Public Law Researsh

Abstract The overwhelming view concerning the unilateral secession under
contemporary international law is that, in international law, there is no rule in
regard to secession. some international lawyers concentrate upon the principle
of respect to territorial integrity of independence and sovereign states and
maintain that unilateral secession is unlawful. Meanwhile a moderate and
relatively new approach has been proposed by some international lawyers so
called “Remedial Secession Doctrine” that according to it, although
international law supports territorial integrity of independence and sovereign
states in international community, in special circumstances, a state cannot rely
on its territorial integrity. The principle of Self-Determination of peoples
prevails over Territorial Integrity and so, secession of a part of territory of a
state by a people comprising a part of the population of the territory would be
possible. Basis and foundation of such argument is relies on inverted reading of
the “safeguard clause” embodied in the United Nations General Assembly
resolution 2625 that repeated in 1993 Vienna declaration and program of
action. this characterize the existence of the Right to Remedial Secession in
National and Regional Judicial Decisions.

Abstract This article first refers to the importance of the freedom from fear as a
forgotten freedom, and analyzes the political fear and its negative impact on the
citizens’ behavior in the society as well as the violation of human rights and
freedoms. The article also provides the historical discourse on this freedom in
renaissance era, and also reviews the elements required in achieving freedom
from fear and its close relation to human security. The article then studies the
threats to freedom of fear including classical threats such as arbitrary detention,
torture, and forced disappearance as well as the new ones like terrorism,
organized crimes, and domestic violence, and then examines the impact of these
threats on freedom from fear. The article concludes that the basic human rights
and fundamental freedoms cannot be achieved in any society without providing
freedom from fear in its true sense and comprehensive meaning

Abstract One of the most controversial issues about transnational corporations is their
environmental performance, sometimes leading to irreparable damages. This
issue has been the concern for many developing countries, as the capital
importing countries, and the developed world as well. Transnational
corporations' environmental violations raise questions as to their probable
Human rights and environmental obligations, if any. A great challenge for
imposing binding obligations on these non-state actors is their legal character, let
alone their extraordinary power and reluctance. Hence, most of the norms and
principles in this context are considered to be part of soft law. Meanwhile,
international environmental law, as one of the branches of international law, has
some emerging standards. In this study we have examined the most prominent
international environmental standards and guidelines, which can be followed by
corporations for a sound environmental performance. However, it is expected that
these emerging standards will change to hard law.

Abstract International sanctions against Iran have had various effects at national
level. This paper has examined the effects of sanctions on the environment,
energy and technology transfer areas from the international view point. The
fundamental assumption of this paper is that sanctions on the environment
violate the right to a clean environment which is directly related to the right to
health and the right to life. They also, breach general and special environmental
law principles, including common but differentiated responsibilities principle,
co-operation principle, etc. Considering the vast importance of energy in Iran’s
economy, it is evident that sanctions have had widespread impacts on this part.
Restricting the transfer of knowledge and technology related to nuclear
activities and energy has caused problems on industry and technology.

Abstract International Humanitarian Law is considered as a legal regime whose
governing rules are being changed particularly as a result of the transformation
of international and non-international armed conflicts. But noticeably, the
stability of humanitarian law enforcement has more or less constantly survived.
In other words, nearly all states feel to have an obligation to adhere strictly to
the rules, which reflects in common article 1 of 1949 Geneva conventions and
some consequent Protocols. It reads: “The High Contracting Parties undertake
to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention [this Protocol] in all
circumstances.” Accordingly, there are many areas in which all parties should
establish and anticipate sufficient actions and mechanisms e. g. passing some
Acts and Regulations, instructing military forces how to act, and punishing the
perpetrators of certain crimes for their commission. Presently, to respect and
ensure respect are undoubtedly applicable on varying entities beside states. This
article proceeds to discuss the common article and some challenging
dimensions.

Abstract Determination of applicable law on International Multimodal Transport
Contracts for Goods is one of high significance issues in legal studies. Existing
conventions on transportation are only applicable to a specific transportation.
They are not applicable to multimodal transportation. Since there is not a
worldwide international convention regarding multimodal transport contracts
for goods, it is not easy to determine the applicable law to a given case.
This article deals with the applicable law and the method of its determination
in regard to disputes arising from multimodal transportation. It also deals with
the scope of applicable rules of multimodal transportation.

Abstract Lawmaking was related to the state sovereignty exclusively, more than the
other government acts, and an interference of the another actors was forbidden.
Then the answer of ‘why is a rule binding?’ referred to local reasons such as
legitimacy, religious roots of rule or will of government. This circumstance has
been changed by internationalization of law and international agreements became
source of rights and obligations. Non-exclusive process of lawmaking continues so
now rules are binding that neither government nor citizens have role in making
them. Is there any evolution in the basses of law? Why is such a rule supposed to
be binding by subjects of law? It can be explained by globalization as a non-legal
phenomenon. Lifting out is the main element of globalization which is tied to
abstraction and objectivity. Consequently transition of legal rules, with local and
subjective bases, beyond political borders is impossible in global era. Applying
the elements of good governance (like transparency, participation and consensusoriented)
more over protecting and promoting of international human rights, as
an element of good governance and alternative of global morality, lead to
objectivity of the bases of rules.