Iranian Journal of International and Comparative Law

The International Court of Justice (ICJ) often faces criticism for allegedly exceeding its mandateby engaging in what some perceive as lawmaking. This debate, though not new, continues tospark significant scholarly discourse and is even echoed by some of its own judges. Althoughthe ICJ consistently denies having a lawmaking function, its practices demonstrate its role in thedevelopment of international law. This raises the question: How can the Court contribute to thedevelopment of international law, particularly in addressing gaps, if it lacks formal lawmakingcapacities? Are the criticisms of the Court exceeding its mandate valid? Existing literatureoften conflates ‘judicial legislation’ with ‘lawmaking’, creating a bottleneck in reasoning whichcausing scholars to necessarily conclude that the ICJ inevitably exceeds its judiciary mandate andengages in creating new laws. However, understanding the ICJ’s role in developing internationallaw and addressing gaps, despite its statutory limitations, requires distinguishing between ‘judicial legislation’ and ‘lawmaking’. While the latter involves creating new laws, ‘judiciallegislation’ refers to a method of interpretation for adapting existing laws and establishing newlegal relationships to address emerging legal requirements. This article goes further to identifywhich types of interpretation are most effective for such judicial legislation. By examining theapproaches of the UN International Law Commission (ILC), the article highlights ‘evolutiveinterpretation’ as a particularly suitable method. Evolutive interpretation enables the Court torejuvenate existing laws, clarify ambiguities, and develop legal frameworks for unregulatedissues – all while staying within its adjudicative-only mandate and avoiding lawmaking.

This paper critically examines the international legal and political precedents surroundingthe principle of self-determination, beginning with the dissolution of Yugoslavia, particularlythe Kosovo War, and juxtaposes it with the global responses to analogous separatist claimsin Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Crimea, Luhansk, Donetsk, as well as the ongoing situations inPalestine and Somaliland. Through a comparative analysis of these cases, the paper exposesthe international community’s selective recognition of independence movements, wheresimilar claims are met with divergent responses based not on consistent legal standards buton geopolitical interests and strategic alignments. The study argues that the recognition ofKosovo as an independent state, despite bypassing the UN Security Council, has created aprecedent that is now invoked selectively to either support or delegitimize other secessionistclaims. This inconsistency reveals an underlying double standard in the application ofinternational law, wherein the principles of territorial integrity and self-determination areinstrumentalized to serve the hegemonic objectives of powerful states, thereby eroding thenormative coherence and credibility of the United Nations Charter and the internationallegal order it was designed to uphold.

For thousands of years after the settlement of the Israelites in Canaan, the region hosted asmall Jewish population by the twentieth century. Claims of persecution, displacement, andhistorical ties to the land gave rise to the formation of a movement termed “World Zionism,”aimed at establishing a Jewish State in Palestine. The Balfour Declaration, issued by Britainin 1917, emphasized the necessity of creating a “Jewish National Home,” and the Leagueof Nations Mandate Agreement was subsequently concluded on this basis in 1922. Britain’scontradictory promises to Jews and Arabs led it to refer the Palestine question to the UnitedNations. Negotiations in the UN General Assembly resulted in the adoption of Resolution 181,known as the Partition Resolution, and the establishment of two States, Jewish and Arab, in1948. However, the creation of these two States appeared to violate the rights of the Palestinianinhabitants. Thus, in addressing the question of the legal consequences arising from theestablishment of Israel on land belonging to the Palestinian inhabitants, this study scrutinizes thehypothesis that the formation of Israel involved violations of certain rules of international law,rendering the United Nations and complicit states internationally responsible for this wrongfulact. To substantiate this hypothesis, a descriptive-analytical methodology was recruited. Thelegal framework applicable to Palestine included the Mandate system, the Mandate Agreement,and norms of international law, such as the UN Charter and human rights law. An interpretationof Article 22 of the Covenant of the League of Nations and Article 76 of the UN Charter indicatesthat sovereignty over mandated/trust territories must be vested in the “indigenous inhabitants”of those territories. Such sovereignty must be exercised over theentire territory. Moreover, thecreation of religious or racial states in the region constitutes a breach of the obligation of non-discrimination. Consequently, the establishment of Israel entails the international responsibilityof the UN and complicit states in the UN General Assembly. The legal consequences of thisresponsibility would includerestitution in integrum, reparations, non-recognition, and non-cooperation to ensure the return of “the entirety of Palestine’s sovereignty to its Palestinianinhabitants.”

The challenges of the past century—such as terrorism, nuclear threats, population growth,and drug trafficking—have significantly impacted global security and human rights. Amongthese, the “Environmental Crisis” stands out as one of the most pressing issues facing theinternational community and the rights of future generations. These rights are increasinglythreatened not only by terrorism and nuclear risks but also by the alarming proliferation of theCOVID-19 pandemic, which has emerged as a formidable challenge in the 21st century. It isessential to recognize that these challenges constitute a substantial part of criminal conduct atvarious national, regional, and international levels. To effectively address the myriad forms ofcrimes against the rights of future generations, the adoption of a robust and effective criminalpolicy is imperative. However, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC)has not sufficiently criminalized or addressed crimes specifically targeting future generations.Nonetheless, the Statute’s provisions concerning recognized international crimes—such aswar crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide—may offer a framework for addressingoffenses that infringe upon the rights of future generations. Thus, it is conceivable to pursueaccountability for such crimes within the jurisdiction of the ICC.

The claim of Russia’s humanitarian intervention in Ukraine serves as a legal justification for theuse of force. However, there is no evidence supporting allegations of genocide in the Donetskor Luhansk regions. While the majority of states oppose Russia’s invasion, this does not justifyoverlooking the rule of law, particularly the law of neutrality. In Ukraine’s struggle againstRussian aggression, the United States and its allies have provided weapons and military trainingto Ukrainian forces. This unprecedented support violates the prohibition of the use of force andthe law of neutrality. According to the Thirteenth Hague Convention of 1907, neutral countriescannot supply “war material of any kind” to belligerent powers. Consequently, Russia holdsthe right to take countermeasures against governments violating neutrality. Furthermore, underArticle 52 of the First Protocol to the Geneva Convention of 1949, Russia may target weaponsin Ukraine’s possession. However, if Russia targets these weapons before they are actively usedby Ukraine, such an attack could violate jus ad bellum, as the transfer of weapons alone cannotbe classified as an armed attack against Russia.

This study examines the legal foundations, legitimacy, and effectiveness of Western sanctionsimposed on Russia in response to its actions in Ukraine. It assesses these measures underinternational law, evaluating their compliance with principles governing economic coercion,state sovereignty, and lawful enforcement. Through doctrinal analysis, the study explores thesanctions’ influence on Russia’s foreign policy and military strategy. Findings suggest thatwhile early sanctions induced considerable economic strain, Russia has adapted by diversifyingits economy and deepening trade relations with non-sanctioning states. Though often framedas lawful countermeasures under international law, the actual effectiveness of these sanctionsin constraining Russia’s military ambitions remains contested. The study identifies key legaland policy considerations affecting the impact of sanctions, including proportionality, globaleconomic interdependence, and the mitigating role of major powers such as China. Ultimately,this inquiry calls into question the long-term viability of both unilateral and multilateral sanctionsas reliable instruments of coercive diplomacy within the framework of international law.

Wild animals need special attention because of their significance from the environmental,ecological, genetic, scientific, recreational, cultural, educational, social and economic points ofview. There are numerous international instruments and documents in the field of internationalwildlife law (IWL). Among them, there are three well-known instruments namely the Ramsar,Bonn, and CITES Conventions. In the present piece, these Conventions are studied comparativelyin order to find out their approaches toward the protection of wildlife. In doing so, the author,first and foremost, provides a brief overview of these Conventions. Thereafter, their approachestoward wildlife protection would be analyzed. The methodological approach of this researchincludes analysis of wildlife protection through descriptive and normative explanation of theRamsar, Bonn, and CITES Conventions. According to the findings of this study, reasonable andwise use of wetlands (the approach of the Ramsar Convention), special attention to migratorybirds (the approach of the Bonn Convention), and the regulation of international wildlifetrade (the approach of CITES) are three main and prevalent approaches in these instruments.Furthermore, it appears that CITES has played a more important and effective role in IWL andprotection of wildlife. It is due to the fact that this Convention has more operative tools and itsState Parties have undertaken more extensive and practical obligations.

The importance of investment and the necessity for its legality, alongside the occurrence ofcorruption due to the involvement of multiple actors in the investment process, render itsexamination - especially in arbitration - unavoidable. Corruption may manifest through foreigninvestors and pressures from their home states or affiliated intermediaries, taking the form ofbribery and collusion with domestic officials of the host state or through threats against them.Furthermore, the emergence of corruption may stem from structural weaknesses or corruption-laden processes within the host state’s system. At times, a combination of all the aforementionedfactors, alongside the involvement of third parties, can create a corrupt and illegal investmentprocess. Given the private nature of arbitration, the primary question arises: does an arbitraltribunal possess the jurisdiction and authority to examine and determine the liability of each ofthe aforementioned actors? Through an analytical and documentary investigation, this articleestablishes that, firstly, arbitral tribunals generally do not have the power to investigate criminalbehavior and related inquiries; secondly, due to secrecy and threats against witnesses, collectingand maintaining the security of evidence within the sovereign territory of the host state ischallenging; thirdly, ICSID tribunals often rely on the “balance of probabilities” and significantlyon “red flags” and reports from anti-corruption organizations. Fourthly, the consideration of theinitiating factor of corruption, the degree of influence of participating actors (the prevalenceof corruption in the host state and the level of the host state’s involvement in the occurrenceof corruption), as well as the circumstances of “duress” and “hostage” situations and thenature of the bribe (transactional / variance), may lead, depending on the case, to the completecondemnation of the investor ( and a finding that the investment is unjust) or a reduction ofliability or immunity for the host state.

This study aims to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the Iranian and English legalsystems regarding the use of scientific evidence and to propose solutions for overcomingobstacles to its acceptance. The results indicate that within Iranian law, the acceptance ofscientific evidence is highly dependent on the judge’s personal judgment and the principleof “the judge’s personal knowledge,” which can lead to contradictory opinions. By contrast,the English legal system employs stricter criteria, such as the Daubert principles, whichhave enhanced the accuracy of scientific evidence evaluation but have also resulted in morecomplex and costly processes. Both legal systems face challenges, including the potentialmisuse of scientific evidence and a lack of specialized training for judges and experts.The study concludes by suggesting that the Iranian legal system, drawing on the Englishexperience, develop clear criteria for the acceptance of scientific evidence and standardizeits evaluation process. Reforms have also been proposed for the English context to reducecosts and streamline procedures. The study highlights the importance of specialized judicialtraining and international cooperation for improving the efficiency of judicial systems.

When parties to a dispute select arbitration as their means of resolving the conflict, they relyon evidentiary materials to present claims or defenses. In this context, the likelihood of oneparty engaging in fraudulent practices in the presentation of evidence and utilizing fraudulentmaterials to influence the arbitration process is significant. According to the arbitration practicesof the International Chamber of Commerce (ICC), it has been established that an arbitratorlacks independent and direct authority to uncover such fraudulent evidence. However, whenthe opposing party challenges the evidence as fraudulent and raises allegations of fraud in thearbitration, the arbitrator is obliged to address this objection and examine the validity of eachpiece of evidence according to its nature. Failure by the arbitrator to consider such evidence canundermine the credibility and value of the arbitral award. When the award issued by the arbitrationauthority is tainted by falsehood and fraud, it loses its enforceability. Therefore, delineating thescope of the arbitrator’s authority in the face of fraudulent evidence is of paramount importance.Analyzing arbitration practices and the conduct of arbitrators, particularly within the frameworkof the ICC when confronted with fraudulent evidence, will ultimately contribute to theestablishment of a unified procedure. This article employs a descriptive-analytical methodology,utilizing library resources to address the question of what the scope of the arbitrator’s jurisdictionis in uncovering fraudulent evidence.

The principle of confidentiality is one of the most significant principles governing arbitration.In fact, the confidentiality of arbitration is a crucial positive attribute distinguishing it fromjudicial proceedings conducted in courts. According to this principle, access to documentsand information generated during the arbitration process is limited exclusively to individualswho require such access for the purpose of arbitration, thereby preventing third parties fromaccessing this information. Furthermore, there are essential issues within an arbitration processthat must fall under the provisions related to the principle of confidentiality. These issues includethe arbitration agreement, witness testimony and expert opinions, trade secrets, minutes ofmeetings, consultations, and the arbitral award. On the other hand, a breach of the principle ofconfidentiality concerning any of these subjects may lead to the imposition of legal liabilities (both civil and criminal) on the violators of the principle, including arbitrators, parties to thearbitration, and third parties. This research examines the confidentiality of arbitration withininternational rules and Iranian law, the issues covered by the principle of confidentiality inarbitration, and the persons obligated to adhere to this principle during the arbitration process.

Composition contracts are of great importance in international legal systems and are consideredto be an important tool for solving financial problems, as they contribute significantly toeconomic prosperity by preventing the complete dissolution of economic units. Therefore, acomparative study of composition contracts in different legal systems such as Iran, the UnitedStates and the United Kingdom can contribute significantly to the reform of commercial lawsand regulations in this field. Accordingly, the main purpose of the present study is to examinethe economic policies and challenges in composition contracts and their application in the legalsystems of Iran, the United States and the United Kingdom. The main question of the presentstudy is: “What are the main challenges of composition contracts in the legal systems of Iran,the United States and the United Kingdom?” In response, it can be hypothesized that the majorchallenge in the US and Iranian systems seems to be debt security, while in the UK, creditrestoration is considered a major challenge. The research findings indicate that in all threecountries, from a policy perspective, composition  agreements play a vital role in resolvingdebts and rebuilding the financial situation of debtors, but each of these countries faces its ownchallenges. In Iran, there are problems such as lack of transparency in assets and resistance fromsome creditors. In the US, challenges such as legal complexities and problems related to creditorcooperation are present. Despite having a modern legal framework, the UK also faces issuessuch as administrative complexities and the economic impacts of composition agreements.Given the problems in all three systems, it is suggested that policy and legal reforms be carriedout to facilitate the process of composition agreements in all three countries. This study uses adescriptive-analytical method and a comparative approach. Legal documents from Iran, the US,and England have been analyzed using library resources.

Although the era when children were primarily considered as a source of labor for the familyhas largely passed, the procreation of children remains indispensable for societal continuity.Views on children have shifted from characterizing them as the “private property of the family”to recognizing them as a “public good.” While children may not satisfy all the criteria of a purepublic good, it is widely acknowledged that society bears a significant role in the upbringing,education, and, ultimately, the costs associated with children. Nonetheless, although theconception of a child as a personal property of the family has changed, extensive governmentalintrusion into family privacy is similarly not accepted. This article employs a descriptive-analytical approach to examine arguments for and against this perspective, drawing on theoriesof public and socialized goods, with a focus on Iranian legislation. Children, due to their potentialbenefits, such as their future roles as workforce and taxpayers, exhibit characteristics of a publicgood; however, philosophical, legal, economic, and cultural challenges limit this interpretation.Iranian laws, particularly the Family and Youthful Population Support Act (2021) and Article3 of the Child and Adolescent Protection Act (2020), recognize government responsibility andmark a step toward conceptualizing children as public goods. This article posits thatwhetherchildren are characterized as public goods or as socialized goods, an obligation is thereby createdfor non-parents and, consequently, for the state as the representative of the nation, to share in thecosts associated with them.

Francesca P. Albanese and Lex Takkenberg’s Palestinian Refugees in International Law,the substantially expanded second edition of which was published in 2020 by OxfordUniversity Press, is an exhaustive and meticulous work that can be considered the seminallegal text on the status of Palestinian refugees. This volume, which is fundamentallya new work built upon the foundation of the 1998 first edition, adopts a holistic andmultidisciplinary approach to examine the historical, legal, and political dimensions ofone of the world’s most protracted refugee crises. The authors, both possessing extensiveexperience with the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the NearEast (UNRWA), present a profound analysis of the distinctive legal regime governingthis refugee population, arguing that any just and durable solution to their predicamentmust be firmly rooted in the principles of international law.