Suchergebnisse

The relationship between International Human Rights and Islamic Law has been always an arguable debate at the international level. This issue can be considered by jurists in two aspects. First, from National Law perspective, especially in the countries in which the law, to some extent is affected by Islamic rules. Second, by view of International Law to see that to what extent, there would be compatibility or likely contradiction between human rights norms and Islamic Law.Considering the historical aspect of the issue, this article is suggesting that although from the outset, International Law tried to separate religion from policy, but this historical fact would not prevent theoretical conciliation between religion and Human Rights rules. The review of the content of International Human Rights Law reveals that the rules in the systems in most part are compatible. However, in some cases the incompatibility between these two group pf rules is observed. The existence of different basis under Islamic Law and International Law makes the least difference unavoidable. The constant dialogue between Islamic scholars and publicists can decrease this difference in future.

Nationalization of foreign investor assets does not serve the interests of countries because it disrupts the economic security of states and ultimately leads to a reduction in foreign investment. Governments have sought to minimize investor nationalization and property confiscation in order to attract foreign investment. In the event of expropriation of a foreign investor, governments are required to compensate the investor. The position of customary international law on how to pay compensation and methods of assessing damages includes procedures based on national law, treaties and judicial decisions or arbitration. In order to support investors, it is necessary that the right to nationalize property and expropriation of investors should be very limited. Further, in case of nationalization, the damage must be compensated in a desirable and effective manner. The foreign investor must enjoy the same rights as domestic investors and at the same time have the right to transfer their capital and profits abroad. Appropriate measures should also be taken to amend national laws in order to consolidate and guarantee the ownership of foreign investors.

After the Islamic revolution in Iran in 1979, fundamental changes occurred in Iran's political and legal system. Pursuant the referendum on creating the Islamic Republic in March 1979, the new constitution came into force in the same year and many of the ordinary laws of the country were also reformed. The purpose of this study is to consider the method of ratification of international treaties and the status of these instruments in the legal system of Iran. Firstly, the stages of the ratification of treaties in Iran's legal system have been explained. Secondly, the position of treaties among the other laws is discussed. This study concludes that, the international treaties, like ordinary laws, primarily should be passed by the Islamic Consultative Assembly; and after the approval of the Guardian Council, they should be signed by the President. Under the Constitution of Iran all international treaties should all be ratified by the Islamic Consultative Assembly (parliament) and the Guardian Council; however, based on the interpretations of the Guardian Council and the executive procedures, some treaties have been excluded from the ratification of the Islamic Consultative Assembly. International treaties may enjoy a higher position than that of the ordinary law through an objective interpretation, although they have been recognized as ordinary laws by the Article 9 of the Civil Code of Iran.