LAW REVIEW
Year:2005 | Volume:- | Issue:32|Papers Count:6

Every time a court deals with a legal relation of a foreign element, the issue of conflict of  laws raises i.e. the court must decide amongst the relevant laws, which law will govern or will be applicable to that relation. While this issue is an independent subject in Common Law systems, in some other systems, particularly in Civil Law, it is a part of private international law. The two titles “conflict of laws” and “private international law”, however, are misnomers and do not match with what is meant by them, but both are a body of rules of domestic law which have been enacted and created to deal with legal relations with a foreign element.This article is specifically related to conflict of laws in contracts (with foreign element, or so - called international contracts) and it only deals with the law applicable to contractual obligations and the basis and rationale of the rules of the conflict in this area. Conflict rules of each system of law have its own basis and rationale. Some systems are rigid and inflexible and see “state sovereignty” as the basis of their rules of law and choose such rules as the law of place of conclusion or place of execution of the contract, or the law of the country of nationality of the parties to the contract; and some are flexible and give greater value to the will of the parties. A survey of modern laws of many countries and also the rules of relevant international documents and international organizations reveals that freedom of will of the parties or, “party autonomy” is the prevailing rule in many fora. Of course, no legal system has accepted it unfettered, and different countries have imposed different restrictions on it.In fact, nowadays the “party autonomy”, is a basic principle and as the basis for conflict of laws rules in contractual obligations with some restrictions is the most suitable rule amongst all other rules and, this is in the benefit of the parties to international contracts and can not prejudice the interest of  States concerned.    

The consent principle in international treaties is one of the fundamentals of the international treaty law. In accordance with this principle, every treaty is an aftermath of mutual consent of states and/or international organizations to obtain common goals and interests as a result of their cooperation. Hence, states and international organizations need to conclude a treaty, negotiate about its format and contents, stipulate their common views (with observance of international public order), and finally sign or ratify or verify it officially after the finalization of preliminary process of the treaty conclusion as a means of collective co-existence. In all stages, the significance of being voluntary is so much highlighted that affect the conclusion of every treaty especially when the lack of real will make the treaty not binding. There have been some developments in this principle from 1990. This article will analyze the aforesaid principle and its developments which impulses its fundamentals with emphasis at the international process of disarmament, arms control and from non-proliferation Weapons of Mass Destruction.However, certain practices within international organizations i.e. UN Security Council Resolutions 687 (1991) and 825 (1993) on the Weapons of Mass Destruction (WMD) capabilities in Iraq and North Korean Withdrawal from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) respectively, and IAEA Board of Governors resolutions on Iranian nuclear program, prima facie seems to be new developments in this case. They called on and requested Iraq and Iran to enter into the Biological Weapons Convention (BWC) and Model Additional Protocol to the NPT Safeguard System respectively, and also non-withdrawal form the NPT by the North Korea.Are these resolutions in the field of arms control and disarmament as any legal developments in changing the voluntarism doctrine on the acceptance of international agreements codified in the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties? This paper, discusses this issue and concludes that they could not change that principle and then, treaty adherence is not legally binding yet.  

En matière de réparation de dommages contractuels, il n’ y a pas de différence sensible entre la Convention de la vente de marchandises de 1980 et le droit des États, - droit iranien, droit français droit égyptien et droit libanais -, ayant fait objet de la présente étude.Comparés entre eux, ces divers droits, pourtant faisant partie des systèmes différents, révèlent des ressemblances manifestes. Les règles relatives aux caractères tant généraux que spécifiques des dommages réparables paraissent semblables, de même celles applicables aux dommage – intérêts moratoires et à l’anatocisme. Loin de cantonner les ressemblances au domaine de ces caractères, les modes d’appréciation, d’évaluation et les procédés de détermination du tempes et du lieu de réalisation du dommage subi participent de la même affirmation. Si la réparation intégrale du dommage contractuel reste le principe commun de divers systèmes en cause, la primauté de la réparation pécuniaire par équivalent bénéficie, elle aussi, dans l’ensemble , d’accord unanime.Cette unanimité se rencontre aussi en matière de liberté laissée aux juges de choisir le mode de réparation propre et adéquate à la cause, si ce n’est la volonté contraire exprimée par les parties d’adopter un mode de réparation qui leur conviendrait le mieux. Étant entendu qu’a acquis aussi la même faveur le caractère non exclusif des modes de réparation tant pécuniaires que matériels prévus dans la Convention et les lois internes. Enfin, peuvent de même être cités, dans une certaine mesure, les modes de revente de marchandises, la réduction du prix, la restauration de la marchandise en tant que mode pécuniaire ou matériel de la réparation du dommage subi, applicables en droit iranien, mais sous certaines conditions.  

Suppressing the terrorism financing is one of the ways to combat the phenomenon of terrorism. To this end, the countries, whether directly or through the United Nations, have paved the way to restrain the terrorism financing. According to the obligatory character, those measures could be classified in to three categories:1. resolutions passed by the Security Council, particulary resolution 1373, which as per Article 25 of the Charter of the UN should be regarded as an obligatory instrument.2. the International Convention for the suppression of the financing of Terrorism, drafted by the UN. By virtue of the resolution 1373, the members, of the UN have been called to become parties, as soon as possible, to the convention:3. FATF Special Recommendations on Terrorist Financing and the relevant recommendation from FATF Forty Recommendations. Though it seems these recommendations do not have the strength of the Convention and do not have the support of the resolution 1373, but in practice, they are very important. The above - mentioned instruments have been so drafted that they are interwoven to and in some cases, they complete each other and somehow repetitive. So that, as per Article 25 of the Charter, the resolution 1373 of the Security Council should be observed by the member states; on the other hand, the resolution requires that the member states to become parties to the convention. In order to implement the Convention, it would be required to pass a law on combating the terrorism financing, according to the standards prescribed in the Convention. Moreover, to preserve the correspondence banking, there would be no choice but to implement the FATF Recommendation.