مجله حقوقی بین المللی
پیاپی 71 (پاییز 1402)

There is no doubt that the use of chemical weapons by the Iraqi Baath regime in the imposed war against Iran and its massive human casualties, as well as the pain and suffering caused by these attacks for the victims, have been the darkest and most painful consequences of this country's imposed war against Iran. The description of chemical attacks as a war crime has been established and recognized in international law. Without the complicity of foreign companies, the Baath regime in Iraq was not able to produce and use chemical weapons during its imposed war against Iran. Therefore, intending to protect the rights of the victims of chemical attacks, this article deals with the feasibility study of prosecuting the managers of corporations involved in equipping Iraq with chemical weapons from the perspective of international criminal law and German criminal law. The findings of this article show that the liability model of "aiding and abetting" concerning foreign corporations is evident, and also, by paying attention to the history of prosecution of managers of corporations involved in committing international crimes in the years after World War II and the judicial procedure resulting from it, the criminal responsibility of managers of corporations is established and recognized from the perspective of international criminal law. In addition, according to the legal bases in German criminal law, that is, paragraph 9 of section 6 of the German Criminal Code (Strafgesetzbuch – StGB) on the one hand, as well as the history of the trial of former Yugoslavian nationals in German courts in the 90s and the judicial procedure resulting from it, on the other hand, the prosecution of managers of corporations has the necessary legal bases.

While the efforts of human rights campaigns are aimed at increasing the protection of journalists and providing them with more effective guarantees, in an unprecedented action, several Iranian journalists, including Ali Rezvani, have been sanctioned by Western countries. Before this, Individuals taking part in military and nuclear activities and senior officials have been subjected to smart sanctions, but the recent decision of the U.S. Treasury Department, the EU, and Canada to sanction Iranian journalists has created a new debate in international human rights. In this research, the bases of international protection for journalists, whether independent or affiliated with governments are evaluated in the framework of human rights; then the legal bases of sanctioning Ali Rezvani and its legitimacy are studied based on his actions. According to the findings of the present article, this journalist's actions cannot be categorized as a "gross and systematic violation" of human rights. On the other hand, the prohibition of countermeasures against human rights and the teachings of the theory of labelling challenge the legitimacy of the imposed sanctions. The result of the research shows that these sanctions are not only in conflict with the fundamental human rights of individuals but also inconsistent with the inherent professional task of a journalist that is in the realm of freedom of information. It seems that these sanctions are based on personal grudges toward the activities of certain persons rather than on legal grounds.

A major part of the State’s water resources is used, in the form of "virtual water", to produce products, especially agricultural products. Today, the smart trade of virtual water is considered a way to resolve the world's water shortage crisis. This research has answered the question of what capacities does the current legal framework of the World Trade Organization (WTO) have for managing and facilitating virtual water trade? The primary hypothesis is that WTO can facilitate the smart trade of virtual water by removing trade barriers. The results of the studies indicate that only trade liberalization, regardless of the economic value of water in the production process, does not facilitate virtual water trade in line with the management of global water resources. Also, although the management of import and export of goods based on the amount of water consumed in the production process seems to violate the principle of non-discrimination in WTO, some exceptions included in the agreements of this organization can help to virtual water trade and reduce the water crisis. Using the capacities of this organization to remove agricultural subsidies that disrupt the virtual water trade and evaluating the water footprint through the creation of a labelling system are other ways to facilitate the virtual water trade.

Today, several factors threaten space assets, and the weaponisation of outer space is among the most important ones. Therefore, preventing the weaponisation of space is of high priority to States. In this regard, there have been many efforts in the two dimensions of Hard Law and Soft Law during the last decades, which have often faced failure. However, in recent years, the trend towards Soft Law to prevent or reduce space threats has increased among States. Resolution 75/36 (2020) entitled "Reducing Space Threats through Norms, Rules and Principles of Responsible Behavior" is one of the latest resolutions of the United Nations General Assembly concerning this issue, which has been highly accepted by States. This Resolution is of importance because, unlike previous resolutions, it emphasizes the "behaviour" of States. This article tries to answer the question of how the mentioned resolution as an example of Soft Law is effective in reducing the threat of space assets.

The role of international non-governmental organizations has been promoted in the last half-century, and the scope of their activities has been expanded. Despite the fact that non-governmental organizations are recognized as the subsidiary subjects of international law and their establishment and formation are conducted by private persons and according to the domestic laws of countries, the important status of some of them in the international community has raised many legal issues. One of the issues that will be discussed in this article is whether the aforementioned organizations, similar to international organizations enjoy immunity based on having international legal personality, functionalism or structuralism? As the research hypothesis, it is suggested that for granting immunity to non-governmental organizations, we observe a selective practice of governments toward a few organizations, and the basis of immunity is also explained on a new approach consisting of functionalism and structuralism doctrines. Thus, mixed administration or financing, performing a mission related to the international public interests and official recognition through a multilateral treaty or frequent resolutions of an international governmental organization, are the indicators for granting immunity.

Transnational commercial rules (lex mercatoria) as the third legal system along with the domestic and international legal systems, are used to regulate commercial relations. One of the controversial issues related to the transnational commercial rules is if the parties have agreed that their dispute should be resolved ex aequo et bono and or by way of amiable composition, would such agreement imply granting the arbitrator the authority to apply transnational commercial rules? In other words, this article examines if in cases where the arbitrator is empowered to act ex aequo bono or as amiable compositeur, they may, directly or indirectly, apply lex mercatoria or not. This disagreement stems from the fact that ex aequo et bono and amiable compositeur have been considered the core foundation and origin of most transnational commercial rules. Therefore, it is suggested that the application of transnational commercial rules over disputes, is an implicit prescription in proceedings based on ex aequo et bono or by way of amiable composition, and vice versa; That is, if the arbitrator is authorized to decide ex aequo et bono or by way of amiable composition, they can apply lex mercatoria. In this research, an attempt is made to analyze the above proposition in legal thoughts and practical procedures. It should be underlined that ex aequo et bono decision-making and amiable composition, due to the unicity of their foundation with lex mercatoria, would result in more flexibility in the arbitration process. In addition, the article examines what would be the arbitrator's scope of authorities in ex aequo et bono decision-making and amiable composition to set aside strict legal rules.

The continuous and indiscriminate attacks by the armed forces of the Zionist regime on the residential area of Gaza from October 7 until now is a gross violation of international humanitarian law. Particularly the Zionist regime is a member of the four Geneva Conventions of 1949. Although according to the perceived customary nature of the rules and regulations of international humanitarian law the Zionist regime cannot by referring to the non-membership of the first and second additional protocols and declaring its intention to leave its position as an occupying power since 2005, shrugoff its international responsibilities as an occupying power. In its recent armed actions against Gaza, the Zionist regime has practically committed a diverse set of violations of the fundamental rules of international humanitarian law, including genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity on a large scale. Based on this facts, it is possible to consider the criminal responsibility of the commanders, perpetrators and leaders of the recent war in Gaza due to the clear violation of these basic principles and rules, according to Article 8 of the Statute of the International Criminal Court as war criminals for prosecution and trial. Furthermore the Palestine's membership in the International Criminal Court gives the court the ground to establish its jurisdiction to prosecute and try these crimes. This article has tried to explain the recent events in Gaza, the reaction of international organizations and finally, the analysis of the events that occurred.

The multiplication of economic sanctions has caused serious challenges for the users of international arbitration. Access to international arbitration and, more particularly, to institutional arbitration has been seriously affected by their ever-growing spread. Fundamental principles that should govern any sound arbitral process are adversely affected. In certain instances, sanctions have led to a denial of justice. After being tetanized for many years, arbitration institutions are taking steps to remedy this situation. Such steps are, however, still insufficient. Users and practitioners from sanctioned states continue to remain in an unfair position. They should take this situation into account when drafting arbitration agreements.