فصلنامه مطالعات حقوقی
سال هشتم شماره 4 (زمستان 1395)

14th amendment of the United States constitution, established the “Due Process” clause to create an effective way for protecting fundamental rights and freedoms against all government authorities’ actions through judicial review by courts. Thus, in case of violation, legislative or executive measures subject to complaint will be null and void. This Paper sheds light on the mechanisms and frameworks of applying this principle in the United States judicial review, explaining how the U.S legal system guarantees the citizenship rights; it is an effective step for future legislation and legal practice to guarantee “peoples’ rights” set forth in the constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

The main focus of this study is to analyze the role and function of the United Nations’ Charter in the legal arguments provided by the US and UK during the invasion of Iraq in 2003.The consequences of justifying the invasion by refereeing to the UN Charter's rules on the use of force have also been discussed in the paper .Proving the illegality of the arguments proposed by US and UK, The study hypothesize that the multiple interpretations of the UN Charter on the one side and the Security Council's resistance toward accepting those interpretations on the other side have led major powers to a new conclusion. In this regard major powers try to justify their military interventions by resorting to ethical and humanitarian rules and pretending their obligation to the UN Charter and international order. The continuance of use of force could widen the current loopholes in the international regime of use of force in such a way that remains almost no superiority for the principle of State's compliance with the UN Charter.

The concept of constitutionalization is used increasingly at theoretical level in Iran. There is no consensus of opinion among lawyers on the content of constitutionalization. Disagreement may root in difference processes of constitotionalization in legal systems. Beyond theoretical debates, constitutionalization injects principles and the values of constitutionalism, such as human rights, liberty, and equity, into the legal systems; thus principales have concrete position and sanction as a legal norm. At the national level legal constitutionalization is a non-accidental process. It is planned by of constitution gardener or judgments of courts, but at the transnational or global level constitutionalization goes forward pragmatically as an accidental process. Global constitutionalization focuses on the solving of daily administrative matters; which are the normal problems of political and economic actors. Therefore it is linked to global administrative law rather than constitutional law.

After the victory of constitutional revolution the first ever election in Iran’s history was held. Election was the ceremony of sovereignty transfer to people, which was formerly transferred by succession. Thus the new election institution revealed the rupture in the foundation of the state. Not all classes and estates were allowed to participate in the election at the beginning of constitutional revolution, most people did not have the chance to participate in that first election and only six classes did. In the present article we will try to explain the basis and justifications of class system of election from the view point of constitutionalists. Why did the constitutionalists choose a class based election system and not one in which everyone, regardless of class and estate, could enroll and vote? We will conclude that, through this election, constitutionalists were after a means of solidifying the foundations of constitutional revolution, and that at the beginning of the 20th century Iranian society was not capable of a universal suffrage..

The incrasing trend of globalization in arena of economy and trade that has been led to creation of the WTO as the principal organization responsible to managing the international multilateral trade regime has been a source of different repercussions on the lives of every body in international levels and hundreds of millions people who have been deprivied of fundamental human rights in international human rights instruments as "rights" have been recognized,from one side,the human rights that have been codified under the international law created the commitments and the responsibilitis for states or governments have numerated the obligations for international organizations. Considering of practice and performance of this organization what is contemplated and what emerged is "mismatch" of WTO,s procedures with international human rights standards.This issue is verifiable particularly in reviewing of the agreements and the decisions of the dispute settlement authorities , as well as policies and its adoption by the it,s organs and theire confliction with international human rights standards would be proven.

Media sanction is a new form of international sanctions that prevents the audience from seeing different opinions about news and educations and so on. This purpose is in contrast to the doctrine of smart sanctions according to which just the offending state has to be sanctioned. Media sanction violates some principles of international law. These principles are the principle of freedom of information, freedom of satellite broadcasts, the principle of immunity of states, the principles of UN charter, principle of counter measures, the principle of international telecommunication and the principle of Europe union and so on. Violation of these principles has an international responsibility for the states.

The offer can be effective or ineffective. If acceptance of the offer results in concluding a contract, the offer is called effective. Otherwise it is ineffective. The offeror can return both of them. Returning an effective offer is called “revoking the offer” and returning an ineffective offer is called “withdrawing the offer”. These points have been expressly mentioned in convention on contracts for the international sale of goods, but there is no clearly seen division of the offer into effective or ineffective in Iranian law. So the difference between “revoking the offer” and “withdrawing the offer” is not known for us. This article is a comparative study about exact concept of revoking the offer and withdrawing the offer in mentioned convention and Iranian law.

Legal actions are of two types: contracts and unilateral acts. While the general rules for contracts have been explained in the civil law, general rules for unilateral acts have not been explained independently and clearly in it. The civil law has mentioned some of its specific rules through explaining some important unilateral acts such as: release, termination, permission, taking by preemption, and divorce. But the issue of unauthorized unilateral acts is of the issues which have not been explained in it, and it is also controversial in the jurisprudence. Some have considered it absolutely invalid, and others have considered it unenforceable. Among the results of the present study is a balanced view on the subject. Hence, unauthorized unilateral acts were considered invalid in financial relations such as "divorce", and enforceable in financial relations such as "termination". Furthermore, by accepting the situation where unauthorized unilateral acts are unenforceable in financial relations, we adopted the first theory among the three theories about the effect of the owner's permit; i.e., transfer, true enforceability, and enforceability through a decree.