Law and Diplomacy in Light of the Jurisdiction of Islamic Republic of Iran’s Courts Act for Adjudicating Civil Litigations against Foreign States and Related Acts of the U.S.A.

Document Type : academic

Author

Abstract

Owing to their diplomatic nature, both the Jurisdiction of Iranian Courts’ Act and the Terrorism Exception to Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of the U.S.A use notions with different implications which may accompany with political orientations. The foregoing Acts lack transparency, uniformity and predictability in legislative and also in execution phases. Hence, the nature of these Acts have been transformed from a set of legal rules to phenomena which instead of creating a uniform principle for similar situations, build a tool dealing with political disparities. These Acts fail to meet traits of legal norms including “generality, commonness and permanency”. As a matter of fact, these Acts are alternative tools which have been chosen among others in lieu of the use of force by States. The aforementioned Acts have not been adopted to organize the relations among States and include only targeted States. These Acts are conditional and include only States defined as sponsors of terrorism. Finally, they are not permanent and exist only until the description of “sponsored terrorism” remains or, at last, until the relations among State become normal. It is evident that they have no intention to create a legal rule governing the normal situations. However, in their lifetime, they generate bad effects, malpractice and hazardous jurisprudence. The abovementioned consideration has somehow been confirmed in the case of Jurisdictional Immunities of the States, Germany v. Italy by the International Court of Justice (ICJ) recognizing the U.S.A Acts as not a settled practice. Hence, scrutinizing the Acts just from a legal or diplomatic prospect may not create reliable consequences. Therefore this survey studies them from an upper horizon which includes non-legal and judicial aspects.

Keywords

References

  • الف) فارسی

    • کدخدایی، عباسعلی و عبدالله عابدینی؛ « مصونیت دولت و قاعده آمره: استثنای در حال ظهور؟»، فصلنامه مطالعات حقوق عمومی، دوره 45، شماره 1، بهار 1394.
    • نواری، علی؛ «مصونیت قضایی دولت و نقض حقوق بشر در پرتو عملکرد دولت‌ها، رویه قضایی و دکترین»، فصلنامه سیاست خارجی، سال بیست‌و‌پنجم، شماره 4، زمستان 1390.

     

    ب) انگلیسی

    Books

    • Lowther, Adam B., Lindsay Beverly, Terrorism's Unanswered Questions, Greenwood, Publishing Group, 2009.
    • Shortell, Christopher, Rights, Remedies and the Impact of Sovereign Immunity, State University of New York Press, 2008.
    • Xiaodong Yang, State Immunity in International Law, Cambridge University Press, 2012.

     

    Articles

    • Benevenisti Eyal & Downs George W., “National Courts, Domestic Democracy, and the Evolution of International Law”, European Journal of International Law, vol. 20, No. 1, 2009.
    • Borgen Christopher J., “Hearts and Minds and Law: Legal Compliance and Diplomatic Persuasion”, South Texas Law Review, vol. 50, 2009.
    • Colangelo, Anthony J., “Constitutional Limits on Extraterritorial Jurisdiction: Terrorism and the Intersection of National and International Law”, Harvard International Law Journal, vol. 48, 2000.
    • Curtis A. Bradley & Jack L. Goldsmith, “Foreign Sovereign Immunity and Domestic Officer Suits”, 13 Green Bag 2D 137, Winter 2010.
    • Drescher, Ilana Arnowitz, “Seeking Justice for America's Forgotten Victims: Reforming the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act Terrorism Exception”, Legislation and Public Policy, vol. 15, 2012.
    • Gartenstein-Ross, Daveed, “A Critique of the Terrorism Exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act”, International Law and Politics, 2003.
    • Goldsmith, Jack L. and Goodman Ryan, “U.S. Civil Litigation and International Terrorism”, Chicago Public Law and Legal Theory Working Paper, No. 26, 2002.
    • Peed, Matthew J., “Blacklisting as Foreign Policy: The Politics and Law of Listing Terror States”, Duke Law Journal, vol. 54, 2005.

    Cases and Documents

    • Constitutional Court of South Africa, The Government of the Republic of Zimbabwe v. Fick and Others, 2013, CCT 101/12.
    • Institut de Droit International (I.D.I), “The Activities of National Judges and the International Relation of Their States”, Resolution adopted at 66th session in Milan, 1993.
    • Italian Constitutional Court Judgment 238/2014.
    • Jones v. Ministry of Interior Al-Mamlaka Al-Arabiy as Saudiya and Others, UKHL 26; ILDC 521, UK. 2006.
    • Jurisdictional Immunities of the State, Germany v. Italy, International Court of Justice Reports, 2012.
    • The Court of Appeal (Civil Division), on Appeal from High Court, Queen’s Bench Division, 2014, A2/2014/0596.

     

     

International Law Review
Volume 33, Issue 54
July 2016
Pages 123-166

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 16 July 2016
  • Accept Date: 16 July 2016

Share

How to cite

Statistics