مجله حقوقی بین المللی
پیاپی 72 (زمستان 1402)

Article 31(3)(c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties of 1969 stipulates that, in the process of treaty interpretation, “any relevant rules of international law applicable in the relations between the parties” shall be taken into account, in addition to the context. Therefore, when interpreting a treaty, the text, context, and other elements of the general rule of interpretation as outlined in Article 31 of the Vienna Convention should be considered alongside the relevant rules of international law. This research aims to address the question: What is the position of relevant rules of international law in the interpretation of treaties? It appears that treaties should be interpreted in harmony with other relevant rules of the international legal system of which they are a part. Thus, incorporating the relevant rules of international law in treaty interpretation ensures the unity and systemic integration of the international legal system. In this research, an examination of library sources, international documents, and international jurisprudence will be conducted utilizing a descriptive-analytical method to explore the position of relevant rules of international law in the interpretation of treaties.

In the international law system, a treaty can serve as a source of conventional rules of international law, unlike a contract in domestic law. The pivotal question that arises is: can the rules embedded in law-making treaties, designed to safeguard values or common interests, be deemed as binding convention rules for all members of the international community? This article explores this aspect of law-making treaties in the light of the constitutionalism approach in international law. In this approach, the traditional and horizontal paradigm, stemming from the equality of states, undergoes a transformation into a vertical paradigm grounded in the Constitution. Consequently, the underlying assumption posits that upon the conclusion of a law-making treaty, the legal order that it establishes, begins its autonomous existence.

One of the complex issues of international human rights law is the gap between theory and practice. Despite significant progress, international and regional mechanisms have not been able to fully bridge this gap. In this regard, "Domestic Institutionalization of Human Rights" seeks to play a complementary role in the multi-level supervision of international institutions over the protection of human rights in states. This article examines the role of "domestic institutionalization" in international human rights law. The article concludes that the United Nation’s prescriptions for domestic institutionalization of human rights have evolved beyond a mere focus on the role of the national human rights institution, and as much as it is related to the concept of “national human rights system”, it studies all relevant elements, including governmental and non-governmental actors, the legal framework, processes and relationships between them as a system. This process indirectly and softly weakens the absolute sovereignty of states.

Nowadays, it will not be possible to guarantee the implementation of international humanitarian law solely by establishing regulations at international levels. The cooperation of the international community is also essential for effective implementation. The European Union, as a regional organization with the authority to formulate executive policies for the member states, plays a role in this endeavor. The present research, utilizing an analytical and descriptive approach, examines the legal documents and practical procedures of the Union to assess its success in promoting this branch of international law in the face of regional and extra-regional crises through the enactment of new laws and the adoption of practical procedures. The authors of this research believe that although this regional organization has been successful in rulemaking and localizing international regulations, it faces challenges in operationalizing these rules. Finally, the findings of this research indicate that the application of the 2009 European Council resolution, titled the 'EU Guidelines on Promoting Compliance with International Humanitarian Law (IHL),' has resulted in the creation of valuable legal documents. However, political considerations have hindered the successful implementation of these regulations in various crises.

Underwater noise pollution is considered a threat to marine biodiversity and marine mammals, such as whale species. An increasing amount of disturbing noise in the marine environment can have major and even fatal impacts on the cetaceans. Studies have shown that decreased species diversity in whales and dolphins is directly related to an increase in underwater noise. The present article seeks to find the legal basis in international marine environmental law to protect whales against the adverse impact of acoustic pollution. Therefore, the article’s main question is to what extent the normative foundations and organizational measures under international environmental law play a role in protecting whales against noise pollution. Studies show that main international environmental or marine instruments contain no explicit provisions about acoustic pollution. However, some have the necessary framework to address the issue and can be applied through interpretation. In addition, several international organizations have acted toward protecting the population of whales against noise pollution.

While the principle of party autonomy in determining the governing law of a contract is widely acknowledged, certain instances of the choice of law continue to provoke debate. The key concern is whether parties can establish general indicators for the governing law at the time of contract formation and postpone the definitive determination of the applicable law to a future event. Although opting for a floating law fails to provide the desired certainty and stability in international contracts, commercial practices and judicial procedures in countries like the United States tend to prioritize flexibility in contractual relations over fixed and definite criteria, thereby endorsing the choice of law to be determined in the future. It appears that as long as the chosen law does not contradict public order, its suitability and validity are presumed by the contracting parties. The ability to determine the law at the required time, i.e. the time of filing a lawsuit, is deemed sufficient, and there is no prohibition to choose and implement the unreasonable law.