scholarly journals Prawnomiędzynarodowa subsumpcja wybranych aspektów napięcia w okolicach cieśniny Ormuz w 2019 roku

2020 ◽  
Vol 73 (1) ◽  
pp. 63-88
Author(s):  
Paweł Pietrzak
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Relations ◽  
International Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Islamic Republic ◽  
Legal Nature ◽  
Strait Of Hormuz ◽  
Islamic Republic Of Iran ◽  
Iranian State ◽  
Independent Commission

The purpose of this article is to conduct an international law analysis of the events that occurred around the Strait of Hormuz in 2019 and related incidents. It mainly focuses on incidents that took place between the United States and Iran. It should be noted that the complexity of the factual situation has a significant impact on the content of the argument. Namely, the article only describes events of key importance from the perspective of international relations. They are supplemented by events of moderate significance that are necessary for conducting an argument from the perspective of international law. The following issues are also considered: the importance of the Strait of Hormuz, relations between the United States and Iran after 1941 and the increased tension observed in their relations since spring 2018. Even though ambiguities of both factual and legal nature speak in favour of the Islamic Republic of Iran, according to the rule in dubio pro reo, it seems that the activities of the Iranian state should be examined in more detail. Consequently, it can be concluded that it is necessary to appoint an independent commission to collect more evidence.

scholarly journals Comparative Study of International Commercial Arbitration and International Law in Iran

2016 ◽  
Vol 9 (7) ◽  
pp. 242
Author(s):  
Soheila Hashemi ◽  
Nader Mardani
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Law ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
The United States ◽  
Islamic Republic ◽  
Commercial Arbitration ◽  
International Commercial Arbitration ◽  
Two Factors ◽  
International Trading ◽  
Islamic Republic Of Iran

Arbitration is one of the most important solutions to end enmity and replace judicial inquest. As international trading is extended, referring to judgment to solve the conflicts caused by commercial contracts has been rapidly rising which is a result of judgment benefits over justice authorities. Fastness and efficiency, law inquest cost, compromise nature of selecting the referees, and professional selection are among the most evident specifications of arbitration. Furthermore, Iran’s involvement in the most significant judgment case of the last century i.e. the lawsuits filed between the Islamic Republic of Iran the United States of America after the victory of the revolution would double the essentiality of knowing this organization. Judgment may be either individual or organic (permanent) and also the number of referees needs to be one or three. The most important issue in the judge’s inquest is to follow two factors including independence and impartiality from the beginning until the end of the inquest process. Violating these characteristics or the lack of one of both or other descriptions predicted in the arbitration contract would result in its violation by one side of the conflict or both of them. In the present paper, a comparison is conducted between the commonalty and distinction of Iran’s international commercial arbitration in 1376 and international law.

The Noble American Science of Imperial Relations and Its Laws of Race Development

2020 ◽  
pp. 3-42
Author(s):  
Robert Vitalis
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Relations ◽  
International Law ◽  
Evolutionary Biology ◽  
Historical Sociology ◽  
The United States ◽  
International Relations Theory ◽  
Social Scientists ◽  
American Science ◽  
The Way

We now know that the ‘birth of the discipline’ of international relations in the United States is a story about empire. The foundations of early international relations theory are set in not just international law and historical sociology but evolutionary biology and racial anthropology. The problem is the way in which scholars today deal with the place of race in the thought of John Hobson, Paul Reinsch, and virtually all other social scientists of the era. The strand of thought that still resonates in our own time about empire, states, and the like is raised up and depicted as the scientific or theoretical core in the scholars’ work, while the strand that involves now archaic racial constructs is downgraded and treated instead as mere ‘language’, ‘metaphors’, and ‘prejudices’ of the era. To undo this error and recover in full the ideas of early international relations theorists it is necessary to bring the work of historians of conservative and reform Darwinism to bear on the first specialists and foundational texts in international relations.

scholarly journals Chronological Study of Iran-U.S Relations (1785-1997)

2016 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 38
Author(s):  
Baharak Partowazar ◽  
Fakhreddin Soltani
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Trade Agreement ◽  
The United States ◽  
Islamic Republic ◽  
Islamic Revolution ◽  
Islamic Republic Of Iran ◽  
Pahlavi Dynasty ◽  
Diplomatic Relationship

Relationship between Iran and the United States started with a Trade Agreement during Qajar dynasty during Amir Kabir chancellorship, though formal diplomatic relationship was not established until 1944.During Pahlavi dynasty, their relationship improved and after the Islamic revolution their relationship transformedinto the hostility.Therefore, Iran-U.S relation has experienced complex changes. This article attempts to study major shifts in Iran-U.S relationssince Qajar dynasty until the end of Rafsanjani presidency in the Islamic Republic of Iran.

The American Society of International Law 1906–1956

1956 ◽  
Vol 50 (2) ◽  
pp. 293-312 ◽  
Author(s):  
George A. Finch
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Civil War ◽  
Great Britain ◽  
International Relations ◽  
International Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Peace Treaty ◽  
Law And Justice ◽  
Jay Treaty ◽  
American Society

The founding fifty years ago of a society to promote the establishment of international relations on the basis of law and justice was a step marking the progress that had been made at the beginning of the century in the age-long efforts to find a means of substituting reason for force in the settlement of international controversies. At that time arbitration was generally regarded as the most suitable and acceptable substitute for war. Great Britain and the United States had both heavily contributed to that conviction first by submitting to arbitration under the Jay Treaty of 1794 the numerous misunderstandings that developed in carrying out the provisions of the Peace Treaty of 1783, and then three-quarters of a century later in submitting to arbitration by the Treaty of Washington of 1871 the dangerous Alabama Claims dispute following the American Civil War.

scholarly journals When US Scholars Speak of ‘Sovereignty’, what do they Mean?

2007 ◽  
Vol 55 (2) ◽  
pp. 318-340 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adriana Sinclair ◽  
Michael Byers
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
International Relations ◽  
International Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
International Affairs ◽  
Totalitarian Regime ◽  
Political Independence ◽  
The Us ◽  
American Academic

The term ‘sovereignty’ figures prominently in international affairs and academic analysis. But does ‘sovereignty’ mean the same thing in different countries and political cultures? In this article, we examine conceptions of sovereignty as they appear in the writings of US scholars of international law and those international relations scholars who deal with international law, in order to obtain a clearer picture of what ‘sovereignty’ means in American academic discourse. At first glance, the US literature is dominated by two distinct conceptions of sovereignty: (1) a statist conception that privileges the territorial integrity and political independence of governments regardless of their democratic or undemocratic character; (2) a popular conception that privileges the rights of peoples rather than governments, especially when widespread human rights violations are committed by a totalitarian regime. On closer examination, what seem to be two conceptions are in fact different manifestations of a single, uniquely American conception of sovereignty which elevates the United States above other countries and protects it against outside influences while concurrently maximising its ability to intervene overseas.

scholarly journals Laws and Politics of the International Relations of Japan and the United States

1997 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 43
Author(s):  
A H Angelo
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Relations ◽  
International Law ◽  
Comparative Law ◽  
The United States ◽  
Public International Law ◽  
American University ◽  
International Service ◽  
Joint Declaration

This article is a book review of Makitaro Hotta Laws and Politics of the International Relations of Japan and the United States (published jointly by the School of International Service, American University, Washington, and the College of International Relations, Ritsumeikan University, Kyoto, 1996) 195 pages. The book is a compendium of documents and materials relating to Japan and United States relations from the Cairo Declaration of 1 December 1943 to the Japan/US Joint Declaration on Security Alliance for the 21st Century of 17 April 1996. Angelo praises the book’s versatility, as it can be used for comparative law classes and for international relations programmes, for constitutional law teaching, and for aspects of public international law. 

Three Presidents, Three Conflicts

2020 ◽  
pp. 296-319
Author(s):  
Michael W. McConnell
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Nuclear Weapons ◽  
Separation Of Powers ◽  
Bush Administration ◽  
The United States ◽  
Islamic Republic ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
Interrogation Techniques ◽  
Islamic Republic Of Iran ◽  
Enhanced Interrogation

This chapter proposes an approach to the separation of powers that can be applied to presidents of all ideological stripes and personal dispositions. It cites George W. Bush and the authorization of torture, in which the Bush Administration authorized a written list of enhanced interrogation techniques, such as the notorious practice of water-boarding. It also covers President Obama's agreement between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran, along with certain other countries, under which Iran agreed to certain limitations on its development of nuclear weapons in exchange for the lifting of economic sanctions. The chapter describes the impeachment and acquittal of Donald Trump by the Senate as the most acrimonious separation-of-powers conflict in the tumultuous Trump years. It talks about the House vote on impeachment and the Senate vote on removal that surpassed the partisan impeachment and removal proceedings for President William Jefferson Clinton.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document