جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه « international court of justice » در نشریات گروه « فقه و حقوق »

As outlined in the Statute of the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the principles of law are directly invoked as a main source of international law for addressing legal disputes. These principles also hold significant standing within the domestic legal systems of individual states. However, in the international law, the principles of law typically serve to address potential gaps, ensuring that legal proceedings can continue uninterrupted before the courts. There is currently a broad consensus that the general principles of law, as delineated in Article (38) of the Statute of the ICJ, include the principles of both national and international legal systems. Yet, the general principles of national law are mainly recognized by the judicial authority in domestic contexts and applied as a distinct principle in the international law. For some legal scholars, the inclusion of Paragraph (3) of Article (38) of the Statute of the ICJ, which allows for the invocation of the general principles of law, is a significant milestone in the international law as it makes the states acknowledge a third source alongside treaties and custom. Some argue that the text-based interpretative approach, as employed by the arbitration and judicial courts, had gained recognition as a general principle of law prior to being formally acknowledged in the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Others contend that the general principles of law are characterized by a general, universal nature. In other words, these principles work more openly in dealing with value-based arguments and as such establish rights in a manner particularly evident in the regimes of international human rights and international humanitarian law.The present study aimed to examine the approach adopted by the International Law Commission (hereafter referred to as the Commission) towards the topic of general principles of law, as well as Iran’s stance in response to the Commission’s approach. Specifically, the Commission has demonstrated a keen interest in studying the sources of international law over the past two decades. Meanwhile, the approach presented in the last three reports by the Special Rapporteur has sparked considerable debate and controversy among proponents and critics alike, primarily concerning the identification of general principles of law derived from the international legal system. The representative of the Islamic Republic of Iran in the United Nations General Assembly Sixth Committee has also voiced opinions regarding those reports.

The discussion on the general principles of law has been relatively rare in the Persian-language studies. The topic typically finds its place in the general books on international law, especially in the sections dedicated to sources of international law. Yet, there are a few Persian-language studies that specifically address the issue. For example, in the article titled “The Nature of the General Principles of Law and Their Functions in International Law,” Mahmoudi (2018) studied the scope and function of general principles of law as well as their roles during the implementation. However, Mahmoudi’s research predates the Commission’s study, so it could not deal with the reports of the Special Rapporteur of the Commission. Moreover, the present study explored the Iranian perspective on the general principles of law, as evidenced in the statements made by the representatives of the Islamic Republic of Iran in the United Nations General Assembly Sixth Committee.

First, the present study used a descriptive approach to examine the three reports issued by the Special Rapporteur of the Commission. It then analyzed Iran’s perspectives on the reports, concluding with an analysis of Iran’s stances.

The present study aimed to examine the Commission’s methodology in studying the general principles of law, followed by an investigation into Iran’s stance concerning the Commission’s conclusions. According to the findings, Iran’s approach to the Commission’s reports on the general principles of law appears to be acceptable in some aspects while warranting further consideration. The positive aspects of Iran’s approach include highlighting the premature presentation of draft materials by the Rapporteur in the initial report, considering a non-hierarchical approach among sources, and advocating for a comprehensive methodology in extracting general principles of law from all legal systems. Conversely, there are aspects that merit reflection, such as solely relying on Article (38) of the Statute of the ICJ for reviewing general principles of law, acknowledging the role of international judges in crafting rules when confronted with legal gaps or ambiguities, recognizing the framework of customary rules as a means to establish general principles of law, basing subordinate rules outlined in Article (38) of the Statute (including the judicial precedent and doctrine) on the general precedent and legal beliefs of states. Regarding the most challenging aspect in the work of the Special Rapporteur on the general principles of law, it must be acknowledged that a review of the third part of Paragraph (1) of Article (38) of the Statute of the ICJ indicates that extracting general principles of law from the international legal system cannot be inferred from Article (38) of the Statute. Therefore, the Special Rapporteur should seek justification beyond mere reference to Article (38) of the Statute.  

The general principles of law hold significant importance within the international legal system. This significance is underscored by the former president of the ICJ, who emphasized that the relevance of general principles will continue to grow, particularly as courts encounter new challenges where existing legal regulations may not suffice, or where there is a need to consider fundamental values recognized by the international community as binding legal regulations or principles applicable to specific conditions occurring in inter-state relations. The present study could offer a sound analysis of Iran’s perspective in light of developments in international law pertaining to general principles. Critically examining and scrutinizing these viewpoints can direct the attention of the Iranian international law community towards the importance of acknowledging Iran’s approach to international law. This, in turn, could facilitate the indirect involvement of Iranian jurists, enhancing the legal stance of Iran’s representatives in the Sixth Committee and other avenues for demonstrating Iran’s approach to formulating international law. Iran’s participation in the Sixth Committee, particularly in reviewing and providing feedback on the Commission’s studies, is inherently a positive move, fostering Iran’s engagement in formulating international legal regulations.

The world is witnessing massive changes in the role of women. These conditions have led to the design and presente of executive policies in the field of gender equality. An issue that has also affectedthe procedure of the United Nations. For example theissuance of Security Council Resolution 1325 regarding women, peace and security. To the extent that the experts have talked about the formation of the established procedure to increase the number of women in the administrative and executive departments of the United Nations, and they consider such a procedure to support the goals foreseen in the organization's charter and the international charter of human rights. . But the point that cannot be ignored is the approach of the International Court of Justice as the judicial pillar of the United Nations. Currently, out of the total of 15 court judges, only 4 seats are reserved for women judges. Therefore, the main topic of the current research is to examine the performance of the Court regarding the compliance with the United Nations procedure, regarding the increase of the presence of women in the administrative and executive departments. This study has been done by analyticaldescriptive method, using library and internet resources. The findings of the research show that due to the position of the Court as the main judicial pillar of the United Nations, compliance with the established procedure of the organization and the obligations arising from it is inevitable. However, in this regard, the effective role of the approach adopted by governments when introducing candidates and voting, could not be ignored.

The principle of state immunity and the protection of state assets under international law have undergone a progressive evolution over time. Rooted in customary international law, this principle finds support in general and special treaties, customary rules, and judicial practice. It establishes that all property, locations, possessions, and tangible and intangible assets belonging to a State located in another jurisdiction must be respected are to be accorded respect and safeguarded against any form of attack or interference by administrative or executive actions. However, exceptions to immunity have emerged in light of the evolving nature of international law. In this regard, the United States courts, invoking the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act passed by Congress in 1996, have seized assets and properties belonging to the Iranian government, especially the bonds of Bank Markazi, on the grounds that Iran is considered a state sponsor of terrorism. Subsequently, Iran initiated legal proceedings against the United States before the International Court of Justice on June 14, 2016, alleging breaches of state immunity and the Treaty of Amity. The Court issued a jurisdictional ruling on February 13, 2019, and a substantive verdict on March 30, 2023. This research critically examines whether the Court considered (the assets of) the Central Bank of Iran as a sovereign and State entity entitled to immunity, or whether it construed the Bank as a corporate entity under the purview of the Treaty of Amity of 1955. Recruiting a descriptive-analytical approach to examine relevant treaties and court decisions, it concludes that, due to the sovereign nature of Bank Markazi of Iran, the seizure of assets belonging to this government institution falls outside the protective scope of the Treaty of Amity. Consequently, the Court possesses the authority to adjudicate on the issue of immunity concerning Bank Markazi. Notably, the Court's 2023 decision deviates from its previous 2019 decision, acknowledging the sovereign nature of Bank Markazi and the customary rule governing the dispute.

The decision of the International Court of Justice on March 30, 2023, is a significant achievement in the legal field of various claims between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the United States.
the International Court of Justice has divided central bank’s activities into two categories: 1- Commercial activities (banking operations, credit operations, buying and selling) 2- Sovereign actions (such as preserving the value of money and creating financial transparency) in the first category, the court found the United States in violation of the Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations and Consular Rights between the United States and Iran Tehran and by considering the Central Bank as a company (in the field of its commercial activity), affirmed the discriminatory behavior of the United States against it and accordingly condemned the United States . At the end, the Court did not accept the United States’ claims and while rejecting its jurisdiction over the violation of the Central Bank’s property immunity, set a two-year deadline for the parties to negotiate over the compensation of damages. In this article, we sought to analyze the commercial performance of the Central Bank of Iran and criticize the judgment of the Court in the jurisdiction part.

The protection of nationals is a significant issue in international law, albeit not contemporary. However, such protection is recognized by the respective State only if the injured individual has exhausted all available legal avenues for remedies (both administrative and judicial) within the domestic authorities of the defendant State. This requirement, serving as a precondition for initiating a lawsuit before international courts or tribunals, affords the host State the opportunity to investigate the alleged violation and provide redress. This article examines how the International Court of Justice (ICJ/ the Court) addresses preliminary objections and claims of non-compliance with the exhaustion of local remedy rule in cases brought before the Court. Employing a descriptive-analytical method and relying on library sources, the article explores the concept of access to justice and the exhaustion of local remedy rule in international disputes, with a particular focus on the ICJ's judgment of March 30, 2023, regarding the case of Certain Iranian Assets. The primary finding of this study is that the Court, departing from its previous approach and emphasizing the efficacy of remedies, dismissed the United States' objection that Iran failed to comply with the rule. The Court emphasized that the exhaustion of local remedy rule should be assessed on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the prevailing circumstances.

In the jurisdictional phase of the case of "Certain Iranian Assets," the International Court of Justice (ICJ/ the Court) held that the "commercial nature of the action" carried out by the Central Bank of Iran was sufficient to assess this institution as protected by the Treaty of Amity between Iran and the United States. However, in its subsequent judgment on the merits, the Court's standard shifted to focus on the "function" of this institution, deviating from its previous decision. This article, relying on precedent and doctrine, examines whether the Court is permitted to deviate from its precedent. It argues that when the issue has not changed, the Court's meaning and interpretation of a treaty must remain valid, unless there is a reasonable justification for deviating from the previous interpretation. In the present case, it appears that the Court, by deviating from its earlier decision, disregarded the principle of res judicata and the formal standards governing the matter. However, this deviation secured a greater interest, namely that the property of the Iranian Central Bank is absolutely sovereign, and as a result, the Bank enjoys the benefits of sovereign immunity under customary international law. This development has been influential in how Iran's interests are pursued before the Court.

In the case concerning Certain Iranian Assets, the United States lodged several procedural and occasional substantive objections in the preliminary stage with the aim of impeding the International Court of Justice (ICJ) from issuing a substantive ruling. These objections primarily centered around the Court's alleged lack of jurisdiction over the Case. Additionally, the United States questioned the admissibility of Iran's claim based on two fundamental charges: "Iran's abuse of court" and "absence of clean hands." These objections sought to undermine Iran's claim and its admissibility. Before delving into other claims, the ICJ addressed the objections raised by the United States, maintaining its established approach in recent similar cases. This article employs a descriptive-analytical methodology and draws upon library sources to not only clarify and refute the arguments and reasoning put forth by the United States regarding the admissibility of Iran's claim, but also to confirm the hypothesis that the Court adheres to its mainstream judicial policy on matters of "abuse of right" and "absence of clean hands." Moreover, the article characterizes the Court's current approach as consistent with recognized customary practices among international legal practitioners.

Following Qatar’s diplomatic crisis in 2017, the UAE implemented a series of measures against Qatar. In response, Qatar filed an application against the UAE at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), citing a violation of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) and claiming racial discrimination based on the national origin of Qataris. In its order dated July 23, 2018, the ICJ, in accordance with Article 22 of the ICERD, held primary jurisdiction to handle the case. The Court determined that the dispute between the parties was related to the interpretation or application of the Convention. Previous descriptive–analytical examinations show significant disagreements about the scope of racial discrimination during preliminary negotiations, with the term national origin being the focus of debates. It can be inferred that national origin, as included in paragraph 1 of Article 1 of the ICERD, entails discrimination based on current nationality. In this respect, the present research aimed to investigate the relationship between racial discrimination based on national origin and discrimination based on current nationality as elaborated in the ICERD.

While many studies have examined the ICERD and its committee, a conspicuous gap exists in the available literature concerning racial discrimination based on national origin. Moreover, given that ICJ judgment was issued in 2021, there is no serious monograph or article on this specific subject, except a few tangential studies in the legal scholarship. The two articles closely related to the topic are: “Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Qatar v. United Arab Emirates): So Far, So Good?” (Owie, 2020) and “The Role of Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination in the Development of Concepts and Provisions of International Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination” (MirAbbassi & Hassani, 2020). Materials and MethodsThe current study relied on a descriptive–analytical method, using library research to collect the data from various sources.

Research indicates significant differences in the scope of racial discrimination between the premilitary negotiations and the eventual inclusion of the term national origin in Paragraph (1) of Article (1) of the Convention. It can be inferred that this term in the Convention includes discrimination based on current nationality, hence an instance of national origin. The ICERD, which is the main international human rights document combating racial discrimination, defines racial discrimination and outlines its scope and instances. The definition comprises two elements. First, it shall involve “any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference . . . which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms” (UN General Assembly resolution 2106, p. 2). In other words, actions must lead to discriminatory behavior. Second, discrimination shall be based on prohibited grounds, including “race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin” (UN General Assembly resolution 2106, p. 2). However, ambiguities persist regarding the scope and interpretation of the term national origin, as one of the prohibited grounds in the Convention. Disagreements have actually existed among state representatives since drafting the Convention, leading to the ongoing challenges and ambiguities.The Court’s narrow interpretation of national origin and the necessity to address the impact of measures taken against Qatar have drawn criticism. The measures taken by the UAE against Qatari nationals can be considered unilateral coercive measures, violating their rights such as the right to freedom of movement and freedom of communication. Such adverse and negative effects are deemed illegal, as acknowledged by the international documents and reports by the UN Special Rapporteur on the negative impact of the unilateral coercive measures on the enjoyment of human rights. Moreover, since the Convention aims to eliminate all forms of racial discrimination, confirming that the term national origin encompasses current nationality aligns with the Convention’s overall purpose. Conversely, dissenting interpretations that exclude current nationality from the scope of the Convention contradict and undermine the purpose of the ICERD.  6.

Despite Qatar’s failure in this case, another legal opportunity remains, that is, the decision of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD). In parallel with similar facts, Qatar filed an application to the CERD. In contrast to the ICJ, the committee upheld its jurisdiction in Qatar’s case against the UAE, which is currently under consideration. The Court’s non-compliance with the CERD’s proposal and the ensuing divergent stances of the two judicial and quasi-judicial bodies introduce a new dimension to the issue. In conclusion, the ICJ shall be recognized as the UN’s primary judicial organ with the authority to settle disputes over the interpretation of the Convention. However, the conflicting views between the ICJ and the CERD, particularly following the Qatar–UAE dispute, necessitate judicial dialogue between the two bodies.

The Military Action Of The United States Of America In Martyring The High-Ranking Military Officials Of The Country Of Iran, Qassem Soleimani, On January 3, 2020, The Issue That Was Raised Among Iranian And International Lawyers From The beginning Was The Legal Response Of Islamic Republic Of Iran Government To This Incident. Contrary To What It Claims, The American Military Action In This Incident Does Not Comply With Preventive Or Preemptive Elements And The Conditions Of Legitimate Defense And Is An International Violation. The Feasibility Of Judicial Pursuit Of Criminal Liability And Civil Liability Resulting From This Illegal Act In The International Criminal Court And The International Court Of Justice Is The Subject Of This Article. Despite The Non-Membership Of Iran And The United States In The Statute Of The International Criminal Court, Iran Can, By Persuading The Iraqi Government To Accept The Court's Case Jurisdiction, Provide The Possibility Of Exercising The Court's Jurisdiction Over This Case, But Even In This Case, The Case Of The Assassination Of Lt. Gen. Soleimani Cannot Be Pursued Within The Framework Of One Of The Four Crimes Under The Court's Jurisdiction. The Most Effective Legal Mechanism Is Pursuing The Civil Responsibility Of The American Government For This Criminal Act According To The "Convention On The Prevention And Punishment Of Crimes Against Internationally Protected Persons, Including Political Missionaries" (1973), Which The Governments Of Iran And The United States Are Members Of. And Also Preventing The Establishment Of A Mixed International Court, Especially Through The Conclusion Of An Agreement Or The General Assembly Of The United Nations Or The Organization Of Islamic Cooperation. This Convention Prohibits The Commission Of Certain Crimes, Including Murder, Against Persons Under International Protection. It Has Predicted A Dispute Resolution Mechanism That Will Eventually End Up In The International Court Of Justice.

Is it possible for genocide to be committed only by states with totalitarian and authoritarian political regimes? Events and studies in Canada over the past few decades prove the opposite. A wealth of Canadian state documents, witnesses, officials’ confessions, and surveys show that the genocide of Indigenous peoples as the main owners of the land was carried out in a very slow, lethal, and mostly non-lethal manner against this population. The article, while reviewing the facts of the case in the light of case law and related international documents, considers the option of bringing an action against the state of Canada in the International Court of Justice to reiterate to the members of the international community the need for appropriate action. Reconsider their approach to the people under their jurisdiction so that they do not commit genocide as the most heinous international crime, and thus we witness a day without repeating the unbelievable stories of a generation of people trying to destroy other generations.

One of the accusations against the Zionist regime is committing the crime of genocide in the Gaza Strip. According to the 1948 Convention on the Prohibition and Punishment of Genocide, member states are not only required not to commit or incite genocide but also have an international obligation to prevent the commission of genocide or incitement to genocide as an independent criminal act. Committing war crimes in violation of the Four Geneva Conventions (1949) and crimes against humanity contained in the Rome Statute (1998) of the International Criminal Court by the Zionist regime are also other cases that point out the need to review the judicial mechanisms to pursue and file a lawsuit against this occupying regime. The main question of the current research is that, considering the need to deal with the impunity of international crimes, in the current international system, what are the effective mechanisms for pursuing and prosecuting the violators of human rights and humanitarian rights attributed to the Zionist regime in the Gaza war after October 7, 2023?. This research examines mechanisms such as the International Court of Justice, the International Criminal Court, national courts based on universal jurisdiction, and regional and special courts with an analytical-descriptive method.

On July 9, 2004, the International Court of Justice issued an advisory opinion concerning the construction of a wall in the occupied Palestinian territories. The court by determining the rules and principles of International law rendered its advisory opinion the construction of the wall is illegal. Although, Israel was under an obligation to terminate its breaches of international law, the Israeli occupation regime started to construct several more walls, including the construction of the wall in Gaza. Therefore, Considering the violation of the fundamental rules of international humanitarian law and human rights on a very wide level by the Israeli regime in the Gaza conflict after October 7, 2023, it is important to reread the advisory opinion of the court. The purpose of this article is to examine the dimensions of humanitarian rights and human rights in the advisory opinion of ICJ. Hence, by emphasizing the status of the Gaza Strip as an occupied territory and the violation of the rules of occupation due to the large-scale crimes committed by the occupying regime of Israel in the 2023- 2024 conflict in Gaza, it is of paramount importance to regard  the negative psychological and human consequences of the construction of the wall in Gaza caused by the violation of human rights in this region. For this issue has been effective in the attack of Hamas on Israeli positions.

The right to counsel for the accused is recognized in the national criminal justice systems. International obligations also indicate the recognition of this right in various sources of international law including international instruments and international jurisprudence. Among international instruments, the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (1963) emphasizes the right to counsel for the alien accused in the form of the right to consular assistance. The judgment of the International Court of Justice in the La Grand Case (2001) is one of the most important international judgments on the right to consular assistance for the alien accused. The present article papers answers the principal question of how the right to consular assistance for the alien accused is reflected in the judgment of the International Court of Justice in the La Grand Case (2001). The findings of the present article paper indicate that the right to counsel for the alien accused in La Grand Case is according to the Vienna Convention recognized in the form of the right to consular assistance and the Court considers the right to consular assistance for the accused to be an individual right which its main beneficiary is the accused, not his state.

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, International Court of Justice as the principal judicial organ of the United Nations and also one of the highest international forums with general subject-matter jurisdiction has had an important role in development of international law for decades. In spite of ICJ’s core role in the development of international law, the legitimacy of this contribution has always been contested by some scholars. It is obvious that ICJ is not and could not be a legislative body in international law, but through of its judicial capacity the ICJ has developed existing rules and clarified the vague customary rules. In this respect, the legitimacy of those decisions or practice has always been questioned. As this article argues, ICJ through its high position in the international dispute settlement system and also its justification capability, has obtained enough legitimacy of the development of international law and such legitimacy has been approved by international community.

Maintaining international peace and security is considered to be the mission or at least one of the primary missions of the United Nations. As such, the rules and principles of the United Nations, as reflected in the UN Charter, are directly and indirectly tied to international peace and security. This contribution will study the role of the International Court of Justice in fulfilling this mission. After examining the conceptual evolution of international peace and security, the paper will examine the capacity and performance of the ICJ, as a court with international jurisdiction on a global scale and a pillar of the United Nations. As the main judicial organ of the United Nations, the ICJ plays an important role in maintaining international peace and security by way of its judgements and advisory opinions. It will be argued that due to the ICJ’s effect on the development of international law, the court plays an indirect but crucial role in maintaining international peace and security. It will also be argued that the court can play an even more active role in maintaining international peace and security through so-called normative supplementary jurisdiction.

The immunity of the state has a strong basis in customary international law. But the nature of these rules is not exactly obvious. Lawyers have different points of view on determining immunity as procedural or substantive rule. Twice the International Court of Justice had the chance to evaluate the nature of state immunity and its probable conflict with substantive rules. The first time, in the case concerning Yerodia arrest warrant (Congo v. Belgium) in 2002 and the second time, in the case concerning the Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v. Italy: Greece intervening) in 2012. The question of this paper is whether the distinction between the procedural rule of immunity and a substantive jus cogens rule as is used by ICJ has a legal basis or can it be legally challenged? It will be argued that the ICJ approach in using the distinction can cause problems like descending the position of jus cogens and impunity for the perpetrators of the most serious crimes. Thus, the ICJ should be more cautious in using such a reasoning.

One of the main factors in the formation of thought system in international litigation and arbitration is the cultural considerations pertaining to judges and arbitrators. That is to say, due to their educational and cultural backgrounds, judges and arbitrators obtain a particular legal culture, which leads them to consider legal matters through the prism of their cultural background. Cultures may have close similarities with each other or may be distant from one another. The intersection of opinions and actions of judges and arbitrators with each other and with other actors, contributes to a form of cultural diversity or similarity in international judicial practice. The present article– in explaining this concept and analyzing its role in international arbitration and in the proceedings of the International Court of Justice- attempts to suggest that diversity of legal cultures leads to formation of a specific language in its own turn, through which actors in this field engage in various communicative exercises. Awareness and knowledge of this common language can lead to a better understanding of relevant legal issues in theory and practice.

According to its statute, the International Court of Justice has the authority to issue temporary measures in order to protect the rights of the parties to the dispute and also to prevent the spread and deterioration of the dispute. From the beginning, these appointments have been faced with different interpretations of the related countries. Some countries considered these appointments non-binding; while others considered them binding. There was some disagreement in doctrine as well. In this article, while examining the legal nature of temporary measures, it has been discussed whether there is an enforceable guarantee in international law for the implementation of temporary measures or not? In addition, what is the procedure of countries in this regard?

The present research was carried out with a descriptive-analytical method.

According to the court's procedure, especially in the Lagrand case, the orders of temporary measures of the court are binding. Therefore, the addressee countries of these agreements are legally required to implement them. The agreement is a temporary measure, including the binding decisions of the court, and the countries use different methods to implement it, including unilateral measures, referring to the Security Council, referring to domestic courts, and countermeasures. The guarantee of the implementation of temporary measures is the same as the guarantee of the implementation of international law.

The proliferation of international decision-making authorities have led to developments in terrorism as regards its concept, extension, relationship with the law of armed conflict as well as human-rights law. The authorities have taken significant steps to define terrorism. For instance, the Security Council has defined terrorism for the first time, and has affirmed the possibility to recourse to self-defense against terrorist activities. Compared to the ICJ, the approach of the Security Council seems to be more advanced. Indeed, the Council has established a law-making function for its self. This is unprecedented in terms of international law and the practice of the United Nations. With respect to the necessity of observing human rights for persons accused of terrorism, the judgments and resolutions of different authorities articulate that UN member states are not free to take any action in the name of fighting terrorism. It will be argued that the proliferation in international decision-making authorities, such as the ICTY and the ICTR, as well as regional authorities such as the European and American human rights courts, has had a positive impact on the concept of terrorism in line with human rights standards.