جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه « Public International Law » در نشریات گروه « فقه و حقوق »

Aviation sanctions are among the most widely used and oldest international sanctions. Despite the wide variety and scope of these sanctions compared to other common types of sanctions in the aviation field, these sanctions are considered to be the most effective type of sanctions on the aimed country, which in some cases have led to the isolation and paralysis of aviation in those countries. However, from the law point of view, it has received less attention from scholars than travel sanctions. The purpose of this article is to describe and explain by analytical-descriptive methods aviation sanctions in two fields of Public International Law and International Air Law in order to explain the legal content and nature and the conditions of their legitimacy. But before that, the author tries to define and explain the aviation sanctions based on the procedure of the United Nations, as well as international political actors, including the United States and the European Union, and the rules of International Law. These kinds of sanctions are that adopted collectively by the United Nations or other the International Organization and unilaterally by governments. The final conclusion of the article indicates the incompatibility of unilateral sanctions in the field of aviation with the provisions of the 1944 Chicago Convention, which has the status of the constitution in the international aviation community because it leads to the violation of this international instruments, which in turn is perceived "abuse of civil aviation" according to Article (4) of the mentioned Convention.

The assumption of independence of domestic and international law systems does not impede the relationship between these two systems, and in particular, the ability to apply international law in domestic law or the ability to apply domestic law in international law. In addition, from the perspective of international law, in the event of conflict between these two legal systems, the general rule of superiority of international law over domestic law prevails. This means that a State cannot evade its international obligations by relying on its own domestic laws or invoke these laws to justify acts contrary to international law. In other words, this general rule of customary international law is in fact a connecting point between international law and domestic law. On the basis of an effective interpretation of this rule, it can be considered that States have an obligation not to enact laws contrary to their international obligations and even to accord an un-waivable status to their international obligations in the hierarchy of domestic laws. The ability to apply domestic law by international law, or in other words, “renvoi” to domestic law, has taken many forms and some new dimensions in the opinions of the International Court of Justice and international arbitral awards.

It was difficult to understand how the acquired rights were formed until the new theory made it clear that the acquired rights are rights that are recognized by the legislation and acquired by the implementation of the citizens, and are validated by acceptance by the judicial authorities. According to this theory, acquired rights are valid not only in domestic and private international law but also in public international law. Looking at the law of the European Union, through the Lens of this theory, it is obvions that rights such as citizenship and the right of permanent residence are among the rights that have been formed in the Union as acquired rights, from which other acquired rights have also arisen. Therefore, in cases such as the Brexit it has been respected and their continuation has been supported. With the new understanding that is gained from the formation of acquired rights, more appropriate and precise arrangements could be considered in international negotiations to demand in cases such as the withdrawal of a state from a treaty.

Nowadays, the increased use of international watercourses for non-navigational purposes, such as agricultural, industrial, and trade use has put them in the spotlight. Meanwhile, global weather change, droughts, excessive uses of water resources, scarcity of water resources, and population growth have increased the conflicts over international waterways. One of the common principles in public international law is the principle of cooperation between the countries emphasized in the UN charter and a number of bilateral and multilateral agreements, including the 1977 Convention on the Law of Non-navigational Uses of International Watercourses. In recent years debates between Iran and Iraq over the use of international waters have intensified and it seems without cooperation between both countries these debates cannot be resolved. Therefore, the principle of cooperation regarding international watercourses has been chosen as the subject of this research. This research has applied descriptive and analytic methodology. The purpose of this study is to show to what extent the principle of cooperation is reflected or indeed implemented in the international and bilateral agreements on watercourses between Iran and Iraq.

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.