Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA): Interrogating the Legal Status of JCPOA and Contextualizing the Legal Implication of United States’ Withdrawal (Published)
On 9th May 2018, President Donald Trump pulled the U.S. out of the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) or Iran Nuclear Deal which is fruit of thirteen years of negotiations between Iran and world powers on Iran’s nuclear program. The JCPOA, since its creation, raised question whether it is a treaty or just a non-binding international instrument. This study is aimed at offering an investigation on this question. After examining all elements of a treaty, we found out that it’s rather a treaty under international law; and, we concluded that as a matter of international law; it is breach of the Article 56 of Vienna Convention on Law of Treaties (VCLT) as well as violation of United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231 (2015); and, therefore, the withdrawal is contrary to international law.
The question of whether China’s peaceful development is a threat to international peace and security (China threat theory), or not, continues to dominate the academic discourse. Nonetheless, China’s efforts, both in theory and practice, have ascertained that its development not only is peaceful in its nature, but also, is extended throughout the world in numerous ways. This paper mainly investigates China’s peaceful development from the international law perspective and its interaction with international law. It examines the concept of peace in Chinese ancient philosophy, explores China’s peaceful development and its features and argues that it is harmonious with international law in various areas such as the purposes of the Charter of the United Nations, the Millennium Declaration, international human rights, etc. and can potentially contribute to development of international law through theory and practice.
The relationship between international law and national law as well as the concept of supremacy of international law are currently very controversial issues. Many authors accept the supremacy of international law as a value that allows the existence of an international legal rule.Although the domestic law of many states in today’s conditionscomply with the ever-increasing demands of international law, it is generally refused to accept the unconditional supremacy of international law on constitutional principles. Most states have declared their supreme constitutions.Some international treaties obligate States Parties to adapt their national legislation or to undertake other measures to meet with the international obligations they have undertaken. States have the right not to become part of an international act that may be in conflict with their constitution. They can also avoid the conflict between the international act and their constitution by making a reservation against the international act in order to protect their domestic law projections and to prevent conflict at international level or by amending their constitution.There is a principle according to which it is the internal law that permits the application of international law in the domestic legal system, since international acts must first be ratified by the parliaments of states in order to become part of the interior right of a state.
Irregular Migration by Sea: Contemporary Incidents in the Mare Nostrum – The Transition from State-Based Action to Humanitarian-Drive Regional Controls (Published)
Irregular sea migration has proven to be a popular means of escaping violence and armed conflict. Events after the Arab Spring in 2011 caused a lot of irregular sea migration over the Mediterranean to Europe. This created serious problems and concerns. The purpose of this research is to examine the rights of irregular sea migration in international law, constraints of states in accepting these irregular migrations and propose a solution to the problem. The paper identifies that the right to life is a fundamental legal provision that irregular sea migrants have. Therefore, it is imperative for all state and non-state actors to honor this. This can best be done by viewing the sea in a regional rather than national context. This way, states can unite and share the challenges of dealing with common issues within a regional context.
Our article deals with the enforcement of WTO Dispute Settlement Decisions according to the European Court of Justice (ECJ). Bearing in mind the singular nature of the European Community ( due to its political and legal structure), it is important to study first the relationship between the WTO and the EC and then the status of WTO Decisions in the case of Dispute Settlement between one of European Community Member States and another State. To understand the legal effects of WTO Dispute Settlement Decisions on ECJ, we had to study practical Cases laws that exemplify the position of ECJ towards WTO Decisions. The analytical and practical study of this topic allowed us to come up with some criticism on the ECJ’s approach on the WTO Dispute Settlement system.
the world is endowed with many conflicts generating a large number of refugees, who flee the unsafe and insecurity places looking for a refuge in a very safe where they can at least enjoy their rights, so, in order to make refugees feel not abandoned ,states at the international level have set in place international instruments relating to the status of the refugees: the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocols ratified by 134 States respectively establishing a certain number of provisions for the wellbeing of refugees away from their country of origin, the way they should be treated being out of their habitual residence, that is why based on these international legal instruments we could say that refugees are matters of international law, to the extent they derive from one of the accepted trio of international law sources, treaties ,customs or general principles of law .so international refugee law ,which governs refugee protection as a branch of international law has been and still in the center of debates among scholars trying to find out Good solutions for the Protection of the refugees, then at least in law, temporary protection is already the universal norm. The intention here is to highlight the very position of international law concerning temporary protection of the refugees, and some challenges that states have been facing during the protection of the refugees, and some states behaviors during repatriation which breach the international law related to the refugees, temporary protection is a valuable norm in that it codifies a commitment to ensuring the safety and dignity of refugees until they are able to return to their own states.
The legal status of Caspian Sea has caused a lot of disputes since former USSR dissolution in 1993. The littoral states of this basin have been affected by political and legal views which stated in international relations between these countries.There are different and controversial doctrines amonglittoral states which caused deep separation between them. Also, different seminars and conferences have been held to find a positive solution for dividing this International Lake, the legal system and limitation of every littoral state have been remained as a dilemma.