جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه "قاعده آمره" در نشریات گروه "فقه و حقوق"

The rule of the state immunity which originated from the principle of sovereign equality of states, has a long history in the international law as a customary rule. For a long time, national courts were not competent to hear claims against states under any circumstances and the immunity was absolute. As the contemporary international law was developing, the international community gradually accepted some exceptions to this rule, which were included in the 2004 UN Convention on the Immunity of States and Property. Meanwhile, some states including Canada, recognized new exceptions in their laws, considering their own interests and their citizens’interests. Amending the State Immunity Act 1985 in 2012 and passing the “ustice for Victims of Terrorism”law in the same year, Canada started to grant competence to the courts to file a lawsuit against Iran, claiming Iran’ support for terrorism and human rights violations, which subsequently led to the violation of Iran’ immunity in different cases. Using the library method and the descriptive-analytical approach, it will be evaluated whether the claims such as being a supporter of terrorism and human rights’violation, could be considered as a new exception to the immunity of states in the international law and permit the national courts to start hearings related to complaints against states and do judicial proceedings. In this regard, by examining the case of Iran v. Canada in the International Court of Justice on June 26th, 2023 and considering the unity of the criterion of the previous judgments of the Court, including the case of Germany v. Italy (2012), it is plausible that the Court will not accept the new exception.

One of the most basic principles of human rights is the right of people to determine their own destiny. The importance of this right is such that its doctrine is considered the basis of all human rights. In fact, in order to achieve other human rights, the realization of the principle of the right to self-determination is very important. The research method is descriptive-analytical. In response to the question, what are the developments in the right to self-determination in the advisory theories of the International Court of Justice in the case of Kosovo and the Chagos Archipelago? It can be stated that the right to self-determination has two aspects, including the external aspect, namely the right of the people to determine their international status and the internal aspect, the right of the people to choose the system of government, participation in community decision-making and protection of minority rights. . In Kozo's case, the court's ruling implicitly has political elements and has raised legal challenges to the relationship between the right to self-determination and the principle of territorial integrity. However, although the International Court of Justice continued to blur the line between the right to self-determination and territorial integrity by not determining the conditions for being a state, Kosovo still retained the right to win. In relation to the Chagos Archipelago, the International Court of Justice has called on all UN member states to cooperate with the United Nations to complete the process of decolonization in Mauritius, as the right to self-determination is a universal obligation. It cannot be reduced to a reciprocal task.

Undoubtedly, jus cogens or preemptory norm is always recognized as the highest source of international law. Nevertheless, the judicial review of International Court of Justice caused doubt in the absolute priority of jus cogens when violation of jus cogens and immunity are simultaneously argued in a case. Especially, in the cases concerning the Arrest Warrant (Congo v. Belgium 2002) and the Jurisdictional Immunities (Germany v. Italy 2012), ICJ tried to separate procedural and substantive norms and declared that the norms of immunity and jus cogens are different in nature, thus they couldn’t oppose each other but immunity as a procedural norm could prevent deciding about merits. In this article, by using descriptive – analytic method, the rationale behind the decision of ICJ is analyzed in order to know that if immunity is considered procedural and jus cogens is recognized as substantive norm in international law and how these norms interact. Evaluation of doctrine shows that there is no certainty about the quality of the separation of procedural and substantive norms and their proof in international law. Therefore, the court’s decision in choosing the approach could cause an insecurity in the peremptory place of jus cogens.

Peremptory norms can preserve the order, values, and objectives of a legal system. If a legal system contains peremptory norms, they indicate its advancement. Since the conclusion of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, there has been a great deal of criticism regarding the ambiguity of and contradiction in the definition of peremptory norms. Many jurists and schools of international law have developed various theories on the concept of jus cogens that tie its non-derogable characteristic to different foundations. In this article, the writer, applying pure legal techniques, will study the peremptory norms’ recognition elements and will try to reconcile different legal theories regarding the basis of jus cogens, using a dialectical method. Eventually, a comprehensive criterion for recognition of peremptory norms will be presented.

The peremptory norms in any legal system lead to the formation of a hierarchy among norms and their regulation. Until recent decades, international law had not formally recognized this fundamental concept. However, there have been few references to this concept in case law, legal teachings, and doctrines. The existence of peremptory norms (jus cogens) in international law requires its acceptance and recognition by States. Therefore, the practice of states in this regard is of particular importance. Certain states, such as France, have never agreed with such a concept, and others, Iran, for instance, despite the general acceptance of the concept in international instruments and studies, expressed their own special views on the compulsory dispute settlement procedures as to jus cogens and suggesting a list of examples of jus cogens. The examination of Iran's approach to the identification of the concept of the jus cogens and related issues, particularly in the recent study of the International Law Commission on the jus cogens, is the subject of this article. Practice of Iran in this regard, demonstrates its adherence to the values of the international community and ways of interacting with it.

The concept of jus cogens entered into international law through the law of treaties and today has become one of the most important and effective rules of international law. The principal and recognized function of the jus cogens is to invalidate any treaty which is in conflict with it. Some States resort to unilateral acts to achieve their goals and to avoid the limitations imposed by the  jus cogens, because given the lacuna in international law, they consider those acts to be outside the influence of the jus cogens. In recent years, we have seen the functional development of the jus cogens in areas other than the law of treaties. This article, examines the function of jus cogens in the field of unilateral acts of States, to determine if unilateral acts of States, where they conflict with a peremptory norm, produce any legal consequences, and if the jus cogens has any impact on such acts, is its function in the field of unilateral acts similar to that of the law of treaties or does it has a different function.

Certain norms of international law which are peremptory in nature such as prohibition of torture and genocide has been recognized as jus cognes by international society and any conflicting rule is declared as void. However, international law has its root in State wills as always. Thus, international society has not managed to enumerate examples of its peremptory rules but also to define its concept without any ambiguity. It is evident that there are some rules such as prohibition of use of chemical weapons which are not declared as peremptory rules but their general nature resample to peremptory rules and meet the criterion of peremptory rules of international law. Common feature of rule the rule prohibiting use of chemical weapons with the rules such as prohibition of torture is that all of these kind of rules prohibit heinous acts which cannot be tolerated by Conscience of any human being. This article seeks to answer the question that whether the rule of prohibition of use of chemical weapons is a peremptory rule. Although, the rule has not expressly been declared as a peremptory rule, but it is in conformity with the criterion and elements of general nature of the rule as embodied in the report of international law commission in 2017.

The theory of jus cogens entered into the international positive law by virtue of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. According to its article 53, there are three criteria for identification of a peremptory norm which are (i) being a norm of general international law, (ii) non-derogability, and (iii) recognition and acceptance of non-derogability by the international community of States as a whole. Furthermore, belief in the peremptory status of the ban on use of force is widespread but an evaluation of the prohibition on use of force based on the above-mentioned criteria demonstrates that the prohibition on use of force could not be considered as a peremptory norm since such nature has not been sufficiently recognized by the States. furthermore, it is derogable and apologetic under Security Council’s authorization to use force and self-defense, respectively. In contrast, the prohibition on aggression is indeed non-derogable and without any exception and also its peremptory nature has been implicitly recognized by the international community of States as a whole. Thus, it appears that the peremptory norm of international law on use of force should be the prohibition on aggression.

International Law has it's Constituent elements (legal systems, regimes and collections of rules); Those have interrelations from which legal networks are created. Having this in mind, the question is whether these Constituent elements only have horizental nexus or are ordered by means of factors which unified them in a vertical manner and because of that International Law is named legal order. So if such a factor(s) does exist, hierarchy of norms in International law will come to in exist and so on normative hierarchy of International Law could be deemed. Among different modes of hierarchies (structural, substantial, logical and axiological ), this article is focused on substantial factor of Hierarchy of norms in International law which is best crystallized in International law in concept of Jus cogens. Among many questions of jus cogens, (Source of Jus Cogens Obligations, The Role of Consent in the Creation and Modification of Jus Cogens Norms, Scope of Concept of Jus Cogens, Function and Effects of the Jus Cogens), in this study Concentration will be on the theoretical foundations of jus cogens which shed light on all disscusions of the conceptual and practical aspects' of jus cogens to contribute to formulate a map of the doctorine of jus cogens.

International law, as a scientific trend, has various components (systems, regimes and (sets) of legal rules) that are united by the status or factors so as to become a system. One of the concepts claimed to act as unifying factor in the constituents of international law, making hierarchy and order is the concept of the jus cogens. However, there are controversies in different conceptual and scientific dimensions of jus cogens. After the formation of jus cogens, various views on the concept and definition of it in the field of international law have been emerged. These views can be categorized in two forms of classical and modern understanding of the principle. The view of this study is that the distinct teachings of the highly scholars of international law on the concept of jus cogens suggest that the one-dimensional perspective on jus cogens cannot be a reflection of the fluid and dynamic role of this principle in the modern international legal order. Therefore, nowadays, due to the complexity of international law, jus cogens must inevitably emerge in distinct legal forms and techniques, in order to be able to maintain its system-making feature.

In order to prevent the consolidation of de facto authorities established in a territory following an unlawful use of force and/to contempt of rights of the involved peoples to self-determination, international law imposes obligations to third States. Treaties entered into with the de facto authorities established on such territories on matters concerning them must ensure the interests of the people under their jurisdiction. Otherwise, these states must expect that these treaty relations will be criticized and eventually be denounced by international and national courts. Of the same concern is the origin of the distinction that international law establishes between the different acts of the de facto authorities administering these territories . Administrative acts issued to safeguard the civil rights of the people within their jurisdiction will not be null and void unlike those that seek to allow the population to enjoy the benefits of international cooperation. This is difficult distinction to establish and implement.

It must be said that jurists and lawyers generally believe that intention has no effect on rules governing inheritance and these rules are unchangeable because they consider them as mandatory norm. Subsequently, whenever devisor or heir applies his/her intention on these rules, it has been rejected. Heirs would be able to change some of these rules in different ways, for example, by renunciation or transmission of share of inheritance. Actually in many cases these actions are compatible with legal maxims, thus it is unacceptable to revoke these actions based on stereotyped phrases. At first it’s necessary to recognize different forms that heir would be able to apply his/her intention on these rules and secondly ascertain special legal natures of them. After the investigation of lawyers and jurists' point of view we endeavor to validate such actions according to their legal natures in order to prevent the violation of the person rights.

The obligation to extradite or prosecute is a one of the most important issue of cooperation and mutual legal assistance. The main goal of the exercise of this commitment is the fight against impunity. Various conventions any prosecute or extradition has recognized this commitment with priority. In any case, what matters is combat the most serious crimes of concern is the international community as a whole. In order to fulfill the obligation to extradite or prosecute, the government obliged to take all appropriate measures, including legislation for the trial, the prosecution and investigation and referred the case to the courts of law are committed. Breach of this obligation will lead to international responsibility.
This study attempts to explain the breach of the obligation to extradite or prosecute in the light of the Convention against Torture in the framework of the International Court of Justice is the rate in 2012.

On the Basis of normative hierarchy theory, in a legal system, there is a hierarchy relation between the legal norms. International law in opposite to internal law in a primary look is composed of a set of horizontal rules and norms that no one of them is superior on the other. However, in the recent decades international authorities and international documents have applied the terms such as fundamental rules, jus cogens, erga omnes, and non-violation principles regarding the rules of human rights. with due attention to recent evolutions in international law realm, This article is to endeavour to responses this main question whether there is a hierarchy between the norms of international law or not (even not evident)?

As a main element of contracts and unilateral contracts, will has always been focus of attention of Lawyers and jurists but they have never focus on it as an effective element in inheritance neither independently nor dependently because they assume rules governing inheritance as mandatory norms. Lack of attention to said issue is rooted in the fact that the prominent view as regards the rules applicable to inheritance is that inheritance is by nature completely non-optional and rules applying thereto are among peremptory rules. In this paper we try to prove that devisor can change rules governing inheritance directly or indirectly. Some of lawyers and jurists in some cases have accepted effects resulting from such voluntary actions. Relating to this, lawyers and jurist's point of view also will be mentioned and subsequently assessed.

Lawyers and jurists always study intention as essential element in contracts and onesided dispositions and also indagate its relevant issues but they have never focus on it as an effective element in inheritance neither independently nor dependently because they assume rules governing inheritance as peremptory norms. In this paper we try to prove that a person can change rules governing inheritance by will indirectly. In other words we believe that will is able to change this rules within its authority because there is not any conflict between will and inheritance. Furthermore some of lawyers and jurists in some cases have accepted effects resulting from such wills. Thus we investigate different forms of will (for example deprivation from inheritance or changing share of inheritance and et cetera) witch practically lead to this change .Relating to this, lawmaker, lawyers and jurist's point of view also will be mentioned and subsequently assessed.

On 3 February 2012, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) reached to conclusion in the Jurisdictional Immunity of the State (the case of Germany versus Italy). This recourse as stated by Germany in its application was the only remedy available to Germany in its quest to put a halt to the unlawful practice of the Italian courts, which infringed its sovereign rights by repeatedly disregarding the jurisdictional immunity of Germany as a sovereign State. In this judgement, the ICJ studied several aspects of the customary rule of state immunity and stated that the Italian Republic has violated its obligations to respect the immunity which the Federal Republic of Germany enjoys under international law by allowing civil claims to be brought against it based on violations of international humanitarian law committed by the German Reich, taking measures of constraint against German State property situated in Italian territory (Villa Vigoni) and declaring enforceable in Italy decisions of Greek courts based on violations of international humanitarian law committed in Greece by the German Reich. This article tries to discuss the various aspects of this judgement from a critical viewpoint.

Undesirable consequences of inadequacies of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide which, on one hand, is more the result of historical revolutions and emergence of jus cogens of genocide prohibition, and on other hand, impunity of genocide perpetrators which is the direct result of weaknesses of genocide convention which ultimately led to promotion of doubts and claims as to contractual prohibition of genocide. Moreover, it led to raising claims by some for the nullification of genocide convention for its conflict with existing jus cogens of genocide prohibition. In case this claim is approved, it would deprive international community from a valuable legal document such as genocide convention. In contrast, some writers supported by the present authors are of the opinion that there are several answers to these claims which leave no room for them any longer. Thus, it basically seems that the attempt to nullify the treaties, specially human rights ones, due to the conflict with jus cogens is not well grounded, since there is neither any agreement as to the content of jus cogens nor the effects and consequences of the jus cogens are the same.