hamid hamidian; Ali Rezaeiee
Abstract
Principles of international investment law and treaties are more about protecting foreign investors. Therefore, in investment agreements that are signed between the host countries with the investors or their respective governments, the host country is obliged to provide the necessary investment support ...
Read More
Principles of international investment law and treaties are more about protecting foreign investors. Therefore, in investment agreements that are signed between the host countries with the investors or their respective governments, the host country is obliged to provide the necessary investment support and any action contrary to the investment agreement is prohibited. In some cases, however, the protection of the public and fundamental interests of society requires the host country to take actions contrary to the provisions of the treaty, as encouraging and promoting investment should not be at the expense of the internal public interest. So the main challenge is how the public interest in host countries can have convergence with investment criteria? The most important findings of this study indicate that although there is no uniform procedure in this regard, but the new approach of most tribunals is that if the government's actions are based on reasonable criteria such as necessity, similar conditions and appropriateness, it is allowed. Of course this is achieved by providing a balanced interpretation of the requirements of international investment and creating a balance between the public interest of the host country and the requirements of the rules of international investment.
Bahram Pashmi
Abstract
According to the international human rights system, human beings have an inherent right to enjoy human rights. In the meantime, although governments are obliged to fully comply with them, those rights are linked to life and survival issues, as well as the security and stability of the States. However, ...
Read More
According to the international human rights system, human beings have an inherent right to enjoy human rights. In the meantime, although governments are obliged to fully comply with them, those rights are linked to life and survival issues, as well as the security and stability of the States. However, due to the entanglement of the right to health and public health with other human rights, the use of the suspension to cover the protection of the right to health in the extraordinary state of Corona has made the realization of this fundamental right doubly challenging. Therefore, the intrinsic part of this challenge is the adoption of health measures compatible with human rights. This article, descriptively-analytically, assuming the possibility of suspending human rights in the Corona emergency, seeks to answer the fundamental question of how the realization of the right to health is possible with the suspension of other human rights. At the same time, what measures are needed to reduce the friction between the right to health and other human rights cases? Since human rights provide a framework for balancing individual and societal interests, balancing rights instead of suspending one right for the benefit of another can help resolve this conflict.
Homayon Habibi; Salehe Ramezani
Volume 16, Issue 45 , April 2015, , Pages 77-103
Abstract
International Humanitarian Law (IHL) as a series of rules which aims to protect civilians against the effects of hostilities has prohibited expressly the use of civilians as Human Shield. But voluntarism in human shield poses some question of law. In fact in some situations, civilians may put themselves ...
Read More
International Humanitarian Law (IHL) as a series of rules which aims to protect civilians against the effects of hostilities has prohibited expressly the use of civilians as Human Shield. But voluntarism in human shield poses some question of law. In fact in some situations, civilians may put themselves in front of military objective by their will, which is a controversial issue. Some scholars consider the Voluntary Human Shield as taking direct participation in hostilities by civilians which deprives theme of the protections IHL grants to civilians. But the opponents view refuses this interpretation. This article rejects the idea of Voluntary Human Shield, as direct participant except in very specific situations where criteria of "direct participation" are met.
