Public Law Researsh

Abstract Freedom of expression in regard to criticism directed toward government or
public officials is faced with some challenges. On one hand, it reveals potential
or actual deficiencies and failures in their actions, decisions or institutions.
Hence, it would be very constructive and beneficial to the public interest. On the
other hand, through criticism, there might be potential false or unproved
attributions which can be considered as defamatory, subversive or revolutionary
statements. This essay tries to elaborate the legal standards based on
international experiences and Islamic law, which seems to be proper for making
balance between political speeches and protection of reputation of public
officials or public trust to government. For this purpose, in the first chapter,
theoretical basis for extensive protection of political speeches and in the second
part, balance-standards are identified and studied.

Abstract The Umbrella Clause has nearly become one of the most common rules of the most
investment treaties, which provides more protections for foreign investor. Providing
a proper and true sense of this clause has become highly controversial issue in
international investment law that has led many arbitral tribunals to adopt specific
stance in this respect. Here, the fundamental point is whether the forum stipulated in
the bilateral investment treaty is competent to settle disputes, which are arisen from
investment contract between host State and foreign investor, or not? If it so, then the
next question would be: what will be the effect of the determining the forum by
stipulated dispute settlement clause in the contract. Does this clause turn contract
claims into the treaty claims? And what will be the impacts and limits of this clause?
Answering to these questions, the arbitral tribunals have responded in two different
ways. Some of them have interpreted the clause in a narrow sense; they have
distinguished sovereign from non-sovereign act of host State. According to their
point of view, the Umbrella Clause of BIT may be violated if the host State measure,
in breaching its contractual obligation, is applied on the basis of its sovereignty. In
contrast, the other tribunals have interpreted this clause in a broad sense which the
violation of any contractual obligation of host State leads to a breach of this clause
and consequently the forum in the investment treaty is qualified to hear the dispute.
It seems that the broad interpretation and second approach is more logical in the
interpretation of the clause; it is also more consistent with the purpose and history
of the emergence of this clause and makes it more efficient.

Abstract Attribution of private-person’s act to a state is accepted in international law in
some exceptional matters. Acting under the direction or control of the state is one
of those exceptional cases; by proving state control over private persons and
entities, their actions are attributable to the state. However for understanding the
required level of the control and direction, we shall review and inquiry the judicial
jurisprudence in order to make these theoretical concepts more tangible. Iran-U.S
claims tribunal, as the most prominent international arbitration, has separated
jurisdiction and the merit phase in some of its cases.From jurisdictional point of
view, the tribunal has applied a looser standard while in the merit, tribunal’s
approach has more affinity for theory of effective control. In such cases, as a
general rule,stateshave notbeenliable for the conduct of non-state actors unless
the 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 of
cases, has not lowered the threshold for imputing private acts to statesbut treated
with it in an exceptional manner. The purpose of present article is to examine
standard of direction and control, while the focus is on the jurisprudence of Iran-
U.S claims tribunal.

Abstract There is a history behind the strike as a collective protesting act against
unpleased conditions of working. This phenomenon is derived from the
inequality of the contract of work’s parties and lack of appropriate mechanisms
for solving the disputes; both Employers and governments would prohibit and
quell this social phenomenon. It is just less than a century that this “right” has
been legally recognized. However, some systems has not recognized strike yet as
a right; they have considered it as an act having some legal immunities which
might led to responsibility in some situations. Nevertheless, legal systems have
not had the same approach toward strike and legal regime of its recognition,
conditions, procedure of implying and its restrictions. Regarding the differences
in political, economic, social and legal systems in different states, this sort of
varieties might be regarded totally normal. Accordingly, France and Britain as
representatives of maximum and minimum approaches have had different
stances toward this phenomenon. Understanding of these differences would have
effective results for the systems such as Iran that are in period of recognizing
and regulating this right

Abstract It has widely been accepted that no subject is irrevocably fixed within the
reserved domain. The ICJ has been frequently faced with claim of reserved
domain, whether in determining jurisdiction or merit. The ICJ standard in such
claims is based on its precedent; it states that the clause “merely within the
domestic jurisdiction domain” in in the case (issued commands in Tunes and
Morocco), includes the cases which has not been regulated in the light of
international law. According to the relativity of the concept of the reserved
domain, a State cannot cite to its domestic provisions permanently in reply to
alleged breach of its obligations under international law.

Abstract The interaction and interrelationship between the International Criminal Court
and the Security Council of the United Nations have always been one of the
contentious matters of the Court’s Statute. According to the Articles 12 and 13
of the Statute which was codified in 1998, the Security Council may refer a case
to the Court to investigate into the crimes committed by natural persons; in this
case the Court will be qualified to hear even though the relative state(s) is not a
party to the Statute. Under the Article 16 of the Statute, the Security Council
may request the Court to suspend, inquire or prosecute for a renewable period
of 12 months. This is a clear-cut political intervention in judicial affairs. In 2010
Review Conference, the States Parties to the Statute reached an agreement
unanimously on the definition of the Crime of Aggression and the circumstance
under which the court may exercise jurisdiction over it. In spite of the opposition
of some of the permanent members of the Security Council, the exercise of
jurisdiction by the Court was not subjected to the approval of the Security
Council; it indicates the determination of the States Parties to reinforce the
authority and independence of the Court

Abstract Individual security with insist on safety of human body and soul against individual
damages and violence, as one of the seventh aspects of human security , in the
Human Development Report in 1994 of United Nations Development Program, is
come from “right to life” , “human dignity” , “right of security” and “right of to be
secured” for public.
Importance of these public rights as most important human rights, has occupied
special seat in important international human right documents and also in countries
constitutional law.
The states which appear to protect their people, under these national and
international binding documents, were largely responsible to provide the individual
security.
Regarding to these binding international documents, we can talk about fundamental
changes of states duty in the case of individual security. cause , the states that was in
charge of protecting their citizens , according traditional perception , in this new
one, are responsible to keep safety of human beings , by promoting concepts and
international commitments and also by appearance of international human rights
speech and human security paradigm.
So, because of vital important of individual security for peoples, states are bounded
to keep these rules to all (citizens or others) to respect their personality and dignity