Mohamad Setayeshpur; Saeed Mokhtari
Abstract
Abstract:
The Special Tribunal for Lebanon, as an international court that is considered among the third generation of international criminal courts and has the authority to issue judgments in absentia, in 2020 in the case of Salim Jamil Ayash and others, has issued a sentence of conviction ...
Read More
Abstract:
The Special Tribunal for Lebanon, as an international court that is considered among the third generation of international criminal courts and has the authority to issue judgments in absentia, in 2020 in the case of Salim Jamil Ayash and others, has issued a sentence of conviction and punishment. In the following article, the analysis of the performance of the Lebanese special court in issuing a sentence of conviction and sentence of punishment has been discussed. hypothesis in the following lines is that the said court did not follow the legal rules as it should be for an international court. In order to verify the proposed hypothesis, the present research has been carried out with a descriptive-analytical method and with regard to collecting mostly qualitative information in a library method. The following article, through the analysis of the court's performance in the above-mentioned case, has validated its hypothesis and shown that the special Tribunal for Lebanon acted weakly and without providing legal and reasonable arguments, with a superficial look at the events and not rules and with a selective approach, it has issued a sentence for conviction and similarly, it has acted very narrowly in issuing a sentence for punishment. This has never happened before in other decisions of international criminal courts. Criticism of this court procedure is the topic of the upcoming article.
Gholam Ali Ghasemi; Mohamad Setayeshpur
Abstract
Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) of Islamic Republic of Iran’s(IRI) missile operation against military base of United States of America (USA) called, Ain al-Assad, following the US drone strike and martyrdom of Genaral Haj Qasem Soleimani and some of other islam defendants, has raised various ...
Read More
Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) of Islamic Republic of Iran’s(IRI) missile operation against military base of United States of America (USA) called, Ain al-Assad, following the US drone strike and martyrdom of Genaral Haj Qasem Soleimani and some of other islam defendants, has raised various opinions considering the legitimacy of the action in question. Countermeasure, self-defence and consent are three circumstances that have been raised in legal teachings and doctrines regarding the said issue. Pursuant to customary international law and article 20 of International law commission’s draft articles on international responsibility of states for international wrongful act (ARSIWA 2001), Iraq’s consent authorizes that the islamic republic of iran’s operation in iraq’s territory, does not violate territorial integrity of Iraq and does not consider as intervention in its internal affairs. Countermeasures can not affect state obligation not to use of force and demand of Islamic community of IRI for hard revenge, does not mean that the missile action is a reprisal, as in some doctrines has been said. Regarding the seriality of US internationally wrongful acts in this regard and the evidences that show the commitment of more similar wrongs, the Islamic Republic of Iran’s action is the legitimate self-defence as the inherent right has been explicited in article 51 of the UN charter. This should not be regarded as pre-emptive (anticipatory) or preventive defence but as a chain of infringements by the US makes that the IRI act would be considered self-defence which is legitimate and legal in international law.
Mohamad Setayeshpur; Mostafa Fazaeli
Abstract
Succession of states to international responsibility has been considered as one of the most controversial issues in international law, must be scrutinized regardless of the way the related succession has been occurred. Being controversial, united nations international law commission (ILC), as the scientific ...
Read More
Succession of states to international responsibility has been considered as one of the most controversial issues in international law, must be scrutinized regardless of the way the related succession has been occurred. Being controversial, united nations international law commission (ILC), as the scientific institution of codification and progressive development of international law, has also repeatedly refused to deal with the issue in question. While United States of America and Great Britain Arbitral Commission (US-Britain Arbitral Commission) and International Court of Justice (ICJ), as two legal bodies for the peaceful settlement of international disputes, via their decisions and the arguments advanced, clarified the above mentioned conception, which re-affirms the role of international tribunals in the progressive development of international law, beside their main function, i.e. the peaceful settlement of international disputes. Scutinizing the decisions of these two international legal tribunals, clearly, indicates the conceptual evolution of the succession of states in respect of international responsibility. None-succession of state to international responsibility, which explicity was considered as a principle in two arbitral awards of US-Britain arbitral commission, has gone down in the ICJ, gradually. The present paper, through the comparative study of the decisions of these two international legal tribunals, addresses the conceptual evolution of the state succession to international responsibility and its scope as the international legal conception.
gholamali ghasemi; mohamad setayeshpur
Abstract
Abstract
Piracy has damaged Islamic Republic of Iran in a few past decades. The United Nations Security Council as the main entity to maintain international peace and security, several times (including the issuance of two resolutions in November 2016) has reiterated and emphasized on the need for confronting ...
Read More
Abstract
Piracy has damaged Islamic Republic of Iran in a few past decades. The United Nations Security Council as the main entity to maintain international peace and security, several times (including the issuance of two resolutions in November 2016) has reiterated and emphasized on the need for confronting modern piracy. Although being in the framework of recommendation, the resolutions issued by the UNSC contains momentous points including identification of modern piracy as a threat to international peace and security, the need for international cooperation and manifestation of cooperative law, the need for contact group, applying all necessary means and measures and the need to indication of various provision. scrutinizing elements of the evolution in the crime of piracy and current mechanisms of contemporary international law and specifically Iran in light of means has been recommended in Security Council resolutions, it would be said applying current capacities, specially universal jurisdiction is more appropriate than waiting for establishing a special court. Although the council stipulates the establishment of a special court, the works and phrases of this entity, especially in comparing to its previous works indicates a lack of serious determination of it. It should be noted that strengthening Somalia government in exercising authority over sovereignty is the essential way to prevent the said piracy. Implementing these works by regional institutions, including the African union would be more effective.
