Global environmental crimes could destroy human life; thus, they can be considered as major international crime. In the years since World War II, close attention has been paid to the importance of the environment as well as its health. In various treaties, support and protection of environment against war, chemical and nuclear weapons, as well as other crimes were emphasized. The author of this article believes that in order to prevent environmental crimes, they should be recognized as criminal offences and the perpetrators be punished. Only then they can be classified as separate international crime. Moreover, recent developments in the International Criminal Court's approach to environmental crimes make it possible for the Court to recognize them as a separate crime and define its policy in its Statute. As a result, this article seeks to explain the possibility of identifying crimes against the environment as separate crimes.
Most law scholars and well-known Islamic jurists consider that the fudhuli (unauthorized) regulations are of the the general rules of the agreements (contracts) and have generalized (spread) it to all types of the contracts. This broadness causes that some law scholars think that some fudhuli (unauthorized) rulings is in conflict with the public order. In contrast in the law of England as an excuse to maintain public order there are exceptions to the rule “the impossibility of transferring of title by the unauthorized person (a person has no ownership right)” and in some case the transfer of another person’s property is effective. Moreover, in the law of this country to facilitate the business affairs, the transaction of the agent acting without or outside his authority or the transaction of any person who pretends (claims) as an agent are effective. The disagreement between attitudes about efficiency of the legislation about the transfer of another person’s property originates from the difference of basics of “the transaction (sale) of another person’s property” in these two legal systems. In this paper with differentiating between the fudhuli (unauthorized) transactions of “mora’a” (meaning in the sale there is a right for the third person and the efficiency of the transaction relating to fulfil his right) and “moquf” (meaning ite efficiency relates to the consent of the true owner), it will be revealed that ineffectiveness of the recent transactions has been the theory “assigning the contract of sale to the true owner” and in the law of England the transaction of another person’s property is established in proportion to the ruling pursuant to the basics “agency resulting from ratification” and the Contract management (It’s a term which is used in the law of Iran and not explicitly in the law of England meaning: Contracting in situation that it does not conform to the accepted criteria (rules) by the legislature but the legislature for different social reasons is not going to announce its annulment).
Abstract
In judicial proceedings, the law specifies both the procedure for examining the evidence and the rules governing the substance of evidence, and sets out the duties of the litigants and the judge. In domestic arbitration, on the other hand, the brevity of the reference in laws to the evidence and the methods of its evaluation, along with the consensual nature of the arbitration and that it is based on conciliation, has left it uncertain whether the evidence of arbitrations are also subject to the court supervision, which has, in turn, led to controversies about the consequences of non-compliance with the rules of evidence in arbitration. Many jurists have opined that the courts are not allowed to engage in the substance of arbitration and the examination of the evidence as this would violate the independence of arbitration or the agreement of the parties. It will be argued here, however, that since the rules of evidence are connected to the substance of the case, they can be considered as rules that create rights. What we thus advocate is the principle that allows court supervision over arbitral awards both in matters of law and of fact as related to the evidence.
In recent years, the international community has witnessed the emergence of a non-state actress called "Daesh" that it constitutes a global and unprecedented threat to international peace and security. When Daesh occupied areas of northern Iraq, this event triggered an armed conflict between the Iraqi army and the Daesh armed forces. The main focus of armed conflict, whether international or non-international, is respect for international humanitarian law, including fundamental principles such as the principle of distinction and proportionality. Daesh has contravened numerous international law provisions by its conduct in Iraq. The group has breached several of its IHL obligations as a non-state actor involved in the conflict occurred in Iraq. According to the findings of this article, it seems that Daesh's actions in various respects have provided the threshold for pursuing under international crimes of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes.
A
long with the development of international law in both criminal and environmental fields, the concept of ecosystem/ ecocide/ geoside was also invented and used by thinkers. This concept, which focuses on widespread, long-term, and severe environmental damage, has been the subject of much debate and theorizing in recent decades and has been limitedly recognized in the ICC Articles of association as an example of war crimes. In addition, the Statute of the Court has the ability to identify some instances of ecosystem as tools for crimes against humanity or genocide. However, for reasons such as the different nature of environmental crimes and the lack of full coverage of ecosystem cases by the statute, it is necessary for this concept to be recognized as an independent crime and internationally criminalized. This research by using descriptive-analytical method seeks to justify the reason for this criminology and to state the reasons for its necessity and to examine the challenges facing it and to provide solutions in this field. Today, it can be argued that conflicting ecosystems is one of the fundamental global values and one of the universal international obligations, the criminalization of which has become necessary and inevitable at the international level.
Most authors consider unauthorized transactions in the Iranian legal system as one of the general rules of contracts and have extended it to permissive and covenant contracts. This generalization (expansion) has led to rulings that are sometimes contrary to public order. For example, he obligates the principal to a contract whose obligor is unknown to him. On the other hand, it is not possible to identify covenant contracts that merely give rise to an imperative rule. In English law, the transaction of another person’s property may be made to the unauthorized person or the owner in the form of a covenant, which in the first case is exceptional and in the second case is in accordance with the rule. The complexities of Imami jurisprudence in separating the imperative rules from the status rules, as well as the fact that the jurisprudential reasoning system is more systematic than in British law, have caused the scope limitation of the possibility of concluding covenant contracts in a form of unauthorized contract in Iranian law. In this article, by comparatively examining the provisions of covenant contracts and the effects of unauthorized contracts in Imami jurisprudence, Iranian and British law, we come to the conclusion that concluding a covenant contract in Iranian law is not a general rule in contracts and it is possible only if the subject of the transaction or the subject of the obligation is the property of another and if the act was committed; is possible when to have financial effects.
The article 27 of ICC's statute does not recognize immunity of Heads of States as an obstacle for punishing them and states that this principle is for all persons including Heads of States. This matter is correct about the parties states to this statutes because they have implicitly abandoned from immunity of heads of states by accepting being a party to statutes if they were committed the crimes within the jurisdiction of the court. The problem is where the Security Council refers the situation to the prosecutor under article (b) 13. In this case some of international law principles such as imposing an obligation to the third states and customary rule of immunity of Heads of States place against possibility of deal with international crimes and that establishes this challenge in which how should apply provisions of article 27 about such a state? Of course, court faces with another article in the statute i.e. the article (1) 98 in which it explicitly states that court must obtain the cooperation of that third state for punishing the it's head of state. The fact is that the article 27 should been considered in the light of others rules of international law and it can be said that court cannot deal with the crimes which committed by the Heads of States that is not a party of statute , even by referring the security council, unless it applies the article (1) 98. According to this paragraph of article 98 The Court may not proceed with a request for surrender which would require the requested State to act inconsistently with its obligations under international agreements pursuant to which the consent of a sending State is required to surrender a person of that State to the Court, unless the Court can first obtain the cooperation of the sending State for the giving of consent for the surrender.
Places and cultural property unique to the Palestinian territories have been subjected to destruction alongside Israeli Jewish policies. When cultural property is destroyed, the relationship between the past, the present and the future, and the historical identity, disappears. In such a situation, the conflict between the imperatives of war on the one hand and the preservation of cultural heritage for future generations will lead countries with conflicting goals. On the other hand, in the current situation, the fundamental question is raised about how far the international human rights regime is able to protect and protect appropriate cultural property during occupation, colonialism and armed conflicts, in view of UNESCO's inherent duty to protect property and property. Cultural Phenomena is becoming more and more important to accept Palestine membership in this organization. Therefore, this paper seeks to ensure that, in view of the ongoing conflicts and acts of terrorism in Palestine against property and cultural heritage and deliberate actions beyond the Israeli military's imperative to destroy this heritage , Examines the role of UNESCO and international law in preventing or reducing the destructive effects of these actions.
Spent Nuclear Fuel needs fundamental and scientific management because of its high temperature and emissions. The management would include some other phases such as storage and transportation. Some rules and regulations are legislated internationally for adjusting and creating civil and technical standards in this field. In Convention of Joint Safety Management and Radiation Wastes some regulations are emphasized for protecting individuals and the environment against the dangers and damages created by the mismanagement of the used fuel. So this article by using an analytic and descriptive method is an attempt to interpret and estimate the responsibilities of the governments and the undertakers about preventing and reparation which is caused by the mismanagement of the used fuels. In doing so the necessity of the environment's protection is came into account.
The “principle of prevention” in respect of economic benefit and ecological aspect is a golden rule. The reasons for this are as follows: 1. because of legal and technological reasons, establishing a relationship between the harmful act with damages to the environment is so difficult, 2. due to special nature of the environment, the compensation for such damages is often impossible, and in case of possibility, it would require exorbitant cost as well as long period of time. By considering the above facts, deployment of new environmental principles, especially ‘The precautionary principle’ for protecting the environment and strengthening deterrence policy has gained a central importance. In this paper, an attempt has been made to explain this principle from different dimensions and its position in international environmental law.
