INTERNATIONAL LAW REVIEW
Year:2015 | Volume:- | Issue:51|Papers Count:10

A part of criminal law, in every legal system, consists of grounds for excluding criminal responsibility. Although the legislature has recognized some conducts as criminal, in some special cases and under special grounds, the perpetrator is not regarded criminally responsible. International criminal law, as a recent legal system, has addressed the issue of grounds for excluding criminal responsibility. This article deals with the grounds for excluding criminal responsibility including mental incapacity, intoxication, mistake (of law and of fact) and duress or necessity within the framework of the Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC).

The Trial Chamber of the Court was convinced by the representatives of victims of Lubanga’s alleged crimes to change the existing charges against him under the permission of Regulation 55 of the Regulations of the Court in order to accord with new charges. However, the Appeals Chamber of the Court declared this practice as in conflict with articles 74 (2) and 61 (9) of the Rome Statute and overturned the verdict seeking to change the charges.Reaffirming the principle of separation of authorities, the Appeals Chamber defined the amendment of charges as within Prosecutor’s authorities and necessitated the observance of fair trial requirements. The judges of the Appeals Chamber argued that Regulation 55 is not considered as a permission to change the existing charges of the accused. They also declared the said Regulation incomplete in the content thereof for neglecting the requirements of a fair trial.

United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG) deals with the subject matter of conformity of the goods with the contract from two perspectives: physical and legal conformity. Rules regarding physical conformity of the goods with the contract have been set forth in articles 35-37 of the CISG. Articles 41 through 43 encompass rules pertinent to legal conformity of the goods with the contract. Physical conformity of the goods with the contract comprises delivery of goods that is of the quantity, quality, and description required by the contract and which is contained or packaged in the manner required by the contract. In addition, the convention has set out some default rules that are applicable in situations in which the parties are silent as to the quality of the goods. The present article is an attempt to scrutinize instances of physical non-conformity and remedies resulting from such noncompliance. In so doing, special attention has been devoted to the recent literature and jurisprudence.

The principle of equity in international law is of multi-dimensional and complex nature always being debated in the international legal doctrine.However, the International Court of Justice has played a significant role in the determination of the examples of this principle. While interpreting the relevant rules, the court has sometimes made effective inferences which are very helpful to understand the content of the principle of equity and its legal standards. The principle of equity has been reflected in the jurisprudence of ICJand the opinion of Judges in various forms. The purpose of this article is to elaborate this variety by analyzing the decisions of ICJ containing arguments on equity. The main question is to determine the capabilities of the principle of equity in developing international law and maintaining its dynamic nature particularly its law making capacity in order to develop international law.

The United States of America has long violated or reduced the immunity of certain states in a unique manner, an action that is rather unusual in International Law. In this paper, the practice of the US is briefly described and the long-standing customary rule of Immunity will be discussed from the International Law perspective. Then, the US conduct in the context of International legal rules will be assessed. Eventually, with a glance at the ICJ judgment of 2012, the performance of the US will be evaluated in light of the guidelines referred to in that judgment. By comparing the practice of the US with the rules and principles of International Law as well as the ICJ Judgment of 2012, it is observed that this practice, in most cases, is not consistent with International Law and the findings of the ICJ Judgment of 2012.

A relatively unprecedented approach has been proposed by some international lawyers in regard to the legitimacy of unilateral secession in International Law. According to that, in special circumstances a part of a population of an existing state has a remedial right to secession and in such circumstances; International Law does not protect the territorial integrity of a sovereign state. The basis and foundation of such argument relies on the inverted reading of the “Safeguard Clause” embodied in the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2625 and 1993 Vienna Declaration and Programme of Action. The status of remedial right to secession in Customary International Law could be observed as one of the important sources of International Law. According to considerable supports for the remedial right to secession in doctrine, this article is to determine whether under contemporary International law, remedial right to secession is being promoted as a Rule of Customary International Law or not.

One of the main issues in the field of ‘conflict of laws in cross-border insolvency’ is the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgment. After issuing a foreign judgment in the field of insolvency proceedings and liquidating or reorganizing the bankrupt's property, the liquidator will demand its execution at the involved states (the place of location of debtor' s assets). It depends on the state's policies about recognition and enforcement of the insolvency proceedings whether to accept the demand or to reject it.The state’s policy in this regard is different due to its mutual connection with the public policy. Some states have generally rejected this request, and others are provided to deal with it. In this paper, the legislative policy of EU Regulation in Insolvency Proceedings (2000) and UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency (1997) and the Iranian law on recognition and enforcement of foreign insolvency judgment will be analyzed.

Foreign investment issue and compensation in that field constitutes one of the most important matters in contemporary International Law. When an investment relation between a host State and foreign investors is formed, the parties to terminate the relations are committed to comply with the obligations they accepted. However at times, when there is an expropriation of assets of foreign investors, their proprietary rights are affected and even violated and thus incur material or moral damages to the other party where the defaulting party is obliged to compensate them. Damages of the moral as well as material aspects are reparable. The aim of the present study is to examine the issue of calculating the amount of compensation in International Law and some arbitral awards and to identify the criteria governing them.

There are many agreements under the World Trade Organization regarding trade in goods, services and intellectual property. These agreements have led to increased economic exchanges and have established regulations for international trade. Regardless of the nature and content of these agreements, legal responsibility of WTO members has emerged in dispute settlement understanding.This represents a combination of state responsibility in international customary and conventional law. Combined with relevant trade principles such as proportionality, reciprocity, and effectiveness, these agreements create effective enforcement of WTO law. In this view, any nullification or impairment of members’ benefits or impediment to the attainment of any objects of the agreement would be considered as a violation of the agreement and the member in breach would be held responsible. In other words, when WTO members are faced with derogation of an agreement by other members, they will have some options as potential reparations. At the first instance, the “Principle of Compliance” allows them to have recourse to restitution, withdrawal, or reform in executive, legislative or judiciary measures which are in conflict with WTO provisions. If this final remedy proves to be ineffective, at the second instance WTO members have a right to obtain temporary remedies (including compensation, retaliation, suspension, withdrawal from obligation, or concessions). In certain circumstances, however, there also exists the possibility for members to invoke unilateral trade remedies. Such a hierarchy for remedies is to be followed by all WTO members.The international responsibility of states consists of two elements: the wrongful act (the violation of an international obligation) and the attribution. In this article I analyze the main factors playing a role in WTO members’ responsibility. These factors are considered as common denominators for declaring WTO members’ responsibility when they are faced with ultimate or temporary reparations or trade remedies. These factors include principle of reciprocity, proportionality, effectiveness, and use of interpretation and the role of time which all strongly affect the relations between plaintiff and the defendant as WTO members. This is not an exhaustive list, and there are possibly many other factors in WTO cases that are not discussed in this article.

Within the framework of the International human rights law, the right to work is the fundamental right of everyone to have permanent access to work, able to meet his/her welfare requirements. Rural communities are entitled to this right akin to urban communities. As a matter of fact, not enough attention has been paid to the members of rural communities’ right to work.The supply of transgenic crops to traditional farms within the control of biotechnological companies and their exclusive rights in this area and also the high price of transgenic crops have imposed extensive financial constraints on the poor and vulnerable farmers which may have some adverse effects on farmers’ conditions in the developing countries.Therefore, the main question is the contrast between the interests of the intellectual property rights of biotechnological companies and the farmers' right to work, security and welfare. Considering that the existing procedures could not tackle the problems at hand, the governments and companies must amend their existing practices alongside with their commitment to the fundamental principles of human rights and establish a balance between conflicting interests in national and international levels.