ali hasankhani
Abstract
In the case Micula A.O. v. Romania, the arbitration tribunal established under the auspices of the International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) sentenced Romania to pay a compensation for the revocation of investment incentives and for the breach of fair and equitable treatment ...
Read More
In the case Micula A.O. v. Romania, the arbitration tribunal established under the auspices of the International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) sentenced Romania to pay a compensation for the revocation of investment incentives and for the breach of fair and equitable treatment principle that had been laid down in a bilateral investment treaty between Sweden and Romania. Considering investment incentives as a breach of the EU regulations regarding state aids, the European Commission then rendered a directive, prohibiting the enforcement of the arbitration award by the member states. As articles 53 and 54 of ICSID emphasize that the awards are binding, the EU Commission’s act of rendering the aforementioned directive, and the member states refusal to comply with the award equals to giving the EU law primacy over international law, which should be considered as a breach of their international obligations. Using a descriptive-analytical method, this article seeks to explain the viewpoints of the parties and the courts which were asked to enforce the award, as well as to determine the nature of their acts.
ali hasankhani; Jamal Seifi
Abstract
In the absence of a fully organized super-State in the field of international relations, it is recognized that the injured State may take countermeasures in response to a breach of an international obligation. However, the scope and the circumstances of resort to countermeasures are not unlimited, especially ...
Read More
In the absence of a fully organized super-State in the field of international relations, it is recognized that the injured State may take countermeasures in response to a breach of an international obligation. However, the scope and the circumstances of resort to countermeasures are not unlimited, especially when dealing with States which have violated their human-rights obligations. Human-rights obligations enjoy particular characteristics and are different from other obligations in certain respects among which are the object and purpose of the human-rights obligations. They are intended to facilitate the enjoyment of human-rights and freedoms by the human beings rather than the regulation of reciprocal inter-state relations. For these reasons, resort to countermeasures in the event of breach of human-rights obligations is either prohibited or it should be made in a manner which does not impair the full application and enforcement of the human-rights obligations.