جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه "انکار عدالت" در نشریات گروه "فقه و حقوق"

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 cornerstone of international investment law is to ensure the foreign investor's rights through international law standards including fair and equitable treatment. If the host state violates the standards, the foreign investor will not be obliged to raise a claim before local courts prior to international settlement of dispute. In contrast, in denial of justice, the investor must exhaust local remedies before seeking international redress. So in this respect, The Loewen case as an important arbitral practice on the relationship of denial of justice and exhaustion of local remedies will be analyzed in this article. The approach of Investment treaties will also be evaluated. This article concluded that arbitral tribunal in Loewen has made mistake by distinction between local remedies and finality rule. In order to resolve this ambiguty and confusion in investment arbitration in the field of denial of justice, one should wait for the treaty procedure of the states in bilateral or multilateral treaties for mutual encouraging and supporting of investment

In this article, an attempt has been made to examine the doctrine of "denial of justice" in international law under the title "denial of justice" and its examples. Let us explain Iranian law and point out the effects of recognizing this doctrine in Iranian law. "Denial of justice" is a type of "severe injustice" that calls into question the basis of proceedings and lawsuits to the point where it seems that "rights are denied". Currently, since this doctrine does not have a binding aspect, if it occurs in substantive discussions, it can only be placed in the form of injustice, the subcategory of contradiction between Sharia and in contradiction with the basis and philosophy of law, and for this reason, it may be possible to consider its influence on the judicial decision was hopeful. But if there is a denial of justice regarding the formal regulations, we cannot take action to fix it and we have to comply with the formal law, even if it is unfair. Whereas if this doctrine is developed and considered as a rule or law or doctrine, it can be cited in different stages of proceedings and the judges will be obliged to resolve it. The purpose of this article is to identify and introduce the doctrine of "denial of justice" in Iran's legal system, so that it can enter Iran's law as a recognized rule and be considered and cited effectively. This doctrine can significantly reduce cases of rejection of lawsuits and petitions and avoidable delays, it can have a profound effect in preventing the loss of the rights of the litigants and the waste of time and cost of proceedings, and it can be a document for issuing more fair rulings. Paying attention and recognizing and finally using this doctrine, while creating a change in proceedings, can be a means of asserting the rights of individuals whose rights have been violated under circumstances and are desperate to resort to litigation