to injure to another", "to be the cause or occasion of ", the regulations inserted in the international documents such as Article 8 of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 21 of Rio Declaration and Clause 3 of Article 2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights confirm that people suffered from environmental pollution must be compensated.
One of the effective solutions for compensation is, resorting victims to their respective state courts and filing legal claims against the responsible government. Typically, the defendant governments cite the principle of judicial immunity to get rid of compensation. To withdraw the immunity, the courts must refer to international rules, especially, Article 12 of Convention on Jurisdictional Immunity and their Property, and render judgment in favor of those affected.

While heads of states during the past centuries have absolute immunity befoeCiminal Tribunals by virtue of their independence and equal sovereignty of states and their senior,The current trend of international system and approach of United Nations organs in order to preserve most of humanity and human rights is formating the customary rule that is rejecting the immunity of heads of states at the time of committing the International Crimes. so that this change and development in statute and practice of theTibunales of Nuremberg, Tokyo, former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, the Special Court for Siea Leone, the Statute of the International Criminal Court and the practice of international tribunals and national courts have taken And clearly shows that the era of the absolute immunity of heads of state is over so The question that arises in this article is whether this change could indicate the formation of a customary rule. In other words, can we say that the abolition of the criminal immunity of heads of state has become the customary international law? In order to answer this question, while explaining the concept of the heads of State immunity in international law, we review the relevant international instruments as well as national and international courts practice with an emphasis on the statute and the procedure of International Criminal Court.

This article examines the extent to which state officials are subject to criminal jurisdiction in foreign domestic courts for international crimes. A concept of immunity for foreign state officials has existed since ancient times. Such immunity constitutes customary international law and, when applicable, frees such individuals from the criminal jurisdiction of foreign nations. I consider the different types of immunity that international law accords to state officials, the reasons for the conferment of this immunity and whether they apply in cases in which it is alleged that the official has committed an international crime. In light of the Judgments of ICJ and several cases before domestic courts around the world I try to find a proper respond for the following question, Does personal immunity continue to apply even where prosecution is sought for international crimes? Also I consider that instead of a single category of personal and functional immunity there are in fact two types of such immunity and that one type extends beyond senior officials such as the Head of State and Head of Government. However, I had a glance to the traditional arguments which have been put forward by scholars and courts in support of this view. This Article consists of three parts. Part I addresses immunity and state officials were accused of committing international crimes Part II explores outlawed State Officials‘ defence of immunity for international crimes and in the final section, conclusion, Dialectic between tow Doctrine, one of supports for immunity of senior officials absolutely and another Doctrine alleges outlawed State Officials‘ defence of immunity for international crimes.

The concept of justice has been always among the most important concepts in domestic and international systems and great efforts have been made to administer it in both areas, especially after the World War II. Nonetheless, in most cases, justice has not been administered to leaders, especially in the Third World countries. However, since 2002, the Statute of the International Criminal Court has become binding for its Member States and this has been a major development in the administration of justice, especially with regard to political leaders with immunity and has paved the way for discussing the concept of transitional justice. The present article aims to expound the concept of transitional justice, its conditions, goals and mechanisms, as well as the impact of its enforcement on the restoration of peace and stability in transitional societies. The main argument of the article is that enforcement of transitional justice in transitional societies, especially by taking advantage of a combination of domestic and international courts, including the International Criminal Court, can pave the way for the restoration of calm and stability to transitional societies while sending a message to other totalitarian leaders who violate human rights.

Master’s Degree in Public International Law; Qom University Occasional violations of international law occur as the United Nations and its peacekeeping forces carry out their important responsibility and mission for protecting global peace and security. Remedial mechanisms become more complicated when the actions of peacekeeping forces are attributed to the UN as a result of certain principles of international responsibility. On the one hand, the UN’s responsibility toward victims of such violations requires the world body to be answerable while, on the other hand, its immunity to trial in national and transnational courts, has barred victims from taking legal action. Although the UN has taken steps to solve this problem in order to restore the credit it has lost as a result of the actions of its forces as well as its immunity, the proposed mechanisms have posed new challenges, thus, making the UN target of new criticism. Such criticism seems even more justified as a result of the promotion of human rights in international community and alterations in the aforesaid immunity. The present paper discusses the necessity of introducing new mechanisms or reforms by the UN which would make the existing mechanisms more efficient and fairer.

The constitution determines the ruling system. It marks where power should be concentrated, how the relationship between this ruling power and the freedoms and rights of the people of the nation is, and the scale of power and responsibility of the leaders, including the executive branch, legislative branch, and the judicial branch, towards the nation. The nation’s rights are a pivotal discussion amongst political systems which is emphasized in the constitutions of various political systems. Various countries in the world try to make this the frontispiece and brightest chapter of their constitution. This research deals with the bases of national rights in the constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran and how they were formed. One of the essential constitutional discussions is the rights of individuals and the limitations of presidential power. This is given the title of ‘human rights,’ ‘foundational rights and freedoms’ or ‘the rights and duties of the government and individuals.’ These rights have been described in accordance to individualism and socialism. The constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran, distancing itself from fanaticism, is not similar to western governments before the Renaissance, where the rights of individuals were completely overlooked, and not similar to what came after the Renaissance, where divine rights were erased from the society. The foundations of this article are the rights and freedoms that the third chapter of the constitution stipulated.