نشریه مطالعات بین المللی
پیاپی 3 (زمستان 1383)

This article deals with the phenomenon that judges of international and internationalized criminal courts tend to function in two capacities: in a quasi-legislative capacity, as envisioned by inter alia enacting and amending the Rules of Procedure and Evidence, whilst also interpreting and applying them in a judicial capacity. This dual capacity is emerging also with respect to the determination of the subject matter jurisdiction of these courts. This essay analyses the tension which flows from this duality, more particularly in view of the doctrine of separation of powers.

So far, the International Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda have convicted and punished several military and civil superiors for international crimes, not because their direct criminal participation, but rather because they did not prevent their subordinates to commit international crimes or because they have not punished them. In this article, the author examines the customary law of superior responsibility in the light of the jurisprudence of the International Criminal Tribunals for the Former Yugoslavia and Rwanda and offers a comparison between the customary law and the regime of the International Criminal Court on the topic.ABSTRAITJusqu’à ces jours, les Tribunaux pénaux internationaux pour l’ex Yougoslavie et le Rwanda ont condamné et puni plusieurs supérieurs civils et militaires pour des crimes internationaux desquelles ils ne sont pas directement responsables, mais qu’ils n’ont pas empêché ou parce qu’il n’ont pas punis leur subordonnés responsables. Dans cet article, l’auteur examine le droit coutumier concernant la responsabilité des supérieurs civils et militaires pour des crimes internationaux à la lumière de la jurisprudence des les Tribunaux pénaux internationaux pour l’ex Yougoslavie et le Rwanda et offre, en même temps, une comparaison entre le droit coutumier et le régime de la Cour pénale internationale dans la matière.

Power-sharing arrangements have become the primary method for ending protracted multi-ethnic conflicts. However, once implemented negotiated agreements have rarely been successful at maintaining stability. A comparison of the 1972 Addis Ababa Settlement with the current negotiations between Sudan’s People’s Liberation Army (SPLA) in the south and the regime in Khartoum reveals the potential for sustaining institutions that lead development and stability. The institutional arrangements or the ruling bargain that is structured at settlement reflects the level of elite conflict. This leaves the sustainability of social order a product of cohesion among state and societal elites. And in Sudan, the process of state building and economic development has been undermined by the collapse of the settlement coalition. This paper considers why power-sharing agreements have failed in Sudan and proposes that extensively institutionalized guarantees provide the basis for sustained stability.

Today’s youth are not only the leaders of tomorrow they are, in fact, the leaders of today! Thousands and thousands of youth in every country are passionate and care deeply about their the world around them and have educated themselves as to how they can effectively serve their community in their own way. Through being a youth volunteer, young people gain many new skills that are later useful as they apply to universities and seek employment. As adults, it is important to support and nurture these aspiring youth and offer them opportunities to be heard in public policy, through the media and at other forums which have historically been closed to young people. This article profiles Amir Farmanesh, 25, who has become a catalyst for real social change and enhancements in his native country of Iran. He has worked with many other youth and adults and presented ideas that have turned into powerful actions. He has worked on environmental issues, youth employment and has bridged his knowledge of the United Nations with key Iranian groups to enhance their effectiveness.Amir is an inspiration to those around him, and will likely continue to have a vital role in shaping the world for many generations to come.

Over the years and through successive conflicts, millions of victims of war and other disasters have seen the red cross and red crescent emblems as symbols of impartial assistance and as protection against the violence of warfare or the arbitrariness of the enemy. Few emblems are better known and generate greater respect.Yet, since their adoption, these symbols, which serve both as protective emblems for military and civilian medical services in wartime and as distinctive signs for National Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, have been a source of recurrent difficulties and the subject of almost continuous debate. Several years ago, the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement initiated fresh consultations on the matter of the emblems with a view to finding a comprehensive solution to a dilemma that has remained unsolved for too long.The purpose of this article is to recall the historical developments concerning the emblem, analyse the legal situation as it now stands, and present the Movement's proposal that, if adopted by the States party to the Geneva Conventions, will provide a comprehensive solution to the question of the emblem.

After Islamic Revolution in IRAN, there has been a debate over using an alternative secondary name for Persian Gulf. In this paper the author has examined the reasons and concerns in this issue.The author believes that the recent decisions regarding nomenclature assigned to this location, are made by a number of internal and external motivations. Therefore, he deals with the name of Persian Gulf in iranian 2500 years of history, and also analyzes how was a false name for Persian Gulf fabricated.

Analysis of the new communication technologies in global system, makes us responsible to gain deeper insight into this subject in our society. This article attempts to draw some preliminary conclusions of this study: Why dont the decision-makers in our society, have not been critical players in responding to national crises? Why they could not announce policy responses to crises in time? What is the reason of that our networks of national officials are not exploiting the uses of power of persuasion and information?The article offers a fundamental critique of the strategic management in IRAN from this perspective that the management system in IRAN suffers from theoretical psychosis and also it is complicated, ineffective and inappropriate.

Arresting of Saddam Hussein opens a new chapter in the history of international criminal trails. After long discussions about the form of a tribunal for trying him, finally the Iraq’s Governing Council decided to try him in a domestic court which called “Special Iraqi Court” and adopted its statute in 10 December, 2003. The court has begun its work at 1st July, 2004.So the subject of trying Hussein was the starting point for some long and serious debates in Iran about the position of Islamic Republic of Iran toward his trail. In the one hand it is completely necessary for Iran to complain to Iraqi court- because Iran is one of the greatest victims of Saddam crimes and in the other hand, because of the domestic nature of Iraqi court, there are some doubts regarding the jurisdiction of it. So The Islamic Republic of Iran has registered no claim in Iraqi court and this court hasn’t referred to these crimes of Saddam yet.Despite of all criticisms about the jurisdiction and justice of this court, it must be took in account that this is the only court which established to prosecute Saddam Hussein and so it is completely necessary for Iran to complain to this court. This complaint can also discover the cooperations of some western countries with Iraq Government during Iraq- Iran war. If Iranian Government doesn’t complain to Iraqi court directly, because of its governmental considerations, it should be done by non-governmental organizations and these organizations must provide suitable conditions for register the complaints of Iranian victims in Iraqi court.

Following 11th September, which is certainly a critical event in the world, the U.S. has acted toward Hegemonic Unilateralism by strengthening the debate over Hegemonic Power. As the Hegemonic, the U.S. has done everything to restore international security in the world: U.S. Armed Attacks on Iraq and Afghanistan to collapse their dictator regimes.The focus of this article is to integrate realist and liberalist approaches to analyze the question of “The role of Hegemone Power to secure the international security after 11th September.” The paper examines the functions of each two approaches and shows how realism must be prioritized instead of liberalism.