دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی دانشگاه تهران
نوع مقاله : علمی-پژوهشی
نویسندگان
1 استادیار گروه حقوق عمومی و بینالملل دانشگاه علوم قضایی و خدمات اداری، تهران، ایران
2 دانشآموختۀ کارشناس ارشد حقوق بینالملل، دانشکدۀ حقوق قضایی، دانشگاه علوم قضایی و خدمات اداری، تهران، ایران
کلیدواژهها
عنوان مقاله English
نویسندگان English
Following the imposition of sanctions by the United States, Iran initiated proceedings against the United States at the International Court of Justice on July 16, 2018, in accordance with Article 21, paragraph 2 of the Treaty of Amity. The Court's proceedings at the jurisdictional stage led to a ruling on February 3, 2021, affirming the Court's jurisdiction. In the initial proceedings, the United States, as the respondent, raised several objections to the Court's jurisdiction, one of which was a so-called "third-state actions" objection. The main question of this paper is: how did the issue of third-state actions, as one of the respondent's jurisdictional objections, reflect in the jurisdictional judgment of the Court? This paper, using a descriptive-analytical method, concludes that based on the Court’s interpretation what is significant in establishing jurisdiction to examine the violation of the Treaty of Amity—considered a bilateral treaty between the two parties—is the act of the United States imposing sanctions, rather than the manner of execution and the executor of that act, which could be the United States or any other state.
کلیدواژهها English
فارسی
الف) مقالات
ب) سایتها
https://bigdeliacademy.com/1400/02/24/iran-united-states-claims-drvahidbazzar
10 . The security council ,S/RES/1737 (2006) ,Security Council Resolution 1737 - UNSCR.
