LEGAL STUDIES (JOURNAL OF SOCIAL SCIENCES AND HUMANITIES OF SHIRAZ UNIVERSITY)
Year:2013 | Volume:5 | Issue:1 (8)|Papers Count:6

The main goal of internal supervision of government (government in specific meaning) is preventing organizational corruption and controlling qualities of performing duties and government’s responsibilities. So, internal supervision is a kind of self-control in organization. Establishment of systematic structure and efficient system in internal supervision of organizations control performance of government employees (base on law and rules of government). It also helps to evaluate and upgrade performance of managers and employees of these organizations. With hierarchal system of supervision which dominates general structure of internal supervision, central organization of government and employee’s performance is controlled and evaluated. The main purpose of this study is determining ways and tools of internal hierarchal controlling. this essay try to answer this question, Does existence of units and methods of internal and hierarchal supervision have suitable functions? It seems that legal uncertainties and dispersion of laws make dimensions and methods of hierarchal supervision ambiguous.

The quantity and the quality of the control on the elections of political institutions can play an important role on establishing the principle of electoral equality. The organ responsible for controlling elections can ensure the principle of equality in electoral laws by supervising on the functions of electoral officers and by supervising on the precise enforcement of electoral laws. Accordingly, as one of the institutions enforcing electoral laws, it can secure the principle of equality before the electoral laws. Therefore, it is necessary to determine the appropriate mechanisms for supervising the enforcement of the electoral laws and to determine the punishment for acts which are contrary to electoral laws in order to ensure the realisation of principle of equality in electoral laws. Realisation of the principle of equality before the electoral laws requires neutrality of electoral supervisors. Therefore, criterion of the control over elections must be regulated and the aforesaid legal regulations must clearly be determined.

The principle that can truly justify the legitimacy of intervention in favour of temporary Islamic awakening in Arab world is the Islamic principle of support of the oppressed, and the only principles that can prevent the enforcement of this principle are non-use of military force and non-intervention in temporary international law. However the Principle of Non-Intervention is one of the international principles that has been generally accepted in the Islamic legal system in some way, but several exceptions have been expressed to this principle in both Islamic and international legal systems, one of which is humanitarian intervention. This research, for the purpose of comparison, is going to examine an important factor that organizes and institutes theoretical and sometimes practical foundations of a part of behavior and foreign relations of an Islamic State (like Islamic republic of Iran). That factor is the Islamic principle of support of the oppressed. This research is trying to study this Principle in current international condition and its relation to the principle of non-intervention in international law.

There are two different views about the legal nature of the WTO obligations. One view is that the obligations are bilateral by nature. It means that the obligations can be considered a ‘series of bilateral or mutual relations’ between State members and should be analyzed on the basis of the rules concerning bilateral obligations under the international law. This view is based on the idea that the object of WTO obligations is ‘trade’ which is bilateral in nature. In addition, these obligations are not comparable to human rights obligations which are multilateral in nature. Therefore, the relations between member states are essentially bilateral in character and therefore independent of one another. The other view is that WTO obligations are collective or multilateral because their principal object is the protection of collective expectations about the trade-related policy of governments and accordingly they are provided for the common interest and not for the individual interests of the States concerned. This article deals with these two different views and concludes that the emphasis made on the formation of a multilateral system in the organization instruments, the Principle of the Most Favoured Nation (MFN) obligation in GATT (Article I), the law making process as well as the judicial precedent of dispute settlement body indicate that the obligations are multilateral or collective in character. The implementation of the principle of development, special and different treatment to weak and developing countries, creation of compulsory dispute settlement system and the formation of the a body to survey the trade policy of the members are the results of adopting the multilateral nature of WTO obligations.

After September 11, 2001 and then the Unites States'' invasion of Afghanistan, and occurrence of armed conflict in that country; USA Officials, with their particular interpretation of that situation and the elements of the conflict, declared that, in their fight against terrorism, they would not apply the provisions of Geneva Convention on the Treatment of the Prisoners of War to terrorists as the prisoners of the war. To justify their violations of these provisions, they redefined the legal rules in relation to «prisoners of war» and «torture» to pave the way for justifying their inhumane acts such as torture of prisoners of war, the acts which are contrary to international regulations and even their own national legislation. This paper will discuss the redefinition of the two concepts: «prisoner of war» and «torture» by the USA officials and will criticize their approach and its negative consequences in the framework of international law, especially international humanitarian law.

This article first examines the structure in which legal norms are organized. Then, it deals with the relation between this structure and government, which is the creator of these norms. In other words, if as a consequence of the rule of law the government is limited with the legal norms, then how the legal system created by the government can limit it. Therefore, an attempt should be made to find the relation between legal norms and their structure (legal order) and also to find the relation between such legal order and government (as its creator) on one hand, and to find the relation between legal order and the model of government based on the rule of law, on the other. Accordingly, it seems that the duality of government and legal order, at least with regard to the public law, is inevitable. Considering their main nature, legal norms and their basis, including religious norms, are considerable matters, as far as their clearness and evaluability are concerned.