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.
Atiyeh Shah hosseini; Ali Mashhadi
Abstract
Compensation of transboundary environmental damages, especially in the case of hazardous activities is one of the complex issues of international environmental law. Sometimes in spite of taking all preventive measures, some authorized and legitimate activities of States that are generally dangerous can ...
Read More
Compensation of transboundary environmental damages, especially in the case of hazardous activities is one of the complex issues of international environmental law. Sometimes in spite of taking all preventive measures, some authorized and legitimate activities of States that are generally dangerous can cause irreparable damages to other subjects of international law and especially to the environment. For as much as these activities are not prohibited, the traditional systems of civil responsibility are not effective when dealing with the compensation of environmental damages. Therefore, the development and codification of particular system of compensation for environmental damages is inevitable. The result of international community's effort in this context is the approval of draft of International Law Commission titled Draft Principles on the Allocation of Loss in the Case of Transboundary Harm Arising out of Hazardous Activities, with Commentaries 2006” declaring that the State is responsible and obliged to prevent and the operator of hazardous activity is obliged for compensation of the damages under circumstances to commit such acts
seyd ghasem zamani; mona sadat mirzadeh
Volume 16, Issue 43 , February 2015, , Pages 81-108
Abstract
Attribution of private-person’s act to a state is accepted in international law insome exceptional matters. Acting under the direction or control of the state is oneof those exceptional cases; by proving state control over private persons andentities, their actions are attributable to the state. ...
Read More
Attribution of private-person’s act to a state is accepted in international law insome exceptional matters. Acting under the direction or control of the state is oneof those exceptional cases; by proving state control over private persons andentities, their actions are attributable to the state. However for understanding therequired level of the control and direction, we shall review and inquiry the judicialjurisprudence in order to make these theoretical concepts more tangible. Iran-U.Sclaims tribunal, as the most prominent international arbitration, has separatedjurisdiction and the merit phase in some of its cases.From jurisdictional point ofview, the tribunal has applied a looser standard while in the merit, tribunal’sapproach has more affinity for theory of effective control. In such cases, as ageneral rule,stateshave notbeenliable for the conduct of non-state actors unlessthe tribunal could find the conduct in question intensely controlled by the state.Indeed the tribunal, in place of determining standard of control in these kinds ofcases, has not lowered the threshold for imputing private acts to statesbut treatedwith it in an exceptional manner. The purpose of present article is to examinestandard of direction and control, while the focus is on the jurisprudence of Iran-U.S claims tribunal.
