فصلنامه پژوهش حقوق عمومی
سال بیست و دوم شماره 69 (زمستان 1399)

The United States’ unilateral withdrawal from the JCPOA, as a deal which was the result of the efforts between Iran and the P5+1 to reach a major international agreement, overshadowed the implementation of International commercial contracts due to reinstatement of the sanctions. The return of sanctions, like their establishments, could have made it difficult to fulfill obligations, which actually happened. The question is whether the return of sanctions can be regarded as circumstances precluding State responsibility under titles of force majeure or hardship? And more importantly, could it create liability for compensation for the United States as a third party? To answer the questions posed, analyzing the legal nature of JCPOA, and examining the conditions for the civil liability of states as a violation of an international obligation, is a prerequisite for a convincing answer. In this article, along with analyzing the legal nature of the JCPOA and expressing different views, the legal effect of the sanctions on contracts, including force majeure and hardship is examined and then the liability of the United States is assessed in accordance with international law principles.

One of the significant features of NIAC (non-international armed conflict) is the establishment of a court by armed groups. Though states consider the establishment of a court as a sovereign privilege that belongs only to the states, armed groups consider the establishment of a court as a means to maintain the law and order among its members and to create order and security in the area under their control. International community considers the establishment of a court by armed groups as an alternative for summary execution. While it seems that humanitarian law that apply to internal conflict gives the permission to armed groups to prosecute its own members and civilians, the legal basis for the establishment of the courts by armed groups in these conflicts is ambiguous. Regardless of the vagueness of the legal basis for establishing a court by armed groups in armed conflicts, the main criticism brought to these courts is that these courts do not have the ability to provide fair trial guarantees in their trials. In this paper, we are examining the legal basis for the establishment of a court by armed groups, the fair trial guarantees  and the most recent judicial precedent in this regard.

After more than 70 years since the last and so far the only prosecution of the crime of aggression in an international judicial body, the International Criminal Court’s jurisdiction over aggression was activated in 17 July 2018. It took nearly two decades since the ICC Statute adoption in 1998 for the states parties to agree on a definition of crime of aggression and a method to activate ICC’s jurisdiction over the crime. In the revision conference of 2010, the states parties reached an agreement regarding the definition of the crime and some jurisdictional matters. In spite of pressure from permanent members of the Security Council, the ICC jurisdiction was not subjected to prior approval of the Council. Nevertheless, to exercise its jurisdiction, the aggressor state must be a state party to the Statute and accepted the ratifications. Furthermore, if a state party does not accept the amendments, the Court shall not exercise its jurisdiction regarding a crime of aggression committed by that state party’s nationals or on its territory.  This mechanism is a great challenge to the ICC and people who hoped ICC could hold national leaders accountable for the illegal use of force against other states.

The attributability of actions to states within the context of investment treaty disputes and to focus on the roles played by international and domestic laws in such attributions have caught the attention of jurists in recent years. The ILC Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, and particularly, article 3 points to the main outcome of this debate, where it does not consider domestic law irrelevant in internationally wrongful acts and stipulates that the issue is subject to international law and it will take into account the relevance of domestic law. Thus, although the characterization of an act of a State as internationally wrongful is an independent function of international law and such characterization is not affected by the characterization of the same act as lawful by domestic law, it does not mean that domestic law is irrelevant to such description; on the contrary, it may be related in various ways. The present article attempts to examine the challenging junction of domestic and international law with regard to the attributability of actions taken within the framework of investment treaties, specifically by state-owned and para-statal entities that exercise elements of state authority.

The 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea has devoted one of its provisions to protect the underwater cultural heritage in the contiguous zone. Article 303(2), contains a legal presumption in favor of the coastal state on removing the cultural heritage from the bed of contiguous zone. The relation of this article with article 33 has led to ambiguities and various interpretations on the legal nature of coastal state’s jurisdiction over this maritime zone. Some authors have spoken about the limited jurisdiction of the coastal state and some others on its broader jurisdiction over "objects of archaeological and historical nature" on the bed of Contiguous Zone. In the meantime, some put forward the theory of "24-mile archaeological zone" and pose some arguments to defend it. Article 8 of the 2001 UNESCO’s Convention on the Protection of Underwater Cultural Heritage, albeit with a lot of complexity and ambiguity, does not seem to support broad jurisdiction or the theory of a "24-mile archaeological zone".

Historically, the framework for the Global Compact on Migration is founded in UN development, in particular Goal 10.7 of the Sustainable Development Agenda 2030. The Global Compact on Migration (2018) as the first attempt to provide international migration governance with a comprehensive framework seeks to introduce correctives hereto, and facilitate orderly, safe, regular and responsible migration and mobility of people, including through the implementation of planned and well managed migration policies. It insists on realigning state practices with internationally agreed standards. This paper seeks to explain the legal nature of the Compact and analyze the position of first and second generations of human rights in it, at the same time express the proponents and opponents view.s Finally, the main approach of this paper is that, although the compact is non-binding but the emphasis on the rules of different generations of human rights mentioned in other fundamental documents in the form of Global Compact has led to its customary provisions binding to States..

Aircraft has strategic status for the states, so that it has been regulated in every respect in both international and national contexts. No one may deny the invaluable role of air transport in the economy of all countries, as any pause in the aircrafts operation may encounter the objection of passengers and businesses and result in vast damage to the society. Therefore, the attachment of aircraft need to be excluded from the general rule of attachment of properties. This necessity, while is unavoidable, may conflict with duties of the general authorities who have to arrest the aircraft in certain conditions, or the rights of patent owners or creditors who have no choice other than to arrest the aircraft in order to enforce their rights. This article analyzes the rules which govern the attachment of aircraft (including administrative attachment, attachment due to patent infringement and precautionary or in-execution attachment) with reliance on international conventions and comparative study of the low of France and England.

Patents are considered as investments protected under the International Investment Law. Although, these properties are protected under the principle of territoriality, similar to other investments, they can be expropriated as a result of host states’ regulatory measures inconsistent with protection standards stemming from foreign investment protection regulations and treaties including fair and equitable treatment and legitimate expectations of foreign investors. Considering the fact that few arbitration awards have been issued by arbitration panels in this regard, it is yet difficult to claim there is a strong precedent in International Investment Law. Nevertheless, reflecting the provisions of international regulations, the stance of the domestic law and the most important relevant case, this article provides the most significant elements of indirect expropriation as well as existing doctrines in this respect and further investigates whether invalidation of patents can amount to indirect expropriation. It will also be mentioned that despite the fact that according to several foreign investment protection treaties, invalidation of patents shall not be subject to regulations regarding indirect or creeping expropriation, the final determination lies with the arbitration panel.

In case of reference to a law as governing law, whether determined through the application of conflict of laws rule or is agreed by the parties, the question is whether this reference to the governing law involves all its legal provisions such as, inter alia, those which merely protect public interests like the rules related to the sanctions, or not. If the parties are aware of the fact that they are subjected to the sanctions at the time of concluding a contract or choosing the governing law, a trade sanction imposed by the state of governing law would be treated like the other provisions of the governing law. Therefore, first, the trade sanction imposed by the state of governing law before the conclusion of a contract or after its conclusion and before choosing the governing law, will be treated the like the other provisions of the governing law. Second, the sanction, which is imposed after concluding a contract or after both parties agree on the governing law will be applied only if it can meet the same conditions which are necessary for the application of a sanction imposed by the state except the state of the governing law.

Idealism and Realism have always been under considerations by different fields of studies, inter alia, the law. While Idealism pays attention to the emergence of the ideals, Realism relies on the necessity of the acceptance of existent realities. International law from the prospect of its legal basis has been an obvious area of confrontation of this two schools of thought. The International community tries to reach far and unavailable goals persistently; but, usually has been stuck in the realities of the world order. Nevertheless, international law could also form some ideals as its legal rules. Thus, international law is the place where the two ideas meet. This article is an attempt to find the answer of the question that the legal order of international law depends more on which one of the foregoing schools of thought and by which it has been more impressed. Finally, it will be observed that the international law passes the way to reach its admirable ideals by always considering the realities of the international community.