S.Ghasem Zamani; hoda Shakib manesh
Abstract
Legitimate expectations protect the negotiated tariff concessions from being adversely modified. The principle of legitimate expectations considered as a ‘well-established’ principle specific to WTO is implicitly stated in Article III of General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). It is ...
Read More
Legitimate expectations protect the negotiated tariff concessions from being adversely modified. The principle of legitimate expectations considered as a ‘well-established’ principle specific to WTO is implicitly stated in Article III of General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). It is also explicitly codified in paragraph 3 of Article XVII of General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) which considers the modification of conditions of competition as a violation of the non-discrimination obligation.
The dispute settlement body in the WTO recognizes the legitimate expectations as a “conditions of competition” where foreign markets trust domestic markets based on the negotiated tariff concessions.
So, any actions inconsistent with the overall level of negotiated commitments which have not become enforceable and predictable may constitute the violation of legitimate expectations. In conclusion, the principle of good faith is a tool to accommodate under the protection of legitimate expectations that “impaired benefits” could be claimed under a non-violation type complaint. Furthermore, this article demonstrates how the principle of legitimate expectations, in addition to protecting tariff consolidation, works effectively to fill the void and guarantee competitive opportunities.
Amir Hossein Ranjbarian; Hoda Shakib Manesh
Volume 15, Issue 40 , September 2013, , Pages 167-198
Abstract
On numerous occasions over the past decades, the United Nationspeacekeepers have been charged with various offences against thecivilian populations they are commissioned to serve. To render criminaljustice, exercising jurisdiction over the accused is a requirement.Agreements between States and the UN ...
Read More
On numerous occasions over the past decades, the United Nationspeacekeepers have been charged with various offences against thecivilian populations they are commissioned to serve. To render criminaljustice, exercising jurisdiction over the accused is a requirement.Agreements between States and the UN prescribe that the peacekeepingpersonnel shall exclusively be subject to jurisdiction of the home States.further , the contributing States shall retain exclusive jurisdiction overviolation of International Humanitarian Law by peacekeeping forces. Thepresent article examines the criminal jurisdiction of national courts andthe obligation of home States to prosecute such offences, and it furtherattempts to discuss, inter alia, ICC role in this issue
