Stare Decisis the history of the traditional rules and legal infrastructure is Common Law. According to this rule, the judge of the judicial decisions of the Common Law previous similar cases to use. Judicial records in this system are the main source of Permanent Court of International Justice and the International Court of Justice in the cases referred to his previous opinion and the arguments they used in the subsequent votes. This research approach seeks to show the International Court of Justice to enforce the rule Stare Decisis.

Since the first time, that is to say the codifying of the first Rules of the  Permanent Court of International Justice (hereinafter PCIJ) that the condition of counterclaims was included in 1922 up to now, the regulations as to these claims have been subjected to repeated amendments. Besides, the jurisprudence, through detecting existing lacunas regarding counterclaims, have could notably put this conception into change. According to the last version of the Rules of Court, admissibility of a counterclaim necessitates two conditions. First is the court’s jurisdiction, and the other is connection between the counterclaim the main claim. This article aims to investigate the evolutions emerged in this context in the light of Rules and jurisprudence of the PCIJ and International Court of Justice (hereinafter ICJ). Based on the last changes of the rules of court and giving the jurisprudence, it could be said that a counterclaim, in spite of being related to the main claim, is an independent claim which gives the respondent the opportunity and right to not only reject the plaintiff’s claim, but also introduce a new one.

To the question of whether to allow the applicant to formulate the new (additional) claims in the course of proceedings, the Permanent Court of International Justice has responded affirmatively. The International Court of Justice seems to depart from the approach adopted by its predecessor, giving considerable preponderance to the limits of the claim as delimited by the terms of the Application, as well as giving a very narrow interpretation of the connection that must exist between the new claim and the one formulated in the Application. This is what makes (almost) impossible the submission of an additional claim. The judgment of 30 November 2010, rendered in the merits of the case concerning Ahmadou Sadio Diallo is the notable example of the application of this approach. The Court emphasizes the disadvantages resulting from the submission of new claims in the course of proceedings. We think that it will not be the case if it is recognized that the new claim is a real affirmative demand, and an incidental proceeding.

Minority rights are increasingly recognized as an integral part of the United Nations' strategy towards the promotion and protection of human rights, sustainable human development, and peace and security. Permanent Court of International Justice (hereinafter PCIJ), has played a pivotal and determinative role in interpreting and developing international legal framework concerned with the protection of minorities. Interestingly, the related material of some highly significant human rights instruments such as International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Convention on the Rights of the Child, Framework Convention for the Protection of National Minorities as well as the 1992 UN Declaration on the Rights of Persons belonging to Ethnic, National, Religious and Linguistic Minorities is based on and built upon the case law of PCIJ regarding minorities and their rights. Views and precedent of PCIJ in this regard could be regarded a reliable foundation for the protection of minorities and promotion of their rights within the framework of UN and other relevant international and regional mechanisms. Accordingly, following PCIJ's opinions and precedent as to minority rights can pave the way for an evolution in protection of these groups through specific binding international instruments. The present study, through a descriptive-analytic approach, attempts to investigate the role of PCIJ in development of international minority protection system.

A contrario reasoning has been widely used in the Permanent Court of International Justice & its successor (International Court of Justice) on various occasions. The questions ariseing are, what is the criterion for the existence and non-existence of a contrario in the statutory law and legal propositions? To what extent and how has a contrario reasoning been used in the PCIJ and ICJ jurisprudence? What is the importance of this essential argument? And finally, have they contributed to the creation of a predictable legal framework and the coherent development of international law? Analysis of the judgments and advisory opinions regarding this concept help us to understand the nature of the concept and to assess its scope in a better way. Having Followed up the judicial procedure, it is concluded that a contrario reasoning is one of the basic and flexible methods of reasoning in international law. The ICJ and its predecessor have used this form of reasoning to justify their decisions, in the process of interpreting a treaty to discover the spirit of the law, and as a supplementary means for the determination of the content of rules to be applied in certain cases. This form of legal reasoning has also been cited many times and in various contexts in all major substantive fields of international law.

was a dispute between the UK and Iran, in which the UK alleged that cancellation of the DArcy concession by Iranian Government counter to a convention agreed upon by the Anglo-Persian Oil Co and Iran and International agreements too. British the government espoused the claim on behalf of APOC and brought the dispute before the Permanent Court of International Justice at the Hague, asserting that it regarded itself "as entitled to take all such measures as the situation may demand for the Company's protection." At this point. The Court cannot accept the view that the contract signed between the Iranian Government has a single the purpose of regulating the relations between the Government and the company in regarding to the concession. It does not regulate in any way the relations between the two Government.After the dispute between the two countries was taken up at the Hague, the Czech Foreign Minister who was appointed mediator put the matter into abeyance to allow the contending parties to attempt to resolve the dispute. Ironically, Reza Shah who had stood firm in demanding the abolishment of the DArcy concession suddenly acquiesced to British demands, much to the chagrin and disappointment of his Cabinet. A new agreement with the Anglo-Persian Oil Company was agreed to after Sir Cadman visited Iran in April 1933 and was granted a private audience with the Shah. A new Agreement was ratified by Majles on May 28, 1933 and received Royal assent the following day which granted the Anglo-Iranian Oil Co. a 60-year license to mine oil in 100,000 square miles (260,000 km²) of Iran in return for a percentage royalty. The 1933 agreement does not provide Iranian Interests and extended the life of the DArcy concession by an additional thirty-two years, negligently allowed APOC to select the best 100,000 square miles, the minimum guaranteed royalty was far too modest, and in a fit of carelessness the company's operations were exempted from import or customs duties.

Good faith, as one of the fundamental principles of international law, indicates the need for fairness, honesty and reasonableness in international relations. And the International Court of Justice and other international judicial authorities have been repeatedly cited. The judges of the Court have also discussed and cited the concept of good faith in their separate opinions on various occasions. The International Court of Justice, citing the principle of good faith in the settlement of international disputes, has played an effective role in objectifying some manifestations of the principle of good faith in international law and in the process of interpreting the law, creating the law, replacing the law or removing ambiguity International law - sometimes from general principles such as good faith, has made effective inferences that are helpful in understanding the content of the manifestations of good faith and its legal criteria. In the first part of the present article, we examine the principle of good faith and its various manifestations, and in the second part, we analyze some of the cases that have been invoked in the procedures of the Permanent International Court of Justice and the International Court of Justice.

Permanent Court of International Justice (PCIJ) advisory opinion in the case concerning Minority Schools in Albania (6 April 1935) is considered to be the most significant turning point in the international protection of minorities. Being written thorough a descriptive-analytic method and desk research, this paper aims at analyzing the grounds for the necessity of protecting minorities in the lights of this advisory opinion while referring to Islamic views and Nahj-al-Balaghah. PCIJ has emphasized the necessity of the realization of equality in fact between the minority and the majority, preservation of identity-related features of minority groups and securing amicable relations between the minority and the majority population as interlocked and intertwined goals. Based on this viewpoint, transition from formal equality to substantial equality, safeguarding cultural diversity and maintenance of global peace and security are the grounds which justify the reason for protecting minorities in this discourse and clarify its necessity. Furthermore, given the nature of Dhimmah agreement, life conduct of the Prophet (PUH) and Imam Ali (AS) as well as Nahj-al-Balaghah, Islam has attempted in order that non-Muslim be able to preserve their distinctive identity, the scourge of conflict and violence be avoided in the Islamic community, and the Zemmis can become the citizen of the Islamic state and enjoy human rights equal to other members of the society. According to the findings of the paper, there is a relative conformity and compatibility between human rights discourse and Islamic thoughts in the philosophy of minority protection.

Thinking about of dealing with international crimes has focused on the minds of international criminal justice thinkers. The attention to the nature of the Islamic law system shows that the obstacles of Muslim countries on the path to joining the International Criminal Tribunal's constitution, overshadowed the adherence to the tribunal and the possibility of effective coping with international crimes related to Islamic countries. Therefore, the efforts of the Islamic countries to conclude an international treaty to establish the Islamic International Criminal Court as an independent entity and permanent judicial system, regulating judicial regime of Islamic countries under joint international judicial regime, seems inevitable. In the present article, using a descriptive and analytical method, we examine the necessity and feasibility of establishing the Islamic International Criminal Court and its challenges, as well as the successful model governing its establishment.Keywords: International Crimes, Islamic International Criminal Law, International criminal Court, justice international.

The statute of International Criminal Court came into force on July 1st 2002. For the first time this document established a permanent institution in international sphere which can try some international crimes of individuals. Some are very optimistic that such a tribunal could as an independent and neutral court safeguard peace and justice for the International Community, but some doubt about it.