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

The world-circumnavigation mission by the IRIN’s 86th Flotilla – consisting of the frigate IRIS Dena and the forward-base ship IRIS Makran - stands out as a turning point in Iran’s naval history. While long-range naval missions bring many political and strategic advantages, they also pose peculiar legal challenges, many of which were highlighted during the 86th Flotilla’s mission. In the particular case of the 86th Flotilla, the key issue was the sanctioning of Dena and Makran by the United States as they were about to enter the port of Rio de Janeiro in Brazil. This paper aims to examine the sanctioning of IRIS Dena and IRIS Makran in relation to the principle of warship immunity. The results of the study indicate that the sanctioning of the two Iranian warships violate international law on several counts but may nevertheless prevent the two vessels from calling at foreign ports in the future. Meanwhile, the two warships enjoy sovereign immunity which prevents the United States or any other state from exercising judicial or enforcement jurisdiction against them. The research method of this study is descriptive – analytical and the information has been collected through library sources.

The right to water is one of the economic, social and cultural rights that have been approved by international documents. In implementing this right, states are committed to provide human access to safe and sufficient water for drinking, sanitary and domestic purposes. Although the commitment to the implementation of human rights, including the right to water, has been established in a way that basically obliges states when taking measures in their territorial territory, but based on the doctrine, the approach of human rights treaty bodies such as the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, as well as opinions International Court of Justice, it is clear that the obligation of states to implement the right to water extends beyond their territory. In view of this issue, this article based on a descriptive-analytical method answers the question that in the international human rights system, how can states implement their obligation to the extraterritorial implementation of the right to water? The article argues that, like other second-generation human rights, states are committed to respect, protect and fulfill (at two levels of maximum and minimum obligations) the right to water beyond their territory.

International Covenant of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights draws the content of international obligations of states parties to the Covenant in article 2. The Covenant obliges states parties to enter into international cooperation and assistance for the full realization of the highest attainable standards of the rights enshrined in the Covenant. Obligation to provide international assistance indicates the extraterritorial aspects of the Covenant. International Committee of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights confirms the extraterritorial applicability of obligations resulted from the Covenant. Committee considers that states parties to the Covenant are under an obligation to enforce their obligations not only within their territory, but also within territories which they have effective control over them. Committee recognizes that some states may be faced with lack of resources and, therefore, unable to meet their international obligations under ICESCR. If a state party has enough resources but is unwilling to provide international economic and technical assistance to poorer states, its international responsibility can be alleged because of breach of its legal obligations.

As a non-organized legal system, international law has been based on decentralized sanction regime. By virtue of this fact, in many cases, states have resorted to unilateral acts particularly unilateral economic sanctions as an aspect of self-help in international law. Economic sanctions have become integral features of many states’ regulatory systems and can take the form of trade embargoes, export controls, and restrictions on financing, investment and state aid. However, they have attracted a great deal of attention in recent years because of their increased use and the substantial economic and social costs they impose on targeted countries, businesses and individuals. The most problematic issue in this respect is about their legitimacy and coincidence with international norms especially international human rights law. It is said that they impose immense humanitarian costs on the civilian populations of targeted countries. Therefore, their grave humanitarian and human rights effects and consequences give rise to international responsibility of sanctioning states.

Jurisdiction as a feature of sovereignty is prevailing in both Public and Private International Law debates. Treaties, international precedents and internationalcustoms are sources of each of the two branches, and domestic courts are bound to follow every binding rule in jurisdictional subjects. Public International Law though, has no binding rule encompassing the scope of states’ civil jurisdiction. Some prominent rules in Public International Law sources are so extensive that they can justify any jurisdictional claims by the states.

The concept of jurisdiction refers to the state power and authority over its nationals and residents within its territory exercised through legal official bodies and agencies such as legislative, judicial and executive organizations. The exercise of this power beyond the territory of a country is called extraterritorial jurisdiction. As far as judicial jurisdiction is concerned, national courts apply traditional criteria and rules such as lex loci rei, lex loci solutionis, lex loci domicilii and the like in order to exercise their jurisdiction over transnational cases. However, the vast presence of transnational or multinational companies in international arena and in particular, their complex organizational structure along with the broad scope of their activities at international level caused national and international courts to face with new jurisdictional questions in cases where transnational companies are involved. Resolution of these new questions requires new criteria in order to justify judicial jurisdiction of the relevant courts. The corporate veil-piercing theory is a mechanism developed to serve this requirement. The core of this theory is to prevent fraud in transnational activities of the companies and in particular, to prevent misuse of the principle of corporate independence from the shareholders. Based on this mechanism, the relevant court may lift the corporate veil and extend its jurisdiction over the mother company – foreign company- or foreign shareholders and thus justify the extraterritorial jurisdiction of itself. This rule was initially developed in commercial cases by domestic courts and was subsequently applied by international courts and tribunals to justify diplomatic protection by national state of the shareholders and also in certain human rights cases in support of the claims by victims of human rights abuses. The application of the rule is appreciated by jurisprudence of national and international courts as well as the doctrine.

Jurisdiction is one of the inherent features of sovereignty. Extension of sovereign interests over the territorial borders has rendered to emergence of some criteria for extraterritorial application of jurisdiction. Extraterritorial jurisdictions can be recognized in three aspects: Legislative (prescriptive), judicial) adjudicative) and executive. Legitimacy of these jurisdictions depends on historical, philosophical and conceptual view to jurisdiction in public international law. We can gather pro and anti views to the legitimacy of extraterritorial jurisdiction in academic legal texts. However advocates of extraterritorial jurisdiction don’t deny the undesired consequences of this jurisdiction. So it is important that we find a proper solution for problems of extraterritorial jurisdiction. It is suggested that ‘Extraterritorial international jurisdiction’ and ‘modified universal jurisdiction’ can play a role instead of extraterritorial legislative jurisdiction and ‘transnational law’ and ‘mutual legal guarantee’ can play a role instead of extraterritorial judicial jurisdiction.