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

In the current environment of international arbitration, the increasing importance of material and intellectual property and properties can be seen, which can easily lose their value if abused by one of the parties. In many cases, the delay or prolongation of arbitration causes heavy and sometimes irreparable damages to the claimant. In addition, in some lawsuits, the issue is so important for the claimant that it becomes urgent to determine the decision. This issue has led to an increase in the demand of individuals for precautionary measures so that by preserving and guaranteeing the issues under arbitration, the arbitration process does not become ineffective, and as a result, the parties do not suffer damages. Most international arbitration rules recognize the power of arbitrators to issue precautionary measures. In this regard, the present research aims to examine the regulations of International arbitration institutions such as the ICC arbitration court, WIPO Arbitration Center, PCA, ICSID Arbitration Center, and the CAS regarding the adoption of precautionary measures before and after the formation of the arbitral tribunal and finally examine the inadequacies and problems in the enforcement of precautionary measures and think of solutions for them as much as possible.

This research was done using descriptive analytical method.

However, the adoption of these measures faces problems, the most important of which is deciding on precautionary measures before forming an arbitral tribunal.

The institution of temporary order, which is also interpreted as urgent proceedings, is the institution that the petitioner requests from the court to prevent the violation of his rights in cases of urgency.The provisions of this order are stated in articles 310 to 325 of the Civil Procedure Law and it is possible to implement it in the lawsuits of commercial companies.Among the examples that can be mentioned in the field of lawsuits of commercial companies, the request to issue a temporary order to prevent the invitation of the ordinary general assembly of a joint-stock company, to prevent the issuance of shares in the capital increase of joint-stock companies, to prevent the issuance of shares of a private joint-stock company in Stock Exchange, preventing the issuance of share certificates or temporary share certificates in joint stock companies, preventing the issuance of share certificates or temporary certificates of anonymous shares in joint stock companies, preventing the arrangement of preferred shares in joint stock companies, preventing the publication of invitations Convening the second meeting of the ordinary general assembly in joint stock companies, preventing the distribution of annual special profits among the shareholders in joint stock companies, preventing the publication of announcements for inviting general meetings in joint stock companies, preventing the meeting of the board of directors in joint stock companies, They are aimed at preventing the capital increase of joint-stock companies, preventing the transfer of property and assets of the partners of the limited liability company, and preventing the distribution of benefits among the partners of the joint ventures.

Garnishment and temporary order raised in the margins of the main action and the plaintiff's right to obtain the demand in the event of a ruling in his favor at the end of the proceedings, are protected from damages due to the defendant's inability to implement the court order or his subsequent actions. The existence of many similarities between these two institutions raises the question in the mind, what is the reason for introducing two institutions for financial seizure of the defendant's property in Iran's legal system? Studies show that just as these two entities have similarities, they also have distinctive features that clearly identify the place of implementation and the border between the two, including: in order to issue a temporary order against the garnishment, in all cases, it is necessary to obtain a security to compensate the possible damages of the defendant; Or that the fulfillment of the garnishment always refers to the financial confiscation of the defendant's property, while the temporary order does not exclusively refer to this case, and it can also refer to the performance of the action or the refusal to perform the action, and most importantly, the power to "enforcement court ruling" is the ultimate purpose of garnishment, while the power to "deal with the main lawsuit" is the meaning and purpose of the temporary order. This research with a descriptive-analytical method seeks to justify the action of the legislator in predicting two separate institutions by extracting the similarities and differences between these two institutions in order to guarantee the possibility of executing the decree issued in the future.

This article paper examines the possibility of consular protection in espionage and terrorist act cases from the perspective of international law and the International Court of Justice judgment in the Jadhav case (India v. Pakistan). In this descriptive- and analytical research, by re-examining the precedent of the court in cases related to the interpretation and application of article 36 of the 1963 Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, we conclude that the Court, because of jurisdictional limitations, reaffirms its previous precedent (stare decisions) on not considering consular protection as a human right. But by remembering the responsibility of the host state to effective review and reconsideration of the convictions and sentences, the court implicitly confirms the importance of consular protection in making the right to a fair trial more effective. Moreover, by denying the existence of the "terrorism and espionage exclusion" in treaties and customary international law, the Court considered that all persons deprived of liberty regardless of their criminal charge and its gravity have the right to receive consular protection from their respective state. The approach of the International Court of Justice cas d’espece is evaluated in the sequence of progressive humanization of international law.

Urgent proceedings refer to a kind of judicial proceedings. The speed of proceedings, the fact that the merits of the case are not dealt with, and the elimination of procedure are special features of these proceedings. The result of this type of proceedings, manifested in the form of a preliminary injunction, is actually a type of precautionary measure to protect the rights of the plaintiff. Preliminary injunction in family claims is not fundamentally different from the one enshrined in the Civil Procedure Code and basically follows the same conditions. However, the existence of certain realities that require dealing with important and sensitive family issues has given a new feature to the institution of preliminary injunction in family claims. The lack of requirement to post bail or obtain the approval of the head of the judicial district, having a deadline and the possibility that the subject matter of the original lawsuit and the preliminary injunction be the same, are the special features of the institution of preliminary injunction in family cases. Article 7 of the Family Protection Code (2013) deals with preliminary injunction in the family court and contains noticeable changes compared to the previous regulations. Relying on a descriptive-analytical approach and a library method, the present article has examined the institution of urgent proceedings in family cases in the light of the changes made in the Family Protection Code ratified in 2013, and after delineating the historical background of the above institution in the family court, its special features and instances in family cases have been analyzed.

An injunction, as a remedy in tort law, is a court order prohibiting a person from doing something or requiring a person to do something. Given the wide range of subjects of these orders, this article examines what tests are established in English and Iranian law for its issuance and what obstacles can make the courts reluctant in issuing an injunction? injunctions may be issued before the final judgment as a temporary remedy or in the final judgment as permanent remedy. This article shows that, in general, injunctions in both legal systems is absolutely based on the discretion of the court, and whenever the court finds that the best remedy is the injunction, and damages cannot adequately compensate the victim’s losses, it issues the injunction. Accordingly, if the court finds that the issuance of an injunction violates the liberty of persons or inflicts unjust losses on the defendant, it refuses to issue the injunction and award damages instead of an injunction. But in English law, the loss of public resources cannot override the victim’s right to the injunction. Whereas the public interest in Iranian law have been considered by lawmakers and can be an obstacle to the issuance of an injunction.

Since 2017, the Republic of the Union of Myanmar has carried out severe repressions against the Rohingya people. These atrocities resulted in numerous international reactions from the States, international organizations, NGOs as well media. This article evaluates the proceedings of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the Gambia v. Myanmar case and the Bangladesh/Myanmar situation in the International Criminal Court. The International Criminal Court (ICC), with its extensive interpretation of the 1998 Rome Statute, found the cross-border element necessary for the perpetration of certain crimes, and despite Myanmar's non-membership in the Statute, the ICC found its jurisdiction over the crimes committed during the deportation of the Rohingya from Myanmar to Bangladesh. Meanwhile, the ICJ for the first time is facing a Case which is brought before it by an indirect victim State i.e. Gambia who has based all its allegations on the mysterious concept of violation of obligations erga omnes partes. This paper first provides summarized information on both pending proceedings and then will examine the challenges that international law has to find a proper solution for the Rohingya crisis through these judicial and criminal adjudication processes.

Can a State that has not been Injured by the violation invoke the responsibility of the responsible state? This is a question that was discussed years before the final approval of the Draft of State Responsibility in 2001, and was eventually reflected in the wording of Article 48 of the Draft. Accordingly, the Gambian instituted proceedings against the Myanmar in violation of the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide with a request for provisional measures on 11 November 2019 at the International Court of Justice. On 23 January 2021, the Court issued the provisional measures. This decision contains significant aspects, including the effect of the nature of the asserted rights on having a position in the litigation and the threshold for qualifying for provisional measures. In this paper, in the light of the Court's case-law and doctrine, we examine these two important consequences in the light of the impact of the nature of the rights claimed in the proceedings before the Court in general and the provisional measures in particular.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ), the institution for resolving disputes between states, issues an interim injunction in accordance with its mandate in specific circumstances at the request of each party. It owes its mandate, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, to the application of international law and the attainment of the purposes of the Charter, where necessary. The issuance of orders and the determination of interim measures are based on the criteria of urgency, necessity, irreparable damage and insane competence. The main question of the present case is how the Court of Justice issued its interim injunction in the case of the application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Gambia v. Myanmar) on 23 January 2020 and what changes in the type of obligations arising from the interim injunctions Created on human rights? By expanding its jurisdiction, the Court has paid more attention to human rights issues and has contributed to the human-centered development of international law. Examining the interim order of the Court in this case, it can be seen that the approach of the Court in issuing an interim order in the field of human rights has changed from a precautionary aspect to a protective aspect.

The Code of Civil Procedure In Article 120 has announced: the plaintiff is liable for damages to the litigant as a result of garnishment in the event of a final judgment against him, and in Article 323, the liability of the applicant for an interim injunction is determined if the plaintiff fails to file a lawsuit within the legal deadline or the plaintiff's claim be rejected. But the plaintiff's liability in other cases of cancellation of the garnishment or order needs to be reviewed and analyzed. Examination of the subject shows that, in addition to the issuance of a verdict against the plaintiff, in cases of issuance of a final lawsuit and failure to file a lawsuit within the deadline and termination of the garnishment appointment due to protest, fault and liability of the plaintiff is proven. However, in cases of cancellation of the garnishment or order due to rising up the cause of it, withdrawal of the applicant and removing the effect of the order by entrusting security, responsibility of the plaintiff depends on the outcome of the lawsuit.

The C.P.C in Articles 112, 118, 318, and 322 introduces the failure to file a lawsuit within the legal time limit and elimination of garnishment and temporary order to cancel garnishment and temporary order, and in Article 318, the issuance of a final verdict against plaintiff and the return of petition and lawsuit have been determined as the cause for the elimination of garnishment; however, there is no specific order in this regard in temporary order. Also, the garnishment may be annulled due to the objection of the litigant. In contrast, the abolition of the interim injunction by the provision of security is provided for in Article 321 of the C.P.C. The removal of the effect of garnishment and temporary order is searchable in cases such as resignation of applicant, issuance of any of final court orders, conciliation and issuance of an incompetence court order, but there is no definite explanation for this. The analysis of the subject in question shows that provisions of C.P.C are very incomplete, inexpressive, and inconsistent in stating the cases of cancellation of garnishment and temporary order And in each of these two institutions, it has paid attention to some cases of elimination And other cases have been neglected.

Examination of the legal materials shows that non-observance of the conditions mentioned in the relevant issues, causes liability. If, as the case may be, the plaintiff, who has been convicted of wrongdoing or annulment in the main lawsuit, may be liable or read, by not claiming damages in due time or by not requesting the removal of the effect of the security, if the plaintiff within the deadline Has not filed the main lawsuit in the law; he has acted to his detriment and has somehow waived his right, and finally the judge who was negligent or careless. or he is responsible for committing faults and mistakes in issuing the contract, as if in the case of not determining the security in cases where the deposit of security was required by law or its adequacy, the reasons for his responsibility are provided. Therefore, the authors believe that according to the general rules of civil liability, the responsibility of these people can be imagined.

The European Court of Human Rights whose main mission is to consider individual and States petitions in case of the violation of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and its additional protocols, based on the applicant’s request or at its own discretion, tries by indicating interim measures to prevent States actions that might inflict serious and irreparable damage to the applicants. This competence is not specifically enshrined in the Convention, however, it is recognized in article 39 of the rules of the Court. This article, by reviewing the Court’s case-law, investigates to what extent the Court invokes this jurisdiction and whether the interim measures entail enforcement mechanism. The findings of this article show that the Court is using interim measures in an exceptional manner to prevent the violation of articles 2 and 3 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Furthermore, due to the fact that the enforcement of interim measures is not expressly recognized in the Convention or the rules of the Court, the court by its judgments and with referring to article 34 of the European Convention, endeavors to establish an effective enforcement.

The International Court of Justice, on October 11, 2018, responded unanimously to Iran's request for an interim order in the alleged violations of the treaty of amity case and required the United States to take the necessary measures on free exportation to Iran about humanitarian needs, including medicines and medical devices, foodstuffs and agricultural commodities, spare parts, equipment and associated services necessary for the safety of civil aviation, and do not create no restrictions on the payments and other transfers of funds related to these measures. In the course of the proceedings of The Court, the United States, in addition to proposing multiple objections to the conditions of issuing the interim order (prima facie jurisdiction, the plausibility of the claimed rights and its relation to the interim order, the urgency and irreparable prejudice), argued that the requested interim order will violate the USA's sovereignty. The Court, in its conclusions, which often was as a result of the acceptance of the arguments of the Iranian legal team, affirmed the necessary conditions for the issuance of a interim order. According to The Court, the criterion of irreparable prejudices is not merely financial damage, but damage to human lives.

Nowadays, security for costs order to prevent frivolous claims has been recognized in most national and arbitral institutions laws. Nevertheless, Iran’s international commercial arbitration Act like Uncitral Model Law, 1985 has not mentioned it and so it has result in some questins in possibility and conditions to order it in arbitrations covered this law. This writing through descriptive analytical and also comparative method provides clear meaning for security for costs order and surveys its possibility and conditions to order it under Iran Law. The essay shows although it is possible to order this provisional measure, the conditions for awarding it should access with considering lex mercatoria. Other procedural ambiguities are resolved taking account applicable rules on measure interims.

Nowadays, the arbitrator can issue various protective orders in the arbitral process in international commercial arbitration. Some of these orders are so important that if the arbitrator makes decision incorrectly about the order, the award on the merits will be ineffective for winning party. The order of security for costs in arbitration is one of the above-mentioned orders. The respondent in the claim or the respondent in counter-claim requests the arbitrator to grant an order against the plaintiff for paying the sum of money. If the arbitrator’s final decision on the merits is not favor of the plaintiff, the costs of respondent for defending the frivolous claim will compensate from money. There are both advantages and disadvantages for ordering security for costs, but the advantages of this order are so much that the possibility of granting this order whether expressly or implicitly is accepted in most arbitration laws. With considering non-mentioning of security for costs in Iran’s International Commercial Arbitrations Law, the essay first is trying to study the concept and nature of security for costs order and second survey the possibility of ordering of it under Iran’s International Commercial Arbitrations Law.

Following the condemnation of the LaGrand brothers to the execution and Implementation of sentence of one of them in the United States, Germany, invoking to the violation of Convention on Consular Relations (1963) and by reference to the first Protocol to this Convention, resorted to the International Court of Justice. Germany contended that the United States violated the right to consular which provided in Article 36 of Convention on Consular Relations and provisional measures of The Court which was issued to suspend the execution of the second brother until the final judgment of The Court. The Court declares that provisional measures is binding and creates an international legal obligation for the concerned state. The Court adds that the rights contained in the Convention on Consular Relations (Article 36), in addition to the creation of international obligations to the United States vis-à-vis other states parties, entail individual rights for LaGrand brothers. This interpretation of article 36, as well as the Court's approach to the binding nature of provisional measures and the responsibility for the violation, in particular the method of reparation of this violation, namely, continuous performance for non-repetition of internationally wrongful act, is an indication of the importance of this judicial mechanism in terms of guaranteeing the enforcement of international law.