Authors
1 Assistant Professor, Law and Political Science, University of Tehran, Iran
2 MSc. in International Law, Faculty of Law and Political Sciences, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
Abstract
In the course of transformation in the notion of nationality, changing the related rules is inevitable. With the manorial system abolished, nationality is no longer defined as loyalty towards a particular individual, but rather a legal status which assures mutual rights and obligations between a person and a State. The term "nationality" is a description of requirements of membership in a community based on culture, history, ethics, political beliefs and common values shared. As a result, International Law does not hold a strong position to interfere with the recognition of nationality by States. However, as a decisive factor, nationality retains significant functions in international relations. It determines the extent of rights and obligations of states towards each other and towards the international community. As an act of sovereignty with international consequences, acknowledgement of nationality is followed by concepts such as personal jurisdiction in international criminal law and diplomatic protection in international tribunals. According to modern international law everyone has the right to a nationality. Although it is not intended to conclude that based on this right individuals are entitled to a specific nationality, however, it is also not within its interpretation that States, based on their sovereignty, have the right to regulate the rules of nationality with complete disregard for developments of international law and especially Human Rights. Based on internal and international aspects of the concept of nationality, this study evaluates Iran's domestic regulations regarding Women's nationality. As a finding of the paper, some articles of The Civil Code appear to be in conflict with The State's sovereign rights as well as International Law.
Keywords
الف) فارسی
-کتاب‌ها و مقالات
- اصلانی، فیروز و پروین، خیرالله (1391)، اصول و مبانی حقوق اساسی، تهران، انتشارات دانشگاه تهران، چ اول.
- الماسی، نجادعلی (1380)، تعارض قوانین، تهران، مرکز نشر دانشگاهی، چ هشتم.
- تقی‌زاده انصاری، مصطفی (1379)، حقوق بین‌الملل عمومی، تهران، قومس، چ اول.
- جعفری لنگرودی، محمدجعفر (1363)، ترمینولوژی حقوق، بنیاد راستاد.
- ذوالعین، پرویز (1377)، مبانی حقوق بین‌الملل عمومی، تهران، مؤسسۀ چاپ و انتشارات وزارت امور خارجه، چ اول.
- سلجوقی، محمود (1380)، بایسته‌های حقوق بین‌الملل خصوصی، تهران، میزان، چ اول.
- فلسفی، هدایت‌الله (1384)، تقریرات درس نقد و بررسی مکاتب فلسفی در حقوق بین‌الملل، دورۀ دکتری حقوق بین‌الملل، دانشگاه تهران.
- قاضی، ابوالفضل (1383)، حقوق اساسی و نهادهای سیاسی، تهران، میزان، چ دوازدهم.
- کاتوزیان، ناصر (1382)، مقدمۀ علم حقوق، تهران، شرکت سهامی انتشار، چ سی‌وپنجم.
- مصباح یزدی، محمدتقی (1386)، فلسفۀ اخلاق، تهران، شرکت چاپ و نشر بین‌الملل، چ سوم.
- میر افسری، مهدی (1345)، وجدان عمومی، مهنامۀ قضایی، ش 4، صص 64-61.
- نصیری، محمد (1384)، حقوق بین‌الملل خصوصی، ج اول و دوم، تهران، میزان، چ دوازدهم.
-اسناد:
- اساسنامۀ دیوان بین‌المللی دادگستری
- قانون مدنی
- منشور سازمان ملل متحد
- کنوانسیون رفع هر گونه تبعیض علیه زنان
ب) انگلیسی
-کتاب‌ها و مقالات
- Bhalla, S. L. (1990),Fundamentals of International Law, Ritu Mohindru.
- Brownlie, Ian (1998), Principles of Public International Law, 8th, 0xford, oxford university press.
- Emiliou N (1996), The principle of proportionality in European law, kluwer
- Gaus, Gerald (2001), Private and public conscience or, Is the sanctity of conscience a liberal (commitment or an anarchical fallacy?)”, university of Arizona
- Harbo, Tor-Inge (2010), The function of the proportionality principle in EU law, ELJ, vol. 16, no. 2.
- I.C.J. Reports (1955) Nottebohm Case, (Liechtenstein v. Guatemala), Second Phase.
- I.C.J. Reports (1971), Legal Consequences for States of the Continued Presence of South Africa in Namibia (South West Africa), Advisory Opinion.
- Lagasse, Paul (2000), The Columbia Encyclopedia, 6th, Columbia University available on line at: [http://www.bartleby.com/65/ co/conscienc.html].
- Lord Hofmann Hon (2002), The influence of the European principle of proportionality upon UK, Ellis E., Hart publishing.
- O’Connell, DP. (1970), International Law, vol.1, 2nd (ed), London, Stevens and Sons
- P.C.I.J. (1923), Wimbledon S.S., Series A, No.1.
- P.C.I.J. (1923), Nationality Decrees Issued in Tunis and Morocco, Series B, N0.4.
- P.C.I.J.(1923), Acquisition of Polish Nationality, Series. B. No.7.
- P.C.I.J. (1924), Mavromatis Palestine concessions, Series A, No. 2.
- P.C.I.J. (1927), Lotus, Series A, No, 10.
- Sauter wolf (2013), Proportionality in EU law: a balancing act?.
- Schwarz J (1992), European administrative law, sweet & Maxwell.
- Starke, J.G. (1980), Introduction to International Law, London, Butterworths.
- Tridimas T(2003), The general principles of EU law, oxford university press.
- Van Gerven W(1999), The effect of proportionality on the actions of member states of the European community: national viewpoints from continental Europe, Ellis E., The principle of proportionality in the laws of Europe, Hart.
- Veuthey, Michel (2000). Public conscience in international humanitarian law today, available at: http://www.academia.edu/7563750
-اسناد:
- European convention on nationality (1997), Strasbourg, 6.xi.
- G.A., Res. 2625 (XXV) (1970)
- Oxford dictionary, New 8th Edition, Oxford university press,
- Yearbook of the international law commission (2006), Draft Articles on Diplomatic protection with commentaries, vol. II, part two.
)