scholarly journals Protection of Diplomats Under Islamic Law

1980 ◽  
Vol 74 (3) ◽  
pp. 609-633 ◽  
Author(s):  
M. Cherif Bassiouni
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
Islamic Law ◽  
Point Of View ◽  
Islamic Republic ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Islamic Republic Of Iran

The International Court of Justice has examined the seizure and detention of United States diplomats and members of their staff by a group of militant “students” in Tehran from the point of view of international law. But it is also of interest to inquire into the legal status of these acts under Islamic law, which the Islamic Republic of Iran adopted with its Constitution of 1979, and under Islamic international law, which is used here to mean that aspect of the Shari’a and its practice by Islamic countries toward other countries.

IV. OIL PLATFORMS (ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF IRAN v UNITED STATES OF AMERICA), MERITS, JUDGMENT OF 6 NOVEMBER 2003

2004 ◽  
Vol 53 (3) ◽  
pp. 753-761 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander Orakhelashvili
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
Islamic Republic ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Oil Platforms ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Islamic Republic Of Iran ◽  
Treaty Interpretation ◽  
The Persian Gulf

On 6 November 2003 the International Court of Justice delivered its judgment in the Case Concerning Oil Platforms,1 which involves multiple aspects of international law, most notably the issues of treaty interpretation, use of force, hierarchy of norms and the nature of international judicial competence. The case arose out of forcible action by US naval forces in the Persian Gulf against certain Iranian oil platforms.

scholarly journals Alleged Violations of the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights (Iran v. U.S.) (Judgment on Preliminary Objections) (I.C.J.)

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-40
Author(s):  
Diane A. Desierto
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
The United States ◽  
Islamic Republic ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Economic Relations ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Islamic Republic Of Iran

On February 3, 2021, the International Court of Justice delivered its judgment on preliminary objections in Alleged Violations of the 1955 Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America). The judgment rejected all of the United States’ preliminary objections, declared the admissibility of Iran's Application, and held that the Court has jurisdiction “on the basis of Article XXI, paragraph 2 of the Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations, and Consular Rights of 1955.”

The Fifty-Second Session of the International Law Commission

2001 ◽  
Vol 95 (1) ◽  
pp. 221-226
Author(s):  
Robert Rosenstock
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Islamic Republic ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Islamic Republic Of Iran ◽  
International Law Commission ◽  
Law Commission

The International Law Commission held its fifty-second session in Geneva from May 1 to June 9, 2000, and from July 10 to August 18, 2000, under the chairmanship of Ambassador Chusei Yamada of Japan. The Commission elected Professor Djamchid Momtaz of the Islamic Republic of Iran and Kamil E. Idris of Sudan to fill the vacancies left by the death of Doudou Thiam of Senegal and the election of Awn Al-Khasawneh of Jordan to the International Court of Justice.

The Case Concerning Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America) – Preliminary Objection

1997 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 541-551
Author(s):  
Roger S. Clark
Keyword(s):  
United States Of America ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Advisory Opinion ◽  
Islamic Republic ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Oil Platforms ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Islamic Republic Of Iran

The case-law of the International Court of Justice (Court) is replete with arguments about whether the Court has jurisdiction to entertain the particular dispute (or request for advisory opinion) with which the Court is faced. These arguments are framed at one level as matters of interpretation of the relevant instruments. But they typically play out as well a multiplicity of variations on the overlapping themes of sovereignty (the extent to which states have been prepared to concede decision-making to third-party settlement mechanisms) and justiciability (the extent to which they will accept that an issue may be governed by ‘law’ and thus be susceptible to resolution by judicial actors).

The Ban on the Use of Force in the UN Charter

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nico Schrijver
Keyword(s):  
International Relations ◽  
International Law ◽  
Legal Status ◽  
Use Of Force ◽  
The Other ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
History Of

This chapter focuses on Article 2(4) of the UN Charter, which prohibits the use of force in international relations. After discussing pre-Charter attempts to restrict states’ freedom to resort to warfare, it examines the emergence of a normative doctrine on a bellum justum. It considers the history of Article 2(4) and the other articles of the Charter that touch on the use of force and outlines exceptions to the prohibition on the use of force, including the so-called Uniting for Peace procedure. It examines the interpretation of Article 2(4) in the practice of the General Assembly, Security Council, and International Court of Justice), together with its inclusion in a number of multilateral treaties. Finally, it assesses the question whether the use of force after 1945 conforms to the object and purpose of Article 2(4), as well as the legal status of the prohibition to use force in contemporary international law.

Legal Systems and Variance in the Design of Commitments to the International Court of Justice

2009 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 164-190 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sara McLaughlin Mitchell ◽  
Emilia Justyna Powell
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Islamic Law ◽  
Common Law ◽  
Civil Law ◽  
Legal Systems ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Bilateral Treaties ◽  
The Relationship

This paper explores the relationship between domestic legal systems and the design of commitments to the International Court of Justice (ICJ). Empirical analyses demonstrate that civil law states are more willing to recognize the compulsory and compromissory jurisdiction of the World Court than common law or Islamic law states. Common law states place the highest number of reservations on their optional clause declarations, with the majority of those restrictions relating to specific areas of international law. Civil law states typically embed compromissory clauses in multilateral treaties, while common and Islamic law states prefer recognition of the ICJ's jurisdiction through bilateral treaties.

Introduction

1987 ◽  
Vol 81 (1) ◽  
pp. 77-78 ◽  
Author(s):  
Harold G. Maier
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
United States Government ◽  
Special Importance ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
The World ◽  
States Government

The ultimate authority of the International Court of Justice flows from the same source as the ultimate authority of all other judicial bodies. Every court’s decisions are an authoritative source of law in a realistic sense only because they are accepted as such by the community whose controversies the court is charged to resolve. In the case of the World Court, it is the community of nations that confers that authority and under the Court’s Statute, its jurisdiction is conferred solely by the consent of the nations whose disputes it is called to adjudicate. It is for this reason that the case Nicaragua v. United States and the actions of both the Court and the United States Government in connection with it are of special importance to those who are concerned with international law.

Determining U.S. Responsibility for Contra Operations Under International Law

1987 ◽  
Vol 81 (1) ◽  
pp. 86-93 ◽  
Author(s):  
Francis A. Boyle
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
Reagan Administration ◽  
The United States ◽  
United States Government ◽  
Operational Control ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
Significant Point

The only significant point of disagreement this author might have with the June 27, 1986 decision on the merits by the International Court of Justice in the case of Nicaragua v. United States of America concerns its failure to hold the United States Government fully responsible for the violations of the laws and customs of warfare committed by the contra forces in Nicaragua. The Court carefully premised this result on the finding that it had insufficient evidence to reach a definitive conclusion on such a delicate matter. Nevertheless, the Court held it established that the U.S. Government largely financed, trained, equipped, armed and organized the contras. Somewhat questionably, in the Court’s estimation, it remained to be proven that the Reagan administration actually exercised operational control over the contra forces.

Legal Issues in the Nicaragua Opinion

1987 ◽  
Vol 81 (1) ◽  
pp. 160-166
Author(s):  
Fred L. Morrison
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Legal Issues ◽  
United States Government ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
International Court ◽  
States Government ◽  
The Subject

The opinion of the International Court of Justice in the Nicaragua case will be of interest primarily because of its general pronouncements on questions of international law. Its impact on the immediate controversy appears slight; the United States Government has strongly indicated its view that the Court lacked jurisdiction over the controversy, has vetoed subsequent proposed Security Council resolutions on the subject, and is appropriating additional funds for the contested activities, without apparent reference to the Court’s decision. This Comment is limited to the general theoretical and legal issues and will not treat the underlying factual issues, the Court’s disposition of the immediate case or the implications of the opinion for the evolution of the dispute.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document