Document Type : Article


1 Ph.D. Student in International Law, Faculty of Law, Najafabad Branch, Islamic Azad University, Najafabad, Iran

2 Faculty of Law, Najafabad Branch, Islamic Azad University, Najafabad, Iran; Prof., Faculty of Law and Political Science, University of Allameh Tabataba'i, Tehran, Iran

3 Associate Prof., Department of Law, Faculty of Law, Najafabad Branch, Islamic Azad University, Najafabad, Iran;


According to Article 103 of the UN Charter, obligations arising from the UN Charter has priority over other obligations of the members of the United Nations. There is much evidence in practice of governments, international instruments, and judicial decisions in the post-Cold War which indicate the obligations arising from binding decisions of the UN Security Council are within the scope of the UN Charter obligations. So, in the event of any conflict between these obligations and any international agreement priority is given to Article 103 of the UN Charter. However, it seems for solving the said conflict in such cases, the national courts and European Court of Justice have been based on different approaches and consequently, they have adopted three judicial approaches as following: "conformity", "separation" and "harmonization". The variety and diversity of the mentioned approaches will affect not only the rights of individuals, but also the coherence of international law.


1. فارسی
الف) کتاب
1. بیگ‌زاده، ابراهیم (1389)، حقوق سازمان‌های بین‌المللی، چ اول، تهران: مجد.
ب) مقالات
2. حبیبی مجنده، محمد؛ کامیار راد، ساناز (1397)، «قاعده‌سازی در دیوان بین‌المللی دادگستری از مجرای تفسیر پویا»، مجلۀ حقوقی بین‌المللی، ش 85.
3. سادات اخوی، علی؛ نفیسه پارسانیا (1392)، «قواعد تفسیر کنوانسیون اروپایی حقوق بشر در پرتو رویۀ قضایی دیوان اروپایی حقوق بشر»، مجلۀ حقوقی بین‌المللی، ش 49.
4. شریفی طرازکوهی، حسین (1375)، «قواعد آمره و نظم حقوقی بین‌المللی»، تهران: دفتر مطالعات سیاسی و بین‌المللی.
5. عزیزی، ستار (1392)، «جایگاه مادۀ 103 منشور در حقوق بین‌الملل عام»، نشریۀ فقه و حقوق اسلامی، ش هفتم.
6. محبی، محسن؛ اسماعیل سماوی (1397)، «نقش رویۀ دیوان اروپایی حقوق بشردر تفسیر پویای معاهدات حقوق بشری»، مجلۀ حقوقی بین‌المللی، ش 85.
7. ممتاز، جمشید (1378)، «انطباق تحریم‌های شورای امنیت با حقوق بشردوستانه بین‌المللی»، ترجمۀ مهرداد رضائیان، مجلۀ سیاست خارجی، ش 4.
2. انگلیسی
A) Books
1. Beigzadeh, Ebrahim (2010), The Law of International Organizations, 1st ed, Tehran: Majd (In Persian).
2. Pauwelyn, Joost (2003), Conflict of Norms in Public International Law: How WTO Law Relates to other Rules of International Law, CUP.
3. Sharifi Taraz Koohi, Hossein (1996), Jus Cogens and the International Legal Order, Tehran: Foreign Affairs Press (In Persian).
4. Simma, Bruno and Others (2002), The Charter of the United Nation, Oxford University Press, Secound Edition.
B) Articles
5. Azizi, Satar (2013), "Standpoint of Article 103 of the United Nations Charter in General International Law",Contemporary Legal Studies, No 7 (In Persian).
6. Bernhard, Rudolf (2002), “Article 103” in Bruno Simma et al (eds), The Charter of the United Nations: A Commentary, 2nd ed, OUP.
7. Besson, Samantha (2009), “European Legal Pluralism after Kadi”, 5 ECLR.
8. Bowett, Derek (1994), “The Impact of Security Council Decisions on Dispute Settlement Procedures”, The European Journal of International Law, Volume 5.
9. Conforti, Benedetto (2011), “Consistency among Treaty Obligations” in Enzo Cannizzaro (ed), The Law of Treaties Beyond the Vienna Convention, OUP.
10. De Wet, Erika and Nollkaemper, André (2008), “Review of the Security Council Decisions by National Courts”, 45 German YB Intl Law.
11. De Wet, Erika and Vidmar, Jure (2012), Hierarchy in International Law: The Place of Human Rights, OUP.
12. Galicki, Zdzislaw (2008), “Heirarchy in International Law within the Context of its Fragmentation”, in Isabelle Buffard, James Crawford, Alain Pellet, Stefhan Wittich (eds), International Law between Universalism and Fragmentation, Martinus Nijhoff Publisher.
13. Habibi Majandeh, Mohammad and Kamyar Raad, Sanaz (2018), “Law-Making by the International Court of Justice through Dynamic Interpretation”, International Law Review, No 58 (In Persian).
14. Lavranos, Nikolas (2009), “Revisiting Article 307 EC: The Untouchable Core of Fundamental European Constitutional Values and Principles” in Filippo Fontanelli, Giuseppe Martinico and Paolo Carrozza (eds), Shaping the Rule of Law Through Dialogue, Europa Law Publishing.
15. Mohebi, Mohsen and Samavi, Esmaeil (2018), “The Contribution of Precedent of the European Court of Human Rights in Dynamic Interpretation of Human Rights Treaties”, International Law Review, No 58 (In Persian).
16. Momtaz, Jamshid (1999), “La compatabilité des sanctions économiques du Conseil de sécurité avec le droit international humanitaire”, Rezaeian, Mehrdad, The Journal of Foreign Policy, No 52 (In Persian).
17. Nollkaemper, Adré (2010), “Rethinking the Supremacy of International Law”, Zeitschrift für öffentliches Recht 65.
18. Palchetti, P. (2012), “Judicial Review of the International Validity of UN Security Council Resolutions by the European Court of Justice”, in: E. Cannizzaro, P. Palchetti, R. A. Wessel (eds.), International Law as Law of the European Union, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden.
19. Reinisch, August (2009), “Should Judges second-Guess the UN security Council?”, International Organizations Law Review 6, Martinus Nijhoff Publushers.
20. Rob, McLaughlin (2008), “The Legal Regime Applicable to Use of Lethal Force When Operating under a United Nations Security Council Chapter VII Mandate Authorizing All Necessary Means”, Journal of Conflict & Security Law, Vol. 12, No. 3.
21. Rosas, Allan (2011), “The Death of International Law?” 20 Finish Year Book International Law.
22. Sadat Akhavi, Seyyed Ali and Parsaniya, Nafiseh (2013), “The Rules of Interpretation of European Convention on Human Rights in Light of the European Court of Human Rights’ Judicial Precedent”, International Law Review, No 49 (In Persian).
23. Shany, Yuval (2005), “Toward a General Margin of Appreciation Doctrine in International Law?”, 16 EJIL.
C) Online Source
24. Milanovic, Marko (2012), “European Court Decides Nada v Switzerland”, <>. (last visited: June 7, 2020)