Elham Amidimehr; Jamal Seifi
Abstract
The attributability of actions to states within the context of investment treaty disputes and to focus on the roles played by international and domestic laws in such attributions have caught the attention of jurists in recent years. The ILC Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally ...
Read More
The attributability of actions to states within the context of investment treaty disputes and to focus on the roles played by international and domestic laws in such attributions have caught the attention of jurists in recent years. The ILC Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, and particularly, article 3 points to the main outcome of this debate, where it does not consider domestic law irrelevant in internationally wrongful acts and stipulates that the issue is subject to international law and it will take into account the relevance of domestic law. Thus, although the characterization of an act of a State as internationally wrongful is an independent function of international law and such characterization is not affected by the characterization of the same act as lawful by domestic law, it does not mean that domestic law is irrelevant to such description; on the contrary, it may be related in various ways. The present article attempts to examine the challenging junction of domestic and international law with regard to the attributability of actions taken within the framework of investment treaties, specifically by state-owned and para-statal entities that exercise elements of state authority.
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.
