Doehring, Karl, “Unlawful Resolutions of the Security Council and their Legal Consequences”, M.P.Y.B.U.N., Vol.1, 1997.
31. Duigzentkunts, “Interpretation of Legislative Security Consul Resolutions” U.L.R., Vol.4
32. Dupont, P., Countermeasures and Collective Security: The Case of the EU Sanctions Against Iran, Journal of Conflict & Security Law, Vol. 17, No. , .2012.
33. E. Rosand, “The Security Council as Global Legislature: Ultra Vires or Ultra Innovative” F.I.L.J., Vol.28,2004.
34. Eckart Klein, “Establishing a Hierarchy OF Human Rights: Ideal Solution for Fallacy. p.487. Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1333295
35. Eeckhout, “Community Terrorism Listings, Fundamental Rights, and UN Security Council Resolutions: In Search of the Right Fit”, E.C.L.R., Vol.3, 2007.
36. Eeckhout, P., EU External Relations Law, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2011.
37. Efthymios, Papastavirdis, ” Interpretation of Security Consul Resolution On the Chapter7 in the Aftermath of the Iraqi Crissis”, I.C.L.Q., Vol.56, 2007.
38. Efthymios, Papastavirdis, ” Interpretation of Security Consul Resolution On the Chapter7 in the Aftermath of the Iraqi Crissis”, I.C.L.Q., Vol.56, 2007.
39. Erich Vranes, ” The Definition of ‘Norm Conflict’ in International Law and Legal Theory”, E.J.I.L, Vol. 17, No.2, 2006.
40. Eyal Benvenisti & George W. Downs, ” Prospects for the Increased Independence of International Tribunals”, G.L.J., Vol.12, No.5, 2011.
41. F. L. Kirgis, “Custom on a Sliding Scale”, A.J.I.L. Vol.81,1987.
42. Galtung, J., On the Effects of International Economic Sanctions, With Examples from the Case of Rhodesia, World Politics , Vol. 19 , Issue 3 , 1967.
43. Giacinto Della Cananea, “Global Security and Procedural Due Process of Law between the United Nations and the European Union”, C.J.I.L., Vol.15, 2009.
44. Gray, D, International Law and the Use of Force, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 3rd ed., 2008.
45. H Thirlway, “The Law and Procedure of the International Court of Justice”, B.Y.I. L., Vol.67, 1969.
46. H. Thirlway, ‘The Sources of International Law’, in M.D.Evans (ed.), International Law, 2006.
47. Ingo Venzke, ” Making General Exceptions: The Spell of Precedents in Developing Article XX GATT into Standards for Domestic Regulatory Policy”, G.L.J., Vol.12, No.5, 2011.
48. J. Craig Barker et al., “Kadi and Al Barakaat”, I.C.L.Q, Vol.58, 2009.
49. J. H.H.Weiler and Andreas L Paulus, “The Structure of Change in International Law or Is There a Hierarchy of Norms in International Law?”, Symposium: The
50. Joyner, D, The Security Council as a Legal Hegemon, Georgetown Jornal of International Law, Vol. 40, 2012.
51. Kile, S., Europe and Iran Perspectives on Nonproliferation, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2005.
52. Kile, Y., Nuclear arms control and non-proliferation?, in SIPRI Yearbook, Stockholm, SIPRI Publications, 2008.
53. Krift, T., Self-Defense and Self-Help: The Israeli Raid on Entebbe, Berkeley Journal of International Law, Vol. 43, 1977.
54. McNair, A. and Watts, A., Legal Effects of War, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1966.
55. Razegi, M., International responsibility today, Netherlands, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2005.
56. Ronen, Y., The Iran Nuclear Issue, Oxford, Hart Publishing, 2010.
57. Ruiz, A, Third Report on State Responsibility, International Law Cpmmission Yearbook, Vol. 2, part 1, 1991.
58. Sen, B., A Diplomat’s Handbook of International Law and Practice, New York, Springer, 3rd ed, 1988.
59. Shaw, M., International Law, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2008.

اسناد

1. Air Services Agreement of 27 March 1946 (United States v France) (1978) 54 ILR 304.
2. Council Regulation (EU) No 267/2012, 2012).

3. Draft Articles on State Responsibility with commentaries, Yearbook of the International Law Commission, Vol. 2, Part Two, 2001.
4. EU Council Conclusions on Iran (3142th Foreign Affairs Council meeting, Brussels, 23 January 2012).

5. EU Council, Press release 5457/12 of 23 January 2012, ‘Iran: New EU sanctions target sources of finance for nuclear programme’.
6. Gab??kovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary/Slovakia), I.C.J. Reports 1997.
7. I.C.J. Reports 1949.
8. I.C.J. Reports 1977.
9. LaGrand (Germany v United States), ICJ Reports 2001.

10. Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, I.C.J. Reports 1996.
11. Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, I.C.J. Reports 1996.
12. Mavrommatis Palestine Concessions (U.K. v. Greece), P.C.I.J. (ser.A) No. 3. 1924.
13. Oil Platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v. United States of America), Preliminary Objection, I.C.J. Reports 1996.
14. Phosphates in Morocco, Preliminary Objections, 1938, P.C.I.J., Series A/B, No. 74.
15. Prosecutor v Dusko Tadic (Decision on the Defense Motion for Interlocutory Appeal on Jurisdiction) ICTY-94-1-AR72 (2 October 1995.
16. Rainbow Warrior (New Zealand/France), UNRIAA, vol. XX, p. 217 (1990).

این مطلب رو هم توصیه می کنم بخونین:   تحقیق رایگان درباره the، and، Advisor:

17. Report and Recommendations made by the Panel of Commissioners concerning the Sixth Instalment of ‘F1′ Claims”, S/AC.26/2002/6.

18. Responsibility of Germany for Damages Caused in the Portuguse Colonies in the south Africa (portugul v Germany)(Naulilaa), 31 July 1982.

19. SC Res 1696 (2006), 31 July 2006.
20. SC Res 1737 (2006), 23 December 2006.

21. SC Res 1747 (2006), 23 Martch 2007.
22. SC Res 1803 (2006), 3 Martch 2008.
23. SC Res 1835 (2008), 27 December 2008.
24. SC Res 1929 (2010), 9 June 2010.
25. Convention on the Prohibition of Military or any other Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 1108.
26. UNCITRAL Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, Vienna, 11 April 1980, U.N.T.S., vol. 1489.
27. UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts, in UNIDROIT, Principles of International Commercial Contracts (Rome, 1994).
28. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (Montego Bay, United Nations, Treaty Series, vol. 1833.

29. United States Diplomatic and Consular Staff in Tehran, I.C.J. Reports 1980.

30. United States, Department of State Bulletin, vol. 14, 1946.

چکیده انگلیسی Abstract:

The paper aims at revisiting the law of countermeasures, through the case study of the economic measures targeting Iran agreed by the EU Member States in early 2012. This case concerns a very specific situation: that of measures enacted motu proprio in the framework of a regional organization against a country which has already been targeted by sanctions adopted by the UN Security Council. The unprecedented extent of these new EU measures raises various issues regarding their lawfulness under international law. Beginning with a brief overview of the factual background of the Iranian nuclear controversy, our assessment of the measures’ lawfulness consists of a 2-fold primary process; first, it is necessary to characterize these measures, in order to determine the applicable legal framework. Then, depending upon the conclusion reached as to the legal nature of the measures, their lawfulness is to be assessed with respect to the relevant rules governing their use. As regards the first step, the measures under consideration may prima facie qualify either as measures of retorsion, as sanctions (whether emanating from the UN Security Council or ‘autonomous’), or as countermeasures. The paper examines what legal category adequately describes the EU measures, and concludes with reasonable certainty that they display the general characteristics of countermeasures. This finding entails the applicability of the law of State responsibility (as well as the law of responsibility of international organization), which is relevant to assess in the case considered the lawfulness of the measures, both from a procedural and a substantive perspective.
Key words: Iranian necular program, European Union measures, Self-help, Law of internatioan responsibility, Sanctions, Countermeasurs

Islamic Azad University
Damghan, Branch
M.A. Dissertation IN International Law
Title:
Study of European Union Restrictive Measures against Iran: Applicable Law on the Countermeasures Perspective
Advising Professor:
Dr. Ali Amiri

Consultant Professor:
Dr. Alireza Jahangiri

Written by:
Hossein Ramazanghorbani
Summer 2013

1 ‘Restrictive measures’ is the official term used by the EU institutions to designate ‘sanctions’. See: Dupont, P., Countermeasures and Collective Security: The Case of the EU Sanctions Against Iran, Journal of Conflict & Security Law, Vol. 17, No. 3, p.302.
2 See eg: ‘EU discussing plan to start Iran oil ban on July 1’ Reuters (17 January 2012); ‘EU states agree in principle to sanction Iran central bank’ Reuters (18 January 2012).
3 EU Council Conclusions on Iran (3142th Foreign Affairs Council meeting, Brussels, 23 January 2012) para 2.
4 See EU Council, Press release 5457/12 of 23 January 2012, ‘Iran: New EU sanctions target sources of finance for nuclear programme’.
5 Draft Articles on State Responsibility with commentaries, Yearbook of the International Law Commission, Vol. 2, Part Two, 2001, pp. 128-137.
6 Draft Articles on Internatioanal Oranization Responsibility with commentaries, Yearbook of the International Law Commission, Vol. 2, Part Two, 2011, pp. 149-156.
7 See inter elia: Crawford, J., The International law Commissions Articles on State Responsibility, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2009.

8 Calamita, N., Sanctions,

دسته‌ها: No category

دیدگاهتان را بنویسید