Siamak Karimi
Abstract
The One of the main issues in the legal regimes is the intentional revocation of any kind of obligations. This revocation means that obligant party terminates its duty merely at the request of that party. Because this subject concerns with the rule of law, it should be necessary to exist proper ...
Read More
The One of the main issues in the legal regimes is the intentional revocation of any kind of obligations. This revocation means that obligant party terminates its duty merely at the request of that party. Because this subject concerns with the rule of law, it should be necessary to exist proper rules in this context. However, there are significant ambiguities in the legality and conditions of intentional termination of obligations that arises from unilateral acts of states. The case law and states practice in this context are rarely and sporadic and the doctrine is also extremely contradictory. Since, the unilateral acts of states have gained prominent status in regime of regularization in international law in modern area, so the legality of intentional termination of these acts is important subject. This article seeks to answer the important question of whether a state can terminate its unilateral act of its own will. It seems the states can terminate their unilateral acts, with some conditions and exceptions.
Siamak Karimi
Abstract
Three months after the outbreak of the Coronavirus (Covid-19), more than 200 countries around the world have been infected with this virus. The wide and transboundary dimensions of this disease make it necessary to examine those obligations that States must bear to prevent and compensate transnational ...
Read More
Three months after the outbreak of the Coronavirus (Covid-19), more than 200 countries around the world have been infected with this virus. The wide and transboundary dimensions of this disease make it necessary to examine those obligations that States must bear to prevent and compensate transnational harm in general and those originated from the pandemic in particular. This article tries to define the scope of the States’ obligations. The most common cause of Corona is related to the sale and purchase of some wild animals in China's Wuhan Wet Market, but since the exact cause of the Corona virus has not yet been exactly determined, this article examines the States' commitment to prevent and compensate Corona’s transboundary damages in two hypothetical scenarios to cover all aspects of this issue. In the first hypothetical scenario, assuming the effect of the Wuhan Wildlife Wet Market in China, the obligation of the State of origin (China) to prevent and compensate for Covid-19 is being examined. In the second one, it is assumed that there is no specific cause for the disease, and then the general commitment of States to prevent transboundary harm is studied.
sattar azizi; Siamak Karimi
Abstract
The Arab coalition’s military intervention in Yemen crisis (2015) which is led by Saudi Arabia can be studied through different aspects in the international law’s system. The secondary rules of international law which decide the breach of primary rules of international law and their consequences, ...
Read More
The Arab coalition’s military intervention in Yemen crisis (2015) which is led by Saudi Arabia can be studied through different aspects in the international law’s system. The secondary rules of international law which decide the breach of primary rules of international law and their consequences, is one of these aspects. Principally, each state is responsible for its own wrong doings, but in some cases, other considerations and necessities such as rule of law and reparation of injured party, requires a state to be held responsible regarding another state’s wrongful act. One of these cases is derived international responsibility which results from aiding or assisting another state which commits an international wrongful act. The use of cluster munitions by Saudi against positions in Yemen and armed this state with these munitions by third state/states could be examined in the light of the derived international responsibility. Using the principles of this type of responsibility, this article tries to resolve whether the third party state/states that have armed Saudi Arabia with cluster munitions, have responsibility in Saudis' usage of cluster weapons.
