siamak karimi
Abstract
In recent years, unilateral act of States has expanded for a variety of reasons. In parallel with this development, international case law and doctrine have increasingly become confronted with the conceptual and practical challenges of these acts. One of these challenges is the base of State’s ...
Read More
In recent years, unilateral act of States has expanded for a variety of reasons. In parallel with this development, international case law and doctrine have increasingly become confronted with the conceptual and practical challenges of these acts. One of these challenges is the base of State’s commitment to their unilateral acts. In this context, the question arises that unlike the bilateral or multilateral acts, which are crystallized in the form of international treaties and in which the commitment of each state is based on the commitment of the other party, in the absence of either party, on what basis is the obligation arising from unilateral act made and with what justification is it recognized as binding. This paper, while examining all the theories presented to response the above questions, shed light on disagreement between the ICJ and the ILC, has tried to adapt these theories to the existing case law and state practices. The findings of this paper confirm that among these multiple theories, the theory of the will of the state is the most defensible theory due to the transcendental position of the state in the structure of international law.
Alireza Ebrahimgol; siamak karimi
Abstract
Five thousand types of minorities live in throughout the world. A glance at the map of the distribution of the minorities, clearly demonstrate that they were resided in the most critical regions in the world. One of the newest and the most serious events which was formed about issue of minorities in ...
Read More
Five thousand types of minorities live in throughout the world. A glance at the map of the distribution of the minorities, clearly demonstrate that they were resided in the most critical regions in the world. One of the newest and the most serious events which was formed about issue of minorities in international law is their unilateral secession’s request; in other words, a separation which is not requested without the consent of the origin state. Kosovo secession from Serbia, request of Kurdistan’s secession from Iraq, request of Catalonia’s secession from Spain is considered as obvious practices of those events. What is the position of international law about these secessions? Are these secessions legitimate? Remedial secession’s theory tries to answer these questions. According to this theory, right on secession must be inevitably recognized where the end of gross breach of human rights isn’t met unless that part of territory was separated from the origin state. According to findings of this article it seems that this theory is not consistent with principles of international law.
