Hadi Dadmehr; Seyed Hadi Mahmoudi
Abstract
The prohibition of use of force is one of the primary obligations of States under Article 4(2) of the United Nations Charter. No violation of this principle is permitted except in the case of self-defense under article 51 of the Charter or the authorization of the Security Council under chapter VII of ...
Read More
The prohibition of use of force is one of the primary obligations of States under Article 4(2) of the United Nations Charter. No violation of this principle is permitted except in the case of self-defense under article 51 of the Charter or the authorization of the Security Council under chapter VII of the UN Charter. The Intervention by invitation is one of the controversial concepts in legal doctrinal debates partly because it has not been included in the Charter. Based on the latest Security Council’s practice in the case of the Gambia (invitation by an elected President who has never had effective control), the research provides new analytical findings on the theoretical self-sufficiency of the principle of intervention by invitation. The results of the survey support the argument that a President-elect, who is unable to gain power due to electoral riots, may request intervention with the explicit or implicit confirmation of their legitimacy by the SC without any reference to UN Chapter VII Resolutions.
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.
