International Law
Abbasali Kadkhodaei; Mohammadreza Mohammadi
Abstract
The concepts of abuse of rights and abuse of process are being considered by litigants in international courts. In the abuse of the right and abuse of process, bad faith replaces good faith. In abuse of rights, the question is about exercising a right but with an improper purpose while abuse of process ...
Read More
The concepts of abuse of rights and abuse of process are being considered by litigants in international courts. In the abuse of the right and abuse of process, bad faith replaces good faith. In abuse of rights, the question is about exercising a right but with an improper purpose while abuse of process occurs to take advantage of a process with different intentions in order to disrupt proceedings. Abuse of rights is an issue that is related to the substantive part of a case, while abuse of process is a non-substantive issue in most cases and is raised in the admissibility. This study's main objective is to examine the practice of the ICJ in relation to the abuse of rights and abuse of process. The research method of this research is descriptive-analytical by using library-documentary sources. Despite the refusal of the court to state the status of abuse of rights and process, today these concepts can be referred to as general principles of law in international law. This article proves that the court considers a high threshold to accept the realization of the abuse of rights and process, and so far it has not been able to confirm such abuse.
International Law
Mahdi Mohebirad; Mehryar Dashab
Abstract
IntroductionFollowing Qatar’s diplomatic crisis in 2017, the UAE implemented a series of measures against Qatar. In response, Qatar filed an application against the UAE at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), citing a violation of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms ...
Read More
IntroductionFollowing Qatar’s diplomatic crisis in 2017, the UAE implemented a series of measures against Qatar. In response, Qatar filed an application against the UAE at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), citing a violation of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (ICERD) and claiming racial discrimination based on the national origin of Qataris. In its order dated July 23, 2018, the ICJ, in accordance with Article 22 of the ICERD, held primary jurisdiction to handle the case. The Court determined that the dispute between the parties was related to the interpretation or application of the Convention. Previous descriptive–analytical examinations show significant disagreements about the scope of racial discrimination during preliminary negotiations, with the term national origin being the focus of debates. It can be inferred that national origin, as included in paragraph 1 of Article 1 of the ICERD, entails discrimination based on current nationality. In this respect, the present research aimed to investigate the relationship between racial discrimination based on national origin and discrimination based on current nationality as elaborated in the ICERD. Literature ReviewWhile many studies have examined the ICERD and its committee, a conspicuous gap exists in the available literature concerning racial discrimination based on national origin. Moreover, given that ICJ judgment was issued in 2021, there is no serious monograph or article on this specific subject, except a few tangential studies in the legal scholarship. The two articles closely related to the topic are: “Application of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (Qatar v. United Arab Emirates): So Far, So Good?” (Owie, 2020) and “The Role of Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination in the Development of Concepts and Provisions of International Convention on the Elimination of all forms of Racial Discrimination” (MirAbbassi & Hassani, 2020). Materials and MethodsThe current study relied on a descriptive–analytical method, using library research to collect the data from various sources.Results and DiscussionResearch indicates significant differences in the scope of racial discrimination between the premilitary negotiations and the eventual inclusion of the term national origin in Paragraph (1) of Article (1) of the Convention. It can be inferred that this term in the Convention includes discrimination based on current nationality, hence an instance of national origin. The ICERD, which is the main international human rights document combating racial discrimination, defines racial discrimination and outlines its scope and instances. The definition comprises two elements. First, it shall involve “any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference . . . which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment or exercise, on an equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms” (UN General Assembly resolution 2106, p. 2). In other words, actions must lead to discriminatory behavior. Second, discrimination shall be based on prohibited grounds, including “race, colour, descent, or national or ethnic origin” (UN General Assembly resolution 2106, p. 2). However, ambiguities persist regarding the scope and interpretation of the term national origin, as one of the prohibited grounds in the Convention. Disagreements have actually existed among state representatives since drafting the Convention, leading to the ongoing challenges and ambiguities.The Court’s narrow interpretation of national origin and the necessity to address the impact of measures taken against Qatar have drawn criticism. The measures taken by the UAE against Qatari nationals can be considered unilateral coercive measures, violating their rights such as the right to freedom of movement and freedom of communication. Such adverse and negative effects are deemed illegal, as acknowledged by the international documents and reports by the UN Special Rapporteur on the negative impact of the unilateral coercive measures on the enjoyment of human rights. Moreover, since the Convention aims to eliminate all forms of racial discrimination, confirming that the term national origin encompasses current nationality aligns with the Convention’s overall purpose. Conversely, dissenting interpretations that exclude current nationality from the scope of the Convention contradict and undermine the purpose of the ICERD. 6. ConclusionDespite Qatar’s failure in this case, another legal opportunity remains, that is, the decision of the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (CERD). In parallel with similar facts, Qatar filed an application to the CERD. In contrast to the ICJ, the committee upheld its jurisdiction in Qatar’s case against the UAE, which is currently under consideration. The Court’s non-compliance with the CERD’s proposal and the ensuing divergent stances of the two judicial and quasi-judicial bodies introduce a new dimension to the issue. In conclusion, the ICJ shall be recognized as the UN’s primary judicial organ with the authority to settle disputes over the interpretation of the Convention. However, the conflicting views between the ICJ and the CERD, particularly following the Qatar–UAE dispute, necessitate judicial dialogue between the two bodies.
International Law
Mahshid Ajeli lahiji; S. Ali Hosseiniazad; Majid Zahmatkesh
Abstract
Undoubtedly, jus cogens or preemptory norm is always recognized as the highest source of international law. Nevertheless, the judicial review of International Court of Justice caused doubt in the absolute priority of jus cogens when violation of jus cogens and immunity are simultaneously argued in a ...
Read More
Undoubtedly, jus cogens or preemptory norm is always recognized as the highest source of international law. Nevertheless, the judicial review of International Court of Justice caused doubt in the absolute priority of jus cogens when violation of jus cogens and immunity are simultaneously argued in a case. Especially, in the cases concerning the Arrest Warrant (Congo v. Belgium 2002) and the Jurisdictional Immunities (Germany v. Italy 2012), ICJ tried to separate procedural and substantive norms and declared that the norms of immunity and jus cogens are different in nature, thus they couldn’t oppose each other but immunity as a procedural norm could prevent deciding about merits. In this article, by using descriptive – analytic method, the rationale behind the decision of ICJ is analyzed in order to know that if immunity is considered procedural and jus cogens is recognized as substantive norm in international law and how these norms interact. Evaluation of doctrine shows that there is no certainty about the quality of the separation of procedural and substantive norms and their proof in international law. Therefore, the court’s decision in choosing the approach could cause an insecurity in the peremptory place of jus cogens.
International Law
Alireza Ebrahimgol; Hasan Khosroshahi
Abstract
The International Court of Justice is empowered, under Article 41 of its Statute, to order provisional or interim measures of protection to preserve the respective rights of the party-states pending final judgment on the merits. Through interpreting Article 41, the Court has developed in ...
Read More
The International Court of Justice is empowered, under Article 41 of its Statute, to order provisional or interim measures of protection to preserve the respective rights of the party-states pending final judgment on the merits. Through interpreting Article 41, the Court has developed in its case-law certain requirements for granting requested interim measures. The plausibility of claims is the sixth requirement recently added to the said requirements. The present research assesses the role of plausibility requirement in preservation of international human rights in light of evolution of this requirement in the court’s case law as well as the existing legal doctrine. The study indicates that an inconsistent approach to satisfaction of the plausibility requirement and prejudgment of the substance of the case could harm the transparency and predictability of the procedure governing provisional measures, and undermine such measures as one of the most effective legal mechanisms in preventing the breach of international law.
Abstract
One of the most important legal issues which is mentioned in rules of ICJ is Counterclaim. This issue is mentioned in rules of both permanent international court of justice and ICJ and now is noticed in article 80 of rules. Article 80 considers two elements that if a claim enjoys them, it will be called ...
Read More
One of the most important legal issues which is mentioned in rules of ICJ is Counterclaim. This issue is mentioned in rules of both permanent international court of justice and ICJ and now is noticed in article 80 of rules. Article 80 considers two elements that if a claim enjoys them, it will be called counterclaim, these two elements are Direct connection with the subject matter of the claim and “Jurisdiction over the counterclaim. But this article does not explain the details and does not illustrate what does it mean about the conditions. Inspite of all of the reforms and reviews which is done, This general statement spawned the legal ambiguity that when and how ICJ recognizes a claim as counterclaim. Nevertheless, ICJ by it´s practice could answer to these ambiguity and established relatively complete regime for concept of counterclaim. ICJ for recognizing the first element, considers facts, common legal facts,legal aims and for the second element consider the reaction of the respondent of the counterclaim.
Mohammad Hossein Ramazani Ghavam Abadi
Volume 15, Issue 40 , September 2013, , Pages 141-164
Abstract
Precautionary principle is one of the pivotal principles in the realm ofInternational Environmental law. For insuring sufficient protection of theenvironment, the Precautionary Approach requires states to takecomprehensive precautionary measures in line with their affordablecapabilities. Lack of ready ...
Read More
Precautionary principle is one of the pivotal principles in the realm ofInternational Environmental law. For insuring sufficient protection of theenvironment, the Precautionary Approach requires states to takecomprehensive precautionary measures in line with their affordablecapabilities. Lack of ready access to definitive scientific facts and figures,where there are threats of serious or irreversible damages, certainty maynot lay the foundation for evading effective measures be taken as tosafeguard environmental against degradation. Although manyinternational environmental instruments have made reference to theprinciple, it is not well respected and adequately adhered to byinternational tribunals. This paper seeks to examine the legal validity ofthis principle before such tribunals.
Hosain Sharifi Tarazkohi; Heidar Piri
Volume 14, Issue 38 , March 2013, , Pages 9-37
Abstract
Undoubtedly, one of the most ambiguous and controversial concepts in
the international law documents is the debate on the vital national interest
which is as old as the concept of nation-state itself and every country due
to its own situations and conditions gives a specific interpretation of this
concept. ...
Read More
Undoubtedly, one of the most ambiguous and controversial concepts in
the international law documents is the debate on the vital national interest
which is as old as the concept of nation-state itself and every country due
to its own situations and conditions gives a specific interpretation of this
concept. The concept of vital national interest, has created a juridical gap
and as an essentially political concept has kept its place in juridical texts,
which is considered as one of the main obstacles for developments and
progresses of international law, because it has been used by states in
many ways as a shield against legal standards, as well as as a tool to
escape from legal obligations. Therefore, it lays some restrictions on the
application of international law rules, yet it looms its acts and claims for
regarding international law.
International Jurisprudence expresses that, in the relationship between the
vital national interests and international legal orders, it is the legal system
which has the prior importance. owever, contrary to the government’s view,
they allow restricted vital national interest and declare that national interest
subordinates to International Law and it is not subject to the of each state.
International Law has always tried to interpret thevital national interests in a
way that results in the least loss to the universal International values.
S.Ghasem Zamani; Soheila Kusha
Volume 14, Issue 38 , March 2013, , Pages 163-192
Abstract
One of the aspects of international law for peaceful settlement of legal
disputes is the consent of parties to the jurisdiction of international court
of justice (ICJ). In this regard, the way this consent will be presented, is
not important. By taking into account of this rule and jurisprudence of ...
Read More
One of the aspects of international law for peaceful settlement of legal
disputes is the consent of parties to the jurisdiction of international court
of justice (ICJ). In this regard, the way this consent will be presented, is
not important. By taking into account of this rule and jurisprudence of ICJ
and short comings of statute of the court, there must be some other
jurisdictions which are beyond those ones anticipated in the statute of the
international court of justice (ICJ). For these reasons,there is another kind
of jurisdiction which is called "Forum Prorogatum",in rules of the court.
According to this kind of jurisdiction, the respondent can informimpliedly
or expressly the court about its consent.Even after,filing an application by
defendant in the registry of the court. It can be done impliedly by taking
an action or participation in hearing without any objections or explicitly
by sending a letter in this regard to the court. This kind of jurisdiction at
first applied by [PCIJ] in the case of Mavrommatis Palestine concessions
(Greece/ United Kingdom) and gradually finds its place in jurisprudence
of the court. In a way that nowadays becomes a usual way of filling an
application in registry of the court for exercising its jurisdiction. we will
consider the latest judgment of court in case concerning "Certain
Questions of Mutual Assistance in Criminal matters" (Djibouti /France) 4
June 2008 in this essay and discuss its challenges.
Mohammad Reza Hoseini
Volume 14, Issue 38 , March 2013, , Pages 193-219
Abstract
One of the aspects of international law for peaceful settlement of legal
disputes is the consent of parties to the jurisdiction of international court
of justice (ICJ). In this regard, the way this consent will be presented, is
not important. By taking into account of this rule and jurisprudence of ...
Read More
One of the aspects of international law for peaceful settlement of legal
disputes is the consent of parties to the jurisdiction of international court
of justice (ICJ). In this regard, the way this consent will be presented, is
not important. By taking into account of this rule and jurisprudence of ICJ
and short comings of statute of the court, there must be some other
jurisdictions which are beyond those ones anticipated in the statute of the
international court of justice (ICJ). For these reasons,there is another kind
of jurisdiction which is called "Forum Prorogatum",in rules of the court.
According to this kind of jurisdiction, the respondent can informimpliedly
or expressly the court about its consent.Even after,filing an application by
defendant in the registry of the court. It can be done impliedly by taking
an action or participation in hearing without any objections or explicitly
by sending a letter in this regard to the court. This kind of jurisdiction at
first applied by [PCIJ] in the case of Mavrommatis Palestine concessions
(Greece/ United Kingdom) and gradually finds its place in jurisprudence
of the court. In a way that nowadays becomes a usual way of filling an
application in registry of the court for exercising its jurisdiction. we will
consider the latest judgment of court in case concerning "Certain
Questions of Mutual Assistance in Criminal matters" (Djibouti /France) 4
June 2008 in this essay and discuss its challenges.