فصلنامه پژوهش حقوق عمومی
سال بیستم شماره 61 (زمستان 1397)

Incredible development in communications, especially in the last two decades, has changed the entire worlds communications system. The main accessibility to new information system by advanced technology and huge investments in this field shows a new description of power and its balance in the present world. Therefore, the relationship between government and mass media, in different legal systems, in three stages of policy making, legislation and regulation plays a big and effective role in this regard. It has to be said that audiovisual communications have not been subject to the same legal systems governing the rest of the media, and in all of the political regimes in the world, government interventions in this sector have always been more intense. This article is an attempt to localize and recognize the obstacles to establish the desirable satellite television model in Iranian legal system by introducing the American model in the field of satellite communications, as the desirable model in the world.

Because of linguistic ambiguity, silence, contradiction of contents and executive or moral issues, the interpretation of legal texts becomes inevitable. Traditionally, statutory and constitutional theories of interpreting are appeared in two forms: writer- based and interpreter- based. Despite their advantages, these approaches suffer from problems preventing them to be the exclusive theory of legal interpretation in Iran.
On the other hand, the third approach – Textualism- can be considered as the most complete theory in interpreting the Constitution and statutes. Textualism considers legal systems as self- complete entity, and is compatible with the results of linguistic analysis of law. This approach seeks to find the answer of legal questions from legal texts, not meta- legal standards. Textualist reading of Principle 73 of I.R.I.’s Constitution and Guardian Councils’ interpretation implies that interpreters are allowed to have their own interpretation of legal texts which are valid, until the modification of the law or rendering a formal interpretation.

The main idea of this article is that in contemporary legal thinking, the duty to give reasons has become an inseparable part of Rule of Law. However, it should be asked that how the Rule of Law can be understood as constituting the “Rule of Reasons” principle? The very notion of this article is the bond relationship between principles of duty to give reasons and Rule of Law. Contributors to this paper claim that giving reasons uphold procedural and substantive conceptions of Rule of Law. Giving reasons is the necessary part of the procedural notion since this notion requires that all the state acts must be done in a predictable and consistent way which justifies them by reasons. Also, giving reasons can serve the central part of substantive notion of Rule of Law: the main aim of this conception is to ensure certain fair goals and requiring public officials to give reasons ensures fair conduct toward citizens. As conceptualizing this relationship, in order to reach a contextual evaluation of Rule of Law, theoretical frameworks of it shall pay more attention to duty to give reasons.

The doctrine of ‘corporate veil’ is one of most controversial issues in international arbitration. Arbitral tribunals have taken different views as to whether the corporate veil should be lifted in investment arbitration. In ICSID arbitration, this doctrine has been discussed in the context of ‘nationality’ by considering ‘foreign control’ and ‘treaty shopping’, and there are conflicting awards in this regard. The problem arises when tribunals face the question of lifting corporate veil by applying the criterion of ‘nationality’. Treaty shopping itself has been subject to controversy and different interpretations. The controversy is posed when tribunals assess the relevance of place of registration as a criterion for determination of corporate nationality. By evaluating ICSID arbitration awards, this article argues that the doctrine of corporate veil has been recognized in the majority of cases. It concludes that at least, in ICSID arbitration, this doctrine may not be perceived as a strict exception.

Inter-basin water transfer has been suggested as a short-time solution to the water scarcity problem. However, this solution makes some environmental, social and economic problems including but not limited to endangering water resources, unequal distribution of social and economic costs and benefits. Solving these problems involves regulating the transfer of water by appropriate legal provisions so that it can guarantee the reasonable, sustainable and equitable transfer of water through legal mechanisms. Inter-basin water transfer has been regulated in some legal systems through some mechanisms such as the implementation of environmental impact assessment of the inter-basin water transfer projects and water protection rules. Adapting a national strategy for integrated water management and public participation in water distribution has been offered to manage water transfer in a sustainable way. The legal system should assure that the inter-basin water transfer is the last resort and is exercised based on ex-ante and ex-post assessments. Inter-basin water transfer has not been regulated in the Iranian legal system in spite of the many water transfer projects and therefore there is an urgent need to its regulation by the appropriate legal rules.

The right to freedom of assembly is one of the civil liberties that can function collectively. This right recognized as a human right, has played a significant role in the various protest rallies in the various historical periods, especially in recent years. Therefore, the study of the functions of the right is important. It seems that the function of this right can be assessed in the safeguarding of other rights and freedoms and the participation of citizens. The present study shows that the right, as well as other types of group liberties, is a guarantee of individual rights and group freedoms on the basis of protector. On the other hand, this right is based on a participatory basis as a way of contributing to the determination of destiny and the basis for political development and the spread of democracy and is effective through the two functions mentioned in the relationships between government and citizens.

Environmental displacement might come in variety of forms (forced or voluntary; permanent or temporary; and internal or international). Not only is it impossible, but also irrelevant, to categorize displaced persons based on their motives, and separate environmental factors from economic incentives. So, the protection of environmentally displaced persons should be based on their needs and vulnerabilities, rather than their incentives and displacement driving factors. There exists currently no comprehensive internationally-binding instrument to deal with environmental displacement. Some, have suggested, for this purpose, the extension of 1951 Convention on the Status of Refugees. Others have advocated drafting a new convention. We argue that a new convention will not succeed to collect the necessary will and support in the current political arena, where States, more often than not, try to limit their established obligations towards migrants and refugees. On the other hand, any effort to extend the 1951 Convention might endanger the whole refugee protection regime. We suggest that promotion of States obligations to respect and protect human rights in urgent situations, with due consideration of responsibility to protect (R2P) developments, could fill-in the protection gap as currently exists vis-a-vis the environmentally displaced populations.

The purpose of the constitutionalisation of private law is the influence of constitutional norms on private relations. Contrary to traditional views, the guaranteed rights of the constitution are not the only means of defending individuals against the state, but it is necessary to apply and interpret all branches of the legal system in the light of it.
Therefore, private rights are also dominated by these rights and people need to set up their own private relationships in the shadow of it.  This research intends to examine the theory of the constitutionalisation of private law and its possible acceptance in Iran's law through a descriptive and analytical method.  It can briefly be said that the basic rights over the entire legal system, especially indirectly, are superior. Also, despite the lack of a constitutional court in Iran, and the lack of a welcome judicial approach to Constitutionalisation, it should be said that iran private law has the necessary capacities for Constitutionalisation.

Reasonableness is one aspect of judicial review in the common law system. Its origin was in England, however it has been introduced and applied in other countries with some modifications. This criterion is used in the US legal system as one way of violating the informal rules of administrative agencies under the heading of “arbitrary and capricious review” which is expressed in article 706 of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The present article, in light of case laws, describes and analyzes developments in the application of the above criteria in the courts of the United States. Over the time, interpretations of courts have been changed and their deferential interpretations have moved to hard look ground. Hard look ground seems to call for more judicial scrutiny and more heightened standards of judicial review than had been traditionally demanded from the arbitrary and capricious test. In hard-look doctrine, courts should carefully review administrative agencies decisions to ensure that the agencies have genuinely engaged in reasoned decision making.  The hard look doctrine is simply a reflection of the courts view of how an effective and meaningful process of judicial review should be conducted. Accordingly, the administrative agencies should examine all the important dimensions of the matter and the alternative solutions and, by referring to the documentation, provide detailed justifications of their new decisions and changes to their previous procedures.

Reasonableness and Legality of judicial decisions are among the most accepted legal principles governing judicial and quasi-judicial institutions, and the Administrative Justice Court (“AJC”) as a judicial institution is subject to this rule. However, it is undeniable that in some cases, the General Board of Administrative Justice Court (“GBAJC”) has evaded or neglected to abide by this rule.
Failure of the GBAJC to comply with this rule could be occurred in invocation of any of the legal evidences. In this paper, by studying the types of violation of this rule by the GBAJC in invocation of "the Constitution", it was seen that this violation resulted in issuing doubtful or even wrongful decisions. Hence, given that the GBAJC is the unique referee for complaint of governmental regulations, and its judgments are not supervised by any other institutions, it can be rightly expected that it shall try harder for precise observance of this rule; in particular, given that the consequences of its wrongful judgments in revocation or not revocation of governmental regulations not only is confined to the plaintiff itself but can affect a large group of people.
 
Keywords: Reasonableness of Judicial Decisions, the General Board of Administrative Justice Court, Judgment, the Constitution, the Guardian Council.

International law, as a scientific trend, has various components (systems, regimes and (sets) of legal rules) that are united by the status or factors so as to become a system. One of the concepts claimed to act as unifying factor in the constituents of international law, making hierarchy and order is the concept of the jus cogens. However, there are controversies in different conceptual and scientific dimensions of jus cogens. After the formation of jus cogens, various views on the concept and definition of it in the field of international law have been emerged. These views can be categorized in two forms of classical and modern understanding of the principle. The view of this study is that the distinct teachings of the highly scholars of international law on the concept of jus cogens suggest that the one-dimensional perspective on jus cogens cannot be a reflection of the fluid and dynamic role of this principle in the modern international legal order. Therefore, nowadays, due to the complexity of international law, jus cogens must inevitably emerge in distinct legal forms and techniques, in order to be able to maintain its system-making feature.