The Iranian Review for UN Studies
Volume:4 Issue: 2, Summer and Autumn 2023

The main and basic elements of international law clearly existed in some civilizations, especially ancient Iran. Based on historical evidence, it is possible to extract the existence of general legal principles regarding the regulation of relations between the ancient Iranian empire and other governments and foreign nationals. Examining the evidence left from the Achaemenid period, shows the semantic and conceptual affinity of the political-legal culture governing the behavior of the Achaemenid kings with the modern concepts of international law; Considering the predominance of semanticism in the worldview and epistemology of ancient Iran, this shows the capacity and capability of approaches based on natural law theories with regard to global governance and can be an option for refining the international legal system based on positivist theories. This historical-analytical research can be a basis to review and recognize some of the most important propositions of contemporary international law.

Tailored sanctions involves a set of sanctions that are related to the manufactured goods or services and the origin of their production. The function of tailored sanctions is to prevent human rights abuses and to maintain those values, as supported by peremptory norms of general international law (jus cogens). These sanctions, for example, are imposed on importing the goods for the production of which child labor has been used. These sanctions also prohibit the importation of goods or services from an illegally occupied territory. States as well as the UN Security Council may impose tailored sanctions as (unilateral or collective) a countermeasure. The present study is an attempt to explore the foundations and legality under international law of tailored sanctions. The special character of these sanctions is their obligatory nature. In contrast with general sanctions, tailored sanctions are considered not only states’ right but also their obligation.

Many believe that the International Finance Corporation (IFC) portfolio as a member of the World Bank Group, could make positive difference based on its standards in order to eliminate the extreme poverty and promote shared prosperity. However, a close examination of the evidences on this matter indicates otherwise. In this paper, the question whether the IFC is on the right track with regard to its investment policies and legal structure will be examined. In order to answer to this question, reference will be made to issues such as, IFC standards, IFC and human rights, legal constrains and limitations and project financing in the light of some specific projects carried out by the IFC. Since the IFC in fact, acts as a bridge and actually a hybrid place for financing between the private and public sectors, its performance in the private sector usually creates a profitable policy, this not only makes the corporation far from its intended goals but also creates tension in the financing path in order to generate revenue instead of achieving its goals. This issue turns away the IFC from the nature of an international organization and instead makes it act as a private investment bank. The article concludes that with regard to the IFC’s actual performance, it becomes clear that, the IFC has not fully and accurately complied with its required standards while this diverts the corporation from its original purpose, which must be reformed and monitored.

In recent years, the legal methods of dispute settlement have received more attention because of their positive features compared to other methods, and this has changed the role and status of international judges and arbitrators. Yet due to advances in technology as well as the development and promotion of science, disputes between the parties are not limited to legal issues anymore and need to be resolved by non-legal experts to pave the way for judges and arbitrators. Therefore, the process of employing non-legal experts has become an inseparable part of proceedings in international litigations and arbitrations. Despite the fact that the said process is considered a positive issue on the one hand and strengthens the credibility of the tribunals' decisions, on the other hand, it raises the question that whether the expansion of the role of non-legal experts in the process of proceedings in international litigations and arbitrations would affect the legal nature of these proceedings and the role of judges and arbitrators? It seems that existing concerns are connected to how non-legal experts are used rather than how they perform their role and this could be controlled and managed by judges and arbitrators themselves.

In order to strengthen the logic of the rule of law in the international system, it is necessary for States, international organizations and other entities to have an exactly understanding of the process of accepting and identification of legal rules. Except in the case of treaties, in the framework of which the provisions of international law require the express consent of the member states, other main sources of international law, including custom and general principles of law, should be recognized by the international community, which is currently the judicial decisions and doctrine are considered to be one of the most important tools for determining these rules in international law.Absolutely, knowing these tools will be effective in improving understanding and increasing the efficiency of international law regulations. Therefore, in line with its mission in the codification and progressive development of international law, the United Nations International Law Commission, during the 72nd meeting in 2021, put the issue of "subsidiary means for determination of rules of international law" on its agenda and Mr. Professor Jalloh were chosen as the special rapporteur of this issue. The commission's purpose in examining this issue is to study and analyze the subsidiary means for Identification the rules of international law. Increasing the efficiency of these means in international law process and also identifying other secondary tools are other goals of ILC in this framework.

The approval of UN General Assembly resolution 77/276 with the initiative, pioneering and efforts of the small island State of Vanuatu and requesting an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice shows that states have not fulfilled their obligations in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Also, the adverse effects of climate change require attention and action at the national, regional and global levels. This resolution requests the International Court of Justice to provide an advisory opinion based on international law on the obligations of states in relation to climate change and its legal consequences for states that have caused significant damage to the climate system. Despite the fact that the advisory opinions of the ICJ are not binding, they can help to clear the ambiguities about the nature of obligations and their consequences, develop international law, maintain peace and strengthen peaceful relations between states.

During the recent attacks of Zionist regime on the Gaza Strip and other occupied territories, the Regime has committed a series of crimes which have been unprecedented in 75 years of history of occupation the Palestine territories.When an »International Crime« occurs, the perpetrator or perpetrators of this crime have two » Individual criminal responsibility« for persons and »international responsibility« for the states of those persons, simultaneously.Also, In the attacks on Gaza, all members of the international community have certain duties in terms of International Law; because when an »International crime« occurs, that matter is not limited only between the Victim country and the wrongdoing party, but it extends to »all countries« which assumed as »victims«.In this kind of cases »all countries« have the responsibility of » preventing crimes«,» trying to stop crimes and not supporting criminals« and » pursuing and punishing criminals« as well.

On 18 October 2023, the second round of schedule-based restrictions and sanctions on Iran incorporated in the Security Council Resolution 2231 terminated. These restrictions included activities pertained to ballistic missiles, restrictions related to the transfer of items related to the Missile Technology Control Regime, and blocking of the assets of the individuals listed in the resolution. Before that, on 18 October 2020, the restrictions on conventional weapons and the transfer of individuals listed in the resolution had lifted. According to the agreement of the parties in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and the approval of the members of the Security Council in Resolution 2231, Iran's nuclear sanctions and restrictions were supposed to be gradually terminated on a determined timetable. Based on this schedule, Iran's nuclear situation in the Security Council will terminate in 2025. This article is a look at the different dimensions of lifting the restrictions and sanctions listed in paragraphs 3, 4 and some of the provisions of paragraph 6 of the second annex of Resolution 2231 and taking into consideration the importance of ending the Iran's nuclear issue in the Security Council, which is not a long way until then.