جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه "national courts" در نشریات گروه "علوم سیاسی"

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

There is no specific provision in the Iranian legal system for the parties to the agreement in order to appoint a competent court to deal with the disputes. Thus, the issue of the forum selection clause is a newly- emerging phenomenon in the Iranian civil law. The present article has attempted, on the one hand, to maintain the equilibrium and balance of the trade in the business relations, as well as to maintain the balance of the contract on the basis of full compliance with all contractual terms, and provide the existing legal capacity, and the legal arguments and economic analysis in favor of "accepting the condition of the forum selection" due to the necessity of respecting the agreement of the contracting parties; on the other hand, while taking into account such considerations as fairness in support of the weaker party to the contract, the necessity of formal and substantive conditions for the validity of the Jurisdiction clause, as well as some obstacles to the exercise of jurisdiction, including the inevitable requirements of the national sovereignty in the exercise of judicial jurisdiction, it determines the principles and regulations governing the conditions based on its absolute rejection. Finally, while offering legislative suggestions, it has come to the conclusion that in the Iranian legal system, the “requirement of the forum selection” has been conditionally accepted based on the principle of the will sovereignty and the existing legal capacities. “Jurisdiction Clause.”

The issuance of precautionary measures in the arbitration process is an important issue that the arbitration rules on the subject of the Code of Civil Procedure and the International Commercial Arbitration Law, as well as international rules, have not taken a clear and unified position. The parties to the contract, anticipating the arbitration, waive the direct jurisdiction of the court and replace the arbitrator. In cases where an arbitral tribunal has been constituted, the parallel jurisdiction of the tribunal and the court having jurisdiction over the substance of the case shall be considered. In cases where the tribunal has not yet been formed and the parties are in a state of emergency, on the one hand, waiting for the tribunal to be formed will cause them irreparable damage, and on the other hand, they are reluctant to go to national courts that disagree. It seems that the best solution is that if the intention of the parties is the final decision of the case, then referring to the courts does not mean waiving the jurisdiction of the arbitrator to review the nature of the case. This rule is reflected in the new domestic laws and regulations of arbitration bodies and international conventions. According to the rule of istishab, the court has jurisdiction over all matters and in case of doubt, its survival should be upheld while the jurisdiction of the arbitrator is against the principle and is subject to the agreement of the parties and granting authority to the arbitrator.

The extradition Institution seeks to enforce justice and prevent the creation of safe havens for criminals. Nevertheless, many countries refuse to extradite criminals to countries that have retained the death penalty, while international law does not prohibit the death penalty yet. This approach is inspired by the European Court of Human Rights and many legal systems of the countries abolishing the death penalty. In this article, the importance of the institution of extradition and the legal status of the death penalty is explained and The practice of the European Court of Human Rights and some national systems is being examined, and three ways to overcome this challenge are presented: the abolition of the death penalty in the requesting states, ensure adequate guarantees of non-execution of the death penalty in the event of extradition, trial the criminal in the country that crime is done.