The State sovereignty in international law refers to a dual situation: on one hand, the classic teachings of the international law on the law of treaties such as commitment to international treaties and the rule of law by granting unconditional freedoms to States are in conflict with maintaining of the national interests and the other hand, in critical and certain situations and also because of the nature of some of the international treaties, some authorities must be considered for States to preserve their essential interests. To solve this dual condition and reconciliation between international cooperation and unilateralism of the States, Clauses named "Limiting Clauses" were accepted in international law. These clauses create the mechanism which helps to the participation of States in expanding the legal order and concluding of international treaties and also predicts authority and practical freedom for releasing of the State from international commitments when it is facing a super danger.


  1. 1.فارسی

    الف) کتاب‌ها

    1. ضیائی بیگدلی، محمدرضا (1388). حقوق معاهدات بین‌المللی، چ چهارم، تهران: گنج دانش.
    2. عالیخانی، محمد (1378). حقوق بین‌الملل، تهران: خط سوم.
    3. فلسفی، هدایت‌اله (1379). حقوق بین­الملل معاهدات، تهران: نشر نو.

    ب) مقالات

    1. جنیدی، لعیا (1390). «کنوانسیون نیویورک و رژیم اجرایی آن»، مجلۀحقوقتطبیقی، دورۀ 2، ش 1، بهار و تابستان.
    2. زمانی، سید قاسم (1388). «جایگاه اصل تناسب در سازمان تجارت جهانی»، پژوهشحقوقوسیاست، سال یازدهم، ش 27، پاییز و زمستان.
    3. ساعد، نادر (1384).«تأملی بر اصل رضائی بودن پذیرش معاهدات در آئینۀ تحولات خلع سلاح و کنترل تسلیحات»، مجلۀ حقوقی، ش 32.
    4. فلسفی، هدایت‌اله(73-1372). اجرای مقررات حقوق بین‌الملل، مجلۀ تحقیقات حقوقی،ش 13 و 14، پاییز تا تابستان.
    5. کدخدایی، عباسعلی؛ نادر، ساعد (1382). «بررسی انتقادی مشروعیت اختتام یکجانبۀ معاهدۀ موشک‏های ضد بالستیک از منظر حقوق بین‌الملل»، مجلۀ دانشکدۀ حقوق و علوم سیاسی، ش 60.

    2. انگلیسی

    A) Books

    1. Benvenisti, Eyal, Moshe Hirsch (2004). The Impact of International Law on International Cooperation:Theoretical Perspectives, Cambridge University Press.
    2. Christoffersen, Jonas (2009). Fair Balance: Proportionality, Subsidiarity and Primaty in the European Convention on Human Rights, Martinus Nijhoff.
    3. Jouannet, E, 'Koskenniemi: A Critical Introduction' in M Koskenniemi The Politics of International Law, Hart Publishing Oxford, 2011.

    B)      Articles

    1. Andrew Emmerson (2008).“Conceptualizing Security Exceptions:Legal Doctrine or Political Excuse?“, Journal of International Economic Law, vol. 11.
    2. Rosendorff, B Peter, Helen V Milner (2001).“The Optimal Design of International Trade Institutions: Uncertainty and Escape”, International Organization, vol. 55, Issue4.
    3. Briese ,Robyn, Stephan Schill (2009).“Self-Judging Clauses Before the international court of justice,”, Melbourne Journal of International Law, Vol. 10, Number 1.
    4. Burke-White, William W., Andreas von Staden (2008).“Investment Protection in Extraordinary Times: The Interpretation and Application of Non-Precluded Measures Provisions in Bilateral Investment Treaties “,Virginia Journal of International Law,Vol. 48:2.
      1. O‟Brien, Finín (2011).“Nemo Iudex in Causa Sua”,Irish Journal of Legal Studies, Vol. 2, Issue 2.
      2. Gonzalez M, Pablo (2010).” Escape Clauses and Targeting of the Real Exchange Rate the Case of Nominal Exchange Rate Pegging, “Economic Analysis Review, Vol. 25, No. 1.
      3. Gross Leo.,(1962). “Bulgaria Invokes the Connally Amendment”, The American Journal of International Law, vol. 56.
        1. H.Schloemann, S.Ohlhoff (1999).“Constitutionalization and Dispute Settlement in the WTO: National Security as an Issue of Competence”, American Journal of International Law, vol. 93.
        2. Lindsay,Peter (2003).“The Ambiguity of GATT Article XXI: Subtle Success or Rampant Failure “, Duke Law Journal.
        3. M.Hahn (1991).“Vital Interests and the Law of the GATT: An Analysis of GATT’s Security Exception”, Michigan Journal of International Law, vol.12.
        4. Dosseva (2006).“North Korea and the Non-Proliferation Treaty”,  Yale Journal of International Law,vol. 31.
        5. Ryan, Goodman (2001).“Norms and National Security: The WTO as a Catalyst for Inquiry“,Chicago Journal of International Law, Vol. 2, No. 1.
        6. Schill ,Stephan, Briese ,Robyn (2009). If the State Considers,” Self-Judging Clauses in International Dispute Settlement”, Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law, Vol. 13

    C) Documents

    1. Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (1958).
    2. Frederic L Kirgis (2009).“North Koreas Withdrawd from NuclearNon-Proliferation Treaty”, American Society for International Law.
    3. Mourra, Mary Helen, Thomas E. Carbonneau (2008). Latin American Investment Treaty Arbitration: The Controversies and Conflicts, Kluwer Law International.
    4. Herzing,Mathias (2005). Essays on Uncertainty and Escape in Trade Agreements, Institute for International Economic Studies, Stockholm University, Monograph Series No. 50.
    5. International Court of Justice (1986). Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America).
    6. International Court of Justice Reports (1957). Norwegian Loans (France v. Norway), Separate Opinion of Judge Sir Hersch Lauterpacht.
    7. Timothy Lanier Meyer (2008).The Evolution of International Law, ProQuest.
    8. United States–Trade Measures Affecting Nicaragua (1986). L/6053, GATT Panel Report, 13 October 1986.





    D) Cases & Agreements

    1. Australian Treaty Series (2005). No. 1, signed 18 May 2004, entered into force 1 January 2005.
      1. Djibouti v. France (2008). Certain Questions of Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters,ICJ.
      2. Egypt–India (1997). Treaty for the Promotion and Reciprocal Protection of Investments.
      3. WTO dispute settlement panel (1997). European Communities-Measures Concerning Meat and Meat Products (Hormones), WT/DS26/R/USA, 18 August 1997.
      4. France v. United States of America (1952). Rights of Nationals of the United States of America in Morocco, ICJ, Dissenting opinion of Judges Hackworth, Badawi, Levi Carneiro and Sir Benegal Rau.
      5. GATT, c/m/57 , EC (and EC members), Canada, Australia against Argentina Malvinas/Falklands and a, 1995
      6. GATT/CP.3/SR.22 (8 June 1949)
      7. North American Free Trade Agreement(NAFTA), signed 17 December 1992.
      8. Sempra Energy Int’l v. Argentine Republic, ICSID Case No. ARB/02/16, Award (Sept.28, 2007
        1. General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, Summary Record of the Twelfth Session, SR.19/12, 1961.
        2. The Lotus Case (France v. Turkey), P. C. I. J. , series A, No. 10 (1927)
        3. U.S.-Argentine BIT, art. XI. Agreement on the Mutual Promotion and Protection of Investments, Port.- India, art. 12,
        4. US - India, bit, 2004 ,