نوع مقاله : علمی پژوهشی
موضوعات
عنوان مقاله English
نویسندگان English
In the case concerning Certain Iranian Assets, the United States lodged several procedural and occasional substantive objections in the preliminary stage with the aim of impeding the International Court of Justice (ICJ) from issuing a substantive ruling. These objections primarily centered around the Court's alleged lack of jurisdiction over the Case. Additionally, the United States questioned the admissibility of Iran's claim based on two fundamental charges: "Iran's abuse of court" and "absence of clean hands." These objections sought to undermine Iran's claim and its admissibility. Before delving into other claims, the ICJ addressed the objections raised by the United States, maintaining its established approach in recent similar cases. This article employs a descriptive-analytical methodology and draws upon library sources to not only clarify and refute the arguments and reasoning put forth by the United States regarding the admissibility of Iran's claim, but also to confirm the hypothesis that the Court adheres to its mainstream judicial policy on matters of "abuse of right" and "absence of clean hands." Moreover, the article characterizes the Court's current approach as consistent with recognized customary practices among international legal practitioners.
کلیدواژهها English
الف. فارسی
ب. انگلیسی
