INTERNATIONAL LAW REVIEW
Year:2013 | Volume:- | Issue:48|Papers Count:8

Recognition and enforcement of annulled foreign arbitral awards has always been one of the most controversial issues in arbitration law in which courts and arbitral experts have expressed different views in this regard. According to the article 5 (1) (e) of the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards 1958 (Iran is a party), annulling the award by a competent authority prevents its recognition and enforcement. However, according to some views, the foreign arbitral award shall be recognized and enforced although it is annulled. Nevertheless, the arbitral experts opinions show the possibility of recognition and enforcement of annulled foreign arbitral awards in two cases that are examined in this article: (first) in special cases, by applying the "residual discretionary power" under the top of article 5 (1) of the convention; and (second) if there are more favorable law and by applying "More favorable-right provision" under article 7 (1) of the convention.

The baseline is the line from which the breadth of the territorial sea and other marine areas of a coastal state are measured. Because of the ambiguities in UNCLOS provisions on straight baselines, the majority of coastal states have used the method of straight baselines in a way that has considerably increased the extent of their marine areas. This extensive practice has effectively led to the desuetude of the said provisions which in turn would suggest the emergence of new customary rules. Iran is a classic example of this practice. Iran’s Baseline in the Persian Gulf and the Gulf of Oman was promulgated by Decree-Law No.2.250-67 dated 31 Tir 1352 (July 22, 1973) of the Council of Ministers which established straight baselines. But the United States and member states of the European Union have protested the Iranian baseline as stipulated by the said decree-law and still refuse to recognize its validity. The dispute over the Iranian straight baseline system in the Persian Gulf has led to numerous violations of Iran’s territorial sea and its air space by American forces in the region.

On 3 February 2012, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) reached to conclusion in the Jurisdictional Immunity of the State (the case of Germany versus Italy). This recourse as stated by Germany in its application was the only remedy available to Germany in its quest to put a halt to the unlawful practice of the Italian courts, which infringed its sovereign rights by repeatedly disregarding the jurisdictional immunity of Germany as a sovereign State. In this judgement, the ICJ studied several aspects of the customary rule of state immunity and stated that the Italian Republic has violated its obligations to respect the immunity which the Federal Republic of Germany enjoys under international law by allowing civil claims to be brought against it based on violations of international humanitarian law committed by the German Reich, taking measures of constraint against German State property situated in Italian territory (Villa Vigoni) and declaring enforceable in Italy decisions of Greek courts based on violations of international humanitarian law committed in Greece by the German Reich. This article tries to discuss the various aspects of this judgement from a critical viewpoint.

Human domination over time and space and, consequently, globalization of crime has led to new opportunities of global nature to commit crime. Globalized crimes occur in an organized fashion to bring profit to and serve violent purposes of criminals around the world, threatening human dignity, safety, and fundamental rights, compromising international security, and denying humans of their right to security. States cannot prevent such crimes on their own and without creating international consensus on this matter. Given the inclination of states to prevention measures directed by the guidelines of the United Nations, the present study aims to examine and illustrate the process of development of basic international obligations of states and how they focus on preventing globalized crimes. The present study employs a descriptive analytical approach and the data are qualitatively analyzed based on the researcher’s understanding of available documents and texts on international prevention of crime. The findings indicate that basic international obligations of states in preventing globalized crimes stem from a variety of bases ranging from protecting human rights and dignity, human life, human security, sustainable development, membership in the international community, requirement for global prevention of globalized crime and addressing the new threats to global security and system. Preventing globalized crimes requires global thinking and global-national actions.

From various aspects, the international law has fundamental differences with domestic legal systems. One of these differences is in the field of law making. In the system of international law, states will play an irrefutable role in the process of creating international rules and treaty is an important instrument of making rules. In order to have extensive cooperation, states would resort to concluding gentelmen’s agreements as well as treaties. The decisive factor in ascertaining an instrument in a legal agreement is by making sure that it is intended to create legal rights and obligations between the parties. The intention would be discovered by interpretation of context and circumstances in which the instrument was concluded. In regard to other evidences, it seems there is no rule of international law that would prohibit the creation of gentlemen's agreements. But due to non-legal nature, the international law and particularly the law of treaties will not apply on gentlemen's agreements. However, the application of some provisions of the law of treaties by parties or third institutions is possible provided it does not conflict with their non-legal or non-mandatory nature.

One of the questions that has been ignored in Letter of Credit is a problem of assignment of proceeds in Letter of Credit that has been discussed generally below the transfer of LC subject, but has differed with it. So in this Article, the author has tried to use the words assignment and transfer exactly in their place to clear the existent differences. At first, the writer’s hypothesis was that, they are the same but after conducting more research, this hypothesis has been rejected. The method of research is descriptive and has been gathered in library way. The structure of subjects is that at first, terminological place used in this research is defined exactly, then reasons, processes, ways, conditions, advantages and disadvantages of assignment are studied and after that the assignment of proceeds is examined in existing bank provisions, i.e. UCP500, UCP600, UCC, ISP98, URDG and United Nations Convention on Independent Guarantees and Stand-by Letters of Credit and Finally a comparison is made between them. This research will be useful for those demanding the assignment of proceeds including producers, exporters, bankers and students of this field.

To the question of whether to allow the applicant to formulate the new (additional) claims in the course of proceedings, the Permanent Court of International Justice has responded affirmatively. The International Court of Justice seems to depart from the approach adopted by its predecessor, giving considerable preponderance to the limits of the claim as delimited by the terms of the Application, as well as giving a very narrow interpretation of the connection that must exist between the new claim and the one formulated in the Application. This is what makes (almost) impossible the submission of an additional claim. The judgment of 30 November 2010, rendered in the merits of the case concerning Ahmadou Sadio Diallo is the notable example of the application of this approach. The Court emphasizes the disadvantages resulting from the submission of new claims in the course of proceedings. We think that it will not be the case if it is recognized that the new claim is a real affirmative demand, and an incidental proceeding.

During the last decade, States have progressively increased their utilization of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (hereinafter UAVs). These aircrafts have evolved from a mere instrument of surveillance and espionage to full-scale combat weapons. The United States Army, for instance, employs UAVs in different parts of the world such as Afghanistan, Pakistan, Yemen, Libya and Somalia. The advent of UAVs as a combat asset has brought to fore several important issues in International Law, especially in the Law Regulating the Use of Force and in the Law of Armed Conflict. The present article endevours to answer the said questions.