جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه "international economic law" در نشریات گروه "فقه و حقوق"

Transparency in international law refers to the accessibility of information about decisions and actions of the parties involved in international economic relations. In spite of existence of principle in various aspects of international economic law, its nature and content remains ambiguous. So, the question is whether transparency can be regarded as a binding legal principle. The present article through a descriptive-analytic study shows that transparency as a legal principle is a fundamental principles of international economic law that can be seen in state practices and international case laws. It also has all features listed for a legal principle. Thus, this concept can be recognized as an obligatory principle in various areas of international economic law, such as international investment law, international trade law, international monetary and financial law, and International commercial law. But, it should be considered that positivist approach to international law appears as an obstacle to implement and exercise of the principle in all detailed sub-division of above-mentioned areas.

Cryptocurrencies are digital assets created using encryption techniques intended to serve as a means of exchange. Given their cross-border nature, it's important to consider their status within the international legal system. While many governments have recognised cryptocurrencies as money, others view them as assets that can be traded, like goods or services. Under certain conditions, they may also be treated as investments. This raises the question of how cryptocurrencies should be classified under international law of trade and foreign investment law. The hypothesis is that categorising cryptocurrencies as goods, services, or capital presents challenges in applying traditional international law of trade and foreign investment frameworks. The World Trade Organization, as the most critical component of the international trade regime, lacks explicit rules related to cryptocurrencies. Applying the principles of the national treatment and the most favoured nation within this framework to cryptocurrency-based transactions will encounter obstacles. One of the most significant challenges in classifying cryptocurrencies as foreign capital is determining whether these assets meet the requirements for such classification, regardless of their origin. If cryptocurrencies can be considered securities or telecommunications services, they may be included under the scope of the World Trade Organization's legal system. Additionally, investing in technology such as distributed ledger using cryptocurrencies, purchasing company shares with cryptocurrency, buying equipment for investment purposes, or acquiring AI tokens could all be examples of capital under general investment treaties.

Cryptocurrencies is a class of digital asset that is controlled using cryptographic algorithms and often works in a decentralized manner. Some experts believe that cryptocurrencies could be the future currency or international money. Therefore, cryptocurrencies and related technology might disrupt many things, including finance and law. Fiat currencies derive their authority from the government or monetary authorities. For example, the Federal Reserve back-stops each dollar bill. However, Cryptocurrencies are not backed by any public or private entities. Therefore, it has been difficult to make a case for their legal status in different financial jurisdictions throughout the world. In order to determine the positions, capacities, and challenges of cryptocurrencies in international monetary and financial law, it is necessary to first analyze the status of cryptocurrencies as money and then examine the position of cryptocurrencies in the International Monetary Fund as well as some other international financial organizations. Monetary and financial organizations have had different positions towards cryptocurrencies. The International Monetary Fund has done little more than encouraging the use of government cryptocurrencies. The position of international financial institutions has also been different in this regard: from the pessimistic approach of the Bank of International Settlements and the European Central Bank to the organizing approach of the Financial Action Task Force, as well as the passive approach of the World Bank Group. It seems that in order to use the benefits of cryptocurrencies (such as blockchain technology in international transactions) and avoid the problems caused by them (such as currency instability and financial crimes), it is necessary to complete and strengthen the international monetary and financial law system in this regard.

During globalization era and amalgamation of cultural, economic, political and social areas pertain to countries, the connection between people of the world and their countries is becoming vaster and also closer. Such proximity, particularly, in economic areas may cause collision, opposition and conflict of laws of the states. The laws which their application has been knotted to countries’ interests. Occasionally such interests stand beyond the borders of a country. Applying national rules to the beyond border matters faces many obstacles. Apart from conflict of jurisdictions, states’ sovereignty is one of the obstacles which hinder application of foreign law upon another country. On the other hand, rules such as competition rules which has been knotted to public and economic order of the countries, enjoy such importance which if been violated beyond their borders they wouldn’t bear the issue.

One of the issues to determine the limits of international sanctions is the “proportionality principle”. In fact, this principle has a key role in presenting a real impression about the legal aspects of unilaterally imposed sanctions. However, this notion has not been properly clarified in the doctrine and the international jurisprudence. The ambiguity has given rise to abuse of rights by powerful States. This article illustrates the principle of proportionality to the readers. In this article, our focus is on the legal sources of this notion: International case law & State practice. The aim is to avoid a political approach and to transmit a pure legal perception to recognize the real limits of States and international organizations to impose unilateral measures on other international community actors.