نوع مقاله : علمی پژوهشی
موضوعات
عنوان مقاله English
نویسنده English
This research examines the individual opinions expressed by judges of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in the case of "Certain Iranian Assets", specifically focusing on the issue of excluding Bank Markazi (Central Bank of Iran) from the treaty's purview. The case revolves around Iran's effort to lift the seizure of approximately two billion dollars of assets held by the Bank Markazi of Iran in the United States, citing a violation of the Treaty of Amity. While the majority of judges agreed with excluding the Bank from the scope of the Treaty, a minority of five judges held a dissenting opinion. The core of contention among the judgescentered on whether the purchase and holding of twelve bonds by the Central Bank of Iran should be considered as a sovereign act or a commercial act. This research aims to analyze the reasoning employed by both the majority and minority judges in arriving at their respective conclusions. The study recruits a descriptive-analytical method, relying on library sources for data collection. Findings show that although the majority opinion did not secure Iran’s material interests in this case, it emphasized the sovereign nature of the purchase of bonds by theBank, thereby safeguarding Iran’s ultimate interests in maintaining the Bank’s immunity against actions by other governments.
کلیدواژهها English
الف. فارسی
ـ کتاب
ـ مقاله
ب. انگلیسی
- Books
- Articles
