INTERNATIONAL LAW REVIEW
Year:2014 | Volume:- | Issue:50|Papers Count:8

The right to development is comprised of both national and international dimensions and highlights the right of people to possess all human rights through developmental processes. Such a significant aim differentiates the right to development from other instances of human rights. All national and international elements are supposed to cooperate regarding the right to development. The present study is intended to put emphasis on the role and cooperation of the United Nations Development Program (UNDP) in implementing the right to development in Iran regarding the fact that the international system is no longer state-centered and it rather makes use of different players who can be taken as a complement to the state. The main question that the present study has tried to answer is the role of UNDP in implementing the right to development and whether it has been successful in performing its activities in Iran or not. The central focus of the multilateral attitude of the UNDP is the declaration of the right to development. It has also emphasized constant development and human security which are complements to the right to development. This program suggested some educational programs and local procedures and technical assistance in order to decrease the influence of obstacles that hinder the processes of development and destroy the countries which are not prepared. The UNDP of Iran increases the national self-reliance by suggesting some patterns and area-based development programs through boosting managerial abilities and technical specialties of individuals and national institutes that succeeded as a result of education and implementation. The UNDP as United Nations’ global network of development has harmonized the national and global attempts to achieve millennium developments goals. It has also boosted the abilities of the countries in achieving millennium development goals, improving economical programs, managing natural disasters, training how to prevent epidemic diseases, protecting the environment, and managing crises.

Proponents of the idea of lex petrolea generally claim that there is a specific genre of rules and procedures that governs transnational contracts, arbitrations, and transactions germane to the petroleum industry. The existing literature on this idea is far from being coherent and consistent. While some scholars have approached the subject with understandable caution referring to lex petrolea as not yet a mature set of legal regulations for international petroleum industry, others have imprudently considered lex petrolea as an autonomous transnational petroleum world order. Regardless of internal theoretical inconsistencies, the essential point with respect to the legal validity of lex petrolea and lex mercatorea is the claim of their autonomy and independence from national and international legal orders. This article provides a critical review of the certain existing literature on lex mercatorea, in general; and on lex petrolea, in particular. It will explain that both ideas lack the requisite elements of a legal system/order, hence both cannot be considered as independent or autonomous legal systems. They will rather continue to function as sorts of legal regimes confined to the rules and principles of national and international legal systems.

As the most recent branch of International Law, International Space Law introduces new concepts with regards to sovereignty which is a direct outcome of the dissimilarities between outer space on the one hand and other domains of human activities on the other. From the early days of human engagement in outer space, two fundamental principles of “Freedom of Exploration and Use” and “Non-Appropriation” went hand in hand in regulating States’ activities in Outer Space. Nevetheless if it is impossible to exercise sovereign powers in Outer Space, how can states oversee the activities carried out by their nationals and how can they control their property, facilities and equipments? Furthermore, what is the interaction between sovereignty and ownership? The present article is an attempt to answer the said questions.

Jurisdiction as a feature of sovereignty is prevailing in both Public and Private International Law debates. Treaties, international precedents and international customs are sources of each of the two branches, and domestic courts are bound to follow every binding rule in jurisdictional subjects. Public International Law though, has no binding rule encompassing the scope of states’ civil jurisdiction. Some prominent rules in Public International Law sources are so extensive that they can justify any jurisdictional claims by the states.

The International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) is a leading arbitration forum in the field of investor-state dispute settlements. Therefore, its arbitral practice in various fields of international investment law carries amplitude endowment. Despite the fact that the term “investment” appears at the heart of both the name of the Centre as well as in the title of the Convention on the Settlement of Investment Disputes between States and Nationals of Other States, no definition of this term is seen in the text of the treaty. Absence of such definition has led to huge interpretative differences in the ICSID practice. Applying different objective and subjective interpretative approaches regarding the concept of investment included in Article 25(1) of the ICSID Convention by arbitral tribunals and diverse views toward this concept through the prism of Convention and that of instruments containing consent to ICSID Jurisdiction, including bilateral and multilateral investment treaties have led to such inconsistency in the ICSID practice. After about 50 years since the conclusion of the Convention, there is neither a single definition of this concept nor a consensus on the criteria to identify it. The current condition of inconsistency may adversely affect the international investment arbitration system and the very existence of the Convention. Thus, providing a solution has always been a concern for most of the savants and practitioners in the field of international investment law. It’s very difficult to make structural reforms in the Convention in order to solve the problem, however establishing a “jurisprudence constante” could be an option. In practice, the absence of a substantive definition of the term “investment” in the Convention has resulted into expansion of jurisdiction in ICSID arbitration.

A “derivative” is a financial instrument whose value is derived from the value of its underlying asset. “Futures” is a derivative which is exclusively traded in exchanges as a standard contract and it is heavily under regulation. Today, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) is responsible for Futures regulation in the US. CFTC was established to prevent the large scale price manipulation. Manipulation means creating an artificial price through forces other than legitimate supply and demand forces. While price manipulation will materialize in all commodity markets, it has a momentus effect on energy market. Legal cases and judicial procedure of CFTC show that manipulation generally takes place in three forms: market corner, market squeeze and determination of settlement price. CFTC fights against these kinds of manipulation through complicated cases.

In sale of goods, the seller is obliged to deliver the conforming goods to the buyer. If the vendor infracts from the obligation of delivery of conforming goods, there are some remedies for buyer. One of these remedies in CISG is the request of delivery of substitute goods. Article 46 (paragraph. 2) of Convention in line of respect to contract (Sanctity of Contract) and assurance of its survival, gives the injured party the right to request of implementation of the obligation in form of delivery of substitute goods. In Iranian law, by analysis of Civil Code and Customer Rights Protection Code, there is no delivery of substitute goods in concept that has come to CISG and is different according to goods type (Unascertained Goods or Specific Goods).In this paper, the delivery of substitute goods in CISG and Iranian law is surveyed. Since Iran has not yet acceded to this Convention, a comparative study between CISG and Iranian law is essential.

This article, first studies the importance of freedom of assembly as a fundamental and natural freedom which provides effective and meaningful participation in society for all citizens. The article then reviews the elements of freedom of assembly, such as peaceful assemblies and the need for permission by authorities and it examines the Iranian law which provides more restrictions including religious criteria for assemblies. Finally, it is concluded that states shall provide grounds for the recognitions, guarantees and protection of freedom of assemblies in their legal system so that citizens can benefit from this fundamental freedom.