جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه « تحریم » در نشریات گروه « فقه و حقوق »

The imposition of sanctions against Iran over many years has impacted crucial economic sectors, including the banking, energy, and industry as well as the health and medical systems and the scientific field of the country, leading to significant losses for natural and legal persons and raised questions regarding the methods of compensating and evaluating these damages. This research explores the forms of compensation in domestic and international law and examines the evaluation of material, moral and punitive damages. The compensation methods in domestic and international law generally follow a similar approach. Material damages can be compensated financially, whereas moral damages might not be adequately addressed through financial means alone; in such cases, non-financial methods like formal apologies, acceptance of violations, and expressing regret are utilized. Material damages can be evaluated with high accuracy using case-by-case criteria, ensuring the rights of the victims are not violated, and macroeconomic variables can be applied in extensive lawsuits. For moral damages, due to the complexity of calculating, a mixed criterion is preferable. Finally, in assessing punitive damages, the prolonged and severe impact of sanctions, along with the extent of material and moral damages, should considered.

Actions such as illegal unilateral sanctions and politically motivated dumping may cause instability in the politico-economic system of the targeted country which can lead to human consequences, fear, and terror including economic terrorism. However, as international law stands now, there is no instrument defining economic terrorism, determining its instances and specifying legal and practical mechanisms  to confront it. This paper aims to examine economic terrorism and its instances and create mechanisms as well as a codified legal system to deal with this issue. Economic terrorism in the form of imposing unilateral economic sanctions contrary to international law and dumping is illegal and inconsistent with the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter, international customary trade law and UN Security Council resolutions. Therefore, to counter economic terrorism, it is necessary to give a precise and legally comprehensive definition of this kind of terrorism in international instruments acceptable to the international community. The present study is based on a descriptive-analytical method.

Continuity of imposing sanctions against Iran and its harmful effects on natural and legal person has brought up the necessity to determine of the scope of liability due to imposing sanctions. Clarifying this issue requires examining the viewpoints of thought governing the limits of the legitimacy of sanctions and then determining the scope of civil liability due to imposing of illegitimate sanctions in domestic and international law. The present research which was written with analytical-descriptive method and using library tools, clarifies foundations of civil responsibility due to imposing sanctions in domestic and international law. Regarding the conceptual difference of civil liability foundations in domestic law and international law, civil liability due to imposing of sanctions in domestic law is subject to the theory of fault and in international law is subject to the theory of risk, but both domestic and international systems have this common point that they consider the act of violation of international law as an objective element, regardless of whether that act is intentional or unintentional. In this way, the imposition of sanctions that enforce or effect it violate international law, will causes responsibility of the sanctioning authority.

Exercising the jurisdiction of states in different maritime areas is a subject that has always been a source of controversy throughout the history of the international law of the seas. The efforts that have been made to increase these qualifications and the restrictions that have been applied to regulate them. However, on what basis such an increase and limitation of jurisdiction is done, it has caused many disputes. On the one hand, states emphasize the unquestionable principle of freedom of navigation contained in the UNCLOS, and on the other hand, by entering into some agreements to inspect and seize ships, they limit and, as a result, interfere with navigation. Today, in addition to the traditional interventions and restrictions on navigation that are stated in article110 of UNCLOS, we are facing emerging issues in the field of seas, which can be the reason for the intervention of ships in order to maintain international peace and security, interests and internal laws of states. Providing and implementing sanctions is an important part of this position. The main question is how to justify the intervention of international navigation in the implementation of cross border sanctions? In the present article, which is written with a descriptive analytical method and using library sources, by examining the legal bases of intervention in shipping and the implementation of economic sanctions in this regard, it can be concluded that today the acceptance and implementation of international agreements that it is considered as one of the main policies of governments, it it has been able to remove the interventions towards the ships from the framework of the Convention on the Law of the Sea and puts the implementation of unilateral policies of the governments such as the application of cross border sanctions, which is a sign of deviation from important principles such as the principle of freedom of navigation.

After the Cold War, the Security Council has widely used the tool of sanctions, referring to the seventh chapter of the Charter. The consequences of sanctions in the target countries show that the most damage has been inflicted on the people and human rights standards have been violated. Sanctions in international relations are a tool to change the behavior or unfavorable policy of the government. Violation of human rights or the fundamental rules of international law is one of the red lines that are crossed by imposing sanctions and the legal validity of sanctions is distorted, and the effects of resorting to sanctions may be considered as an example of committing an international violation. In this article, we are trying to analyze the results and effects of unilateral sanctions against Iran while reflecting on them. Paying attention to the types of classification of sanctions. In this article, we will discuss the possibility and refusal to violate human rights through unilateral sanctions. The hostile behavior of the United States of America against Iran has continued since the beginning of the revolution. Collective sanctions imposed by the United Nations Security Council against some countries and unilateral sanctions against other countries have many destructive effects on human rights. Imposing such sanctions in terms of violation of treaties is a violation of the jurisdiction and legal powers of this council and is invalid.

The increase in sanctions during the last two decades has created numerous legal issues in contractual disputes, especially in national courts. It is clear that national courts of the sanctioning country, take into account the sanctions enacted by the foreign government, and in case the sanctions conflict with the rights and obligations of dispute parties, they adjust the final verdict in compliance with their internal sanctions laws. Nevertheless, the question is whether a court can, in the process of describing, interpreting, and applying the legal and contractual obligations of the litigants, consider, sanctions imposed by foreign countries or entities in its decision-making process to issue a judgment in the case. In this article, an attempt has been made to examine this legal question with a case study of the approach and procedure of German courts that have significant contractual relations with Iranian individuals. The findings show that the courts of this country, in contractual disputes in which there is an element of sanctions of foreign origin, do not refer to private international law and the rules of conflict of laws, and directly use the capacity of the domestic substantive laws of Germany. Simultaneously, they pay attention to the considerations of German foreign policy to issue the final verdict in such cases. German courts also pay attention to the goals and interests of the European Union's foreign policy and European values in the decision-making process to give effect to sanctions of foreign origin.

The confrontation between Iran and America began in 1979 with the victory of the Islamic Revolution in Iran. This is one of the most important issues that have been discussed at the global level, or at least it is considered a sensitive issue in the Middle East region. This confrontation can be examined in two areas of war and sanctions: in the war, the United States, with its all-out support for Saddam against Iran, sought the fall of the Islamic Republic during eight years of imposed war, during which Saddam committed all kinds of crimes (war crimes, genocide... ) committed The use of chemical and biological weapons against Iranian forces and the Kurds resulted in unforgettable crimes, the clear example of which is the Halabja crime. At the end of the war, America directly entered the fray and targeted Iranian oil platforms and ships. The last crime of the US was the killing of 290 passengers of an Iranian passenger plane over the Persian Gulf by the USS Vincennes. Finally, this process led to the acceptance of Security Council Resolution 598 by Iran, which was not recognized as an aggressor country in the Iraqi resolution. And in the field of sanctions, the US first froze more than 12 billion dollars of Iranian assets in 1979, and the US Congress allowed the amounts to be confiscated. This embargo policy started during the Carter era and was intensified during the Clinton era with Ilsa's embargo in Congress. America was able to impose Security Council sanctions on Iran during the presidency of Mr. Ahmadinejad

The currency system of the country has been in turmoil in recent years due to the imposition of international sanctions against Iran, and illegal currency brokers and traders have fueled this turmoil. Meanwhile, some unauthorized foreign exchange brokers and dealers have further provoked the turmoil. Unfortunately, by forming groups of hundreds persons in real life and virtual environments, some of the brokers attempt transactions called “foreign exchange value tomorrow” something which, according to economic studies by the central bank of Islamic republic of Iran, have created disturbances in the Iranian economic system. foreign exchange value tomorrow transactions include those transactions when the parties, without giving or taking, postpone foreign currency delivery to tomorrow or some days later, while most of the time no delivery takes place, and the parties just regard the exchange rate difference. According to the regulations of foreign currency exchange and amendment of anti-smuggling of goods and currency act, foreign exchange value tomorrow transactions, are considered illegal.

On January 23, the Council of the European Union approved the executive regulation proposed by the Commission of the Union and the High Representative of the Union regarding the imposition of restrictions on several Iranian entities and individuals and stipulated that it is applicable in all member states. In this document, several persons and institutions, including the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice headquarters and its secretary, are sanctioned. In this descriptive-analytical note, we are looking for an answer to the question whether this sanction has a justified legal basis. If any loss or damage is caused by this sanction to the headquarters or its secretary or to the people of Iran, what mechanism is there to compensate it? In addition to the indirect attack of this document on the fundamental rights of the Iranian people under the pretext of protecting the people and the ability to demand compensation for the damages caused by this decision of the European Union due to the violation of some international and European human rights documents, considering the gross errors in Regarding the executive position and performance of the headquarters secretary, the legal nature of the headquarters, the legal duties and performance of the headquarters in the past two years, and the great similarity of the literature contained in that document with the literature of the media flow of the rebels and subversives, it seems that the writing of this document It has been entrusted to the agents of the aforementioned organizations, especially the terrorists of the Mojahedin Khalq. This decision, which cannot be unrelated to Europe's adherence to America's policies against Iran, has been approved with gross error by an institution that claims to dominate the rights and decide the fate of other nations.

As the U.S. sanctions against Iran have been expanded, many legal service providers, even in European countries, refused to provide legal services to Iranian nationals or disputes that are somehow related to Iran. In particular, this refusal by arbitration organizations has been more noticed. The main question of this research is whether the U.S. secondary sanctions can be invoked for the refusal to provide legal services by arbitration organizations and, accordingly, the financial services of financial institutions which are active in arbitration processes.According to the three executive orders by the president of the U.S.A. against Iran, On the one hand, the provision of legal and financial services by arbitration organizations and financial institutions active in arbitration processes exposes them to the risk of sanctions and penalties for violations of the sanctions; On the other hand, A general license has been stipulated in § 560.525 (a) and (d) of the “Iranian Transactions And Sanctions Regulations” which includes the provision of legal services. But even this is not certain. This exception is also limited and restricted according to § 560.525 (d)(1) ofIn conclusion, although, these three executive orders and the general license exception have not explicitly prohibited the provision of legal and related financial services to Iranian nationals or disputes that are somehow related to Iran; practically, they turn it into a cost-benefit-based evaluation that is done by arbitration organizations and financial institutions, even if the refusal to provide services leads to the possibility of claiming for damages against them.

The increase of sanctions during the last two decades, especially unilateral sanctions, has created numerous legal issues, especially in contractual disputes before national courts. This question is raised, what effect do sanctions imposed by the country or an institution other than the country where the court is located have on the applicable laws and contractual obligations raised in the process of dealing with contractual disputes before that court? It is clear that the court located in the sanctioning country take into consideration the sanctions imposed by that country. In such a case and in case of conflict of sanctions with the rights and obligations of the litigants, the court will adhere to those sanctions in its final ruling. Now, can this court consider the sanctions imposed by third countries and institutions in the process of describing, interpreting and applying legal and contractual obligations? Therefore, in this article, the judicial practice of the UK’s courts in facing the issue of sanctions with foreign origin was evaluated. Finally, it became clear that legal procedure in this field in Britain is not unified; In some cases, the court ruled based on considerations related to UK foreign policy, and the sanctions of the third government were given effect, but in other cases, the sanctions were not given effect regardless of these considerations.

The importance of energy resources is rising in economic and political equations and current and human life is dependent on energy. In fact, energy drives all the activities of industry, transportation, agriculture, etc. America is the largest producer, consumer and importer of energy in the world and is considered the most important player in the global energy field, especially in the field of oil. This country plays an essential role in guiding the global energy system through security and energy policies and using the levers of its power, in a way that provides its national interests. Therefore, America's energy strategy has an impact on other countries of the international system, including Iran. The purpose of this research is to examine the role of American energy strategy on Iran's energy policy. In this regard, by dividing America's energy policies into practical and declarative policies with a political and economic approach, their effects on Iran's energy policy and energy security have been evaluated. The findings of the research indicate that the American energy strategy has had direct and indirect negative effects on Iran's energy policy and security (exports, industry and foreign investments). According to its theoretical nature, the research method is a descriptive analytical method and a library-style information gathering tool.

Jurisprudential examination of economic sanctions is necessary in order to provide solutions to deal with these sanctions. Based on this, the current research seeks to examine jurisprudential and legal solutions to deal with economic sanctions. This article is descriptive and analytical. The materials and data are also qualitative and data collection has been used.Ethical Considerations: In this article, the originality of the texts, honesty and trustworthiness are observed. Productivity, patience and good planning, maximum use of capacities, recognition of managerial priorities, countering the levers of power and unity and cohesion are the most important jurisprudential solutions for dealing with economic sanctions.Nevertheless, in the functioning of the human rights bodies and institutions of the United Nations, it is possible to observe a kind of supervision, albeit indirectly, on the functioning of member states of human rights treaties and the actions of the United Nations itself, especially in the field of economic sanctions. From a jurisprudential and economic point of view, there are solutions for economic sanctions, but their realization requires the development of appropriate economic and legal strategies.

Human rights are one of the most fundamental rights that every individual enjoys inherently and simply as a human being. In contrast, sanctions, as levers of pressure on governments, mainly for various political purposes, directly and indirectly, have many adverse effects on the rights of the citizens of the sanctioned states and overshadow the different dimensions of human rights. Doubts that have always existed about the legality of sanctions are growing in the face of an epidemic, which requires effective treatment in all countries. Therefore, the main question of this research is that in terms of international documents in the field of human rights and health rights, can the sanctions during the global epidemic be considered legitimate? The present study aims to explain the legitimacy of sanctions for violating these obligations of governments by descriptive-analytical method while examining the human rights obligations of governments in the face of epidemics. The results of this study show that if the sanctions violate governments' commitment to international cooperation, respect for human rights, and international health law, they have no legitimacy, and the Security Council or sanctions-imposing governments will be held accountable for violating their obligations.

In today's age, the Internet as a wide and important communication tool can be sanctioned based on Article 41 of the United Nations Charter and international laws under the guaranty of implementation. Despite this prediction, no clear action has been reported by the Security Council in this regard. Although in practice, these are the governments that apply this restriction against each other without any permission and legal order and accept such restrictions within the limits of their international treaties and legal principles, but this is only as long as the countries are within the scope of power. have not taken action. In this case, instead of being a guarantee of enforcement, the internet ban becomes criminal in nature and is condemned by another enforcement guarantee. With the studies carried out in this research, in a descriptive-analytical way, the internet embargo is expressed in two distinct concepts and examples, one time as a guarantee of implementation and another time as an international crime, and finally, this is expected from the Security Council with Such behavior that violates international security and peace on a macro level, such as war and internet terrorism, and the International criminal Court should apply the necessary procedures for judicial proceedings

The United States of America has always imposed many sanctions on the Islamic Republic of Iran after the revolution. These sanctions, with whatever goals they have, cause a clear violation of the basic values and principles of human rights and directly and indirectly violate the right to life, the right to work, the right to education, the right to development, etc. They strongly affect. The research method is a descriptive-analytical method and the method of collecting information is library and document type. In this research, the unilateral sanctions of the United States of America against the Islamic Republic of Iran will be examined with the aim of understanding their role in the violation of the right to development. Based on this, the question arises that "what effect has the sanctions of the United States of America against the Islamic Republic of Iran had on the right to development in Iran?" According to the investigations of this research, its findings show that the sanctions of the United States of America, while directly targeting the Iranian people, have severely violated their fundamental rights, including the right to development in Iran.

In Iranian legal system, several acts have been enacted on the liability of foreign state for violating international law. Some of these acts have been enacted in order to protect the rights of the Iranian people and diplomatic support, and others in order to make counter measure against violation of immunity from jurisdiction and enforcement ‎by a foreign state, as well as to determine the competent court to file lawsuits and similar issues. In this study, Iran's legislative performance in the mentioned issues with an analytical approach, in order to identify Iran's legal capacity regarding the responsibility of the foreign state is examined and then the gaps in the mentioned laws are discussed. A study of the various acts in this field shows that these acts are often written without proper notice to sufficient accuracy, expert opinions and principles of legislation. Therefore, it is needed to consolidate these acts, which mainly have the same subjects, into a coherent act with sufficient scrutiny in writing articles, considering international law, and without mere quick reactionary approach to foreign state’s measures.

Unilateral US sanctions against Iran aimed at changing the behavior or change of the political system of the Islamic Republic of Iran have directly and indirectly led to the violation of Iranian human rights, and in particular to the challenge of economic rights. It does. The present descriptive-analytical study seeks to answer the question of on what grounds the US government can be committed to respecting the human rights of Iranians in the face of unilateral sanctions. It is necessary to prove this commitment because the international responsibility of the state depends on conditions such as proving the existence of the obligation and then violating it. The findings show that in the case of Iranians living in Iran, these commitments are extraterrestrial in nature and in particular involve a breach of commitment to respect and international cooperation. In the case of Iranians residing in the United States, the US government is committed to respecting and respecting these rights in its territory, and in relation to Iranians residing in third countries, there is a mix of US extraterritorial commitments and territorial commitments.