| Home |
| Back Issues |
| Our Team |
| Internship programme |
| Subscription |
| Links |
| About us |
| Contact us |
| Persian |
| Francais |
International
Studies Journal
This paper focuses on the new and emerging area of judicial economy within trials before international and internationalized criminal tribunals. Although the principle of equality of arms in general has been developed within these proceedings through specifically the case law of the ICTY and ICTR, the convergence of this principle with the emerging notion of judicial economy remains rather underdeveloped. Yet, from a defence perspective, an analysis of the interrelationship between these two phenomena is of perennial importance. This article focuses on this relationship based upon recent case law of the ICTY and European Court on Human Rights taking into account the practical experiences of the implementation of equality of arms before the Special court for Sierra Leone.
Since the end of the nineties, we attend a growing official interest on the international humanitarian questions. In spite of this recent fashion, the United Nations was always interested in the humanitarian field. As of its own creation in 1945 and even a little earlier with the practice of the UNRRA, the institutionalized international co-operation was a mean often used to deliver humanitarian assistance or another kind of assistance to vulnerable populations. The General Assembly and its subsidiary bodies, with the Economic and Social Council, are the bodies "constitutionally" - according to the Charter of the United Nations - responsible for the competence of co-operation in the humanitarian field. The more recent action of the Security Council in this field should be perceived only like one accidental fact, which must be looked carefully in order to clearly define its remit.
The historical analysis of the practice of UNO is a useful way to highlight the content of a legal concept of interest, that of "international co-operation in humanitarian affairs". One of its most remarkable elements could be the system of the United Nations to provide and coordinate the humanitarian assistance to the victims of emergencies. This system is formed by several institutions and legal principles which must be respected by the Member States and the UNO itself. The vulgarizing of the humanitarian matters in the political speech of some States should not be confused with the "humanitarian function" that the same Member States have allotted to some UN institutions. UNO is not a humanitarian agency for the service of the great powers. UNO must keep its principal function of the maintenance of international peace and security. Except some precise cases, the humanitarian functions should remain in their traditional place: that of the humanitarian international co-operation.
Under prohibition, the management of illicit drug markets tends to combine (the worst of) two systems of social organization “free” and unregulated markets and coercive government control. In this context it is not uncommon for governments to wage war on parts of their own and others population in the name of protecting society. Such policies also produce feedback-effects that generally call for ever more coercive controls. Good governance in this field is more likely to be produced by the formation of institutions that enable state, market and societal actors to establish social contracts rather than having such actors standing opposed to each other. This research proposal aims to analyse to analyse to what extent such institutions have come about in the historical management of Iran’s drug problem and what options are contemplated to bring state and market forces in this field under control.
International relations can be better understood in the light of concepts such as integrations theory. The author, in this article, analyzes the different aspects of these concepts. Integrations theory makes a mutual connection between states which lead to decision making in international relations. In this regard, a new system will emerge in which it is not possible to have the use of force. Thus, integration is an approach which can be useful in both international relations and international law.
International institutions focus on the most extreme discourse of the hegemony. The United States has great capacity to influence how these institutions such as United Nations respond to its unipolar power. Overall, the post-cold war rise of American power has settled more of the world politics. That is, the United States has a basic approaches to international order today. It is called hegemony which is built around agreed-upon institutions, The American power assets allow it to pursue its objective and get U.N to go along with it. This hegemonic strategy serves the interests of the United States by making its power more legitimate.
The author is up to figuring out how an American-centered unipolar order is operating. he believes that U.S finances most of its operating costs, so its functions can never be more than complementary to American power. To this end, United States leads that way in reforming the U.N, so that it becomes an institution with teeth, genuinely respected its interests.
The matter of renewing and reshaping United Nations has recommend changes to human Rights Commission. In the longer term, it has been considered upgrading the commission to become a Human Rights Council. This paper offers a critique of this structural reform from this perspective that the only reform of institution can not move forward without making the human Rights system perform effectively. He believes that strengthening of this body, calls for a collaborative process to rebuild the capacity and deploy and manage Human Rights, collectively. In this context e uses an interdisciplinary approach to discuss U.N. secretary Kofi Annan’s working group report, his book, the follow-up of 2005 World Summit together. The author provides an analysis of the issues relating to this change such as membership and structure.
Unfortunately, it is becoming increasingly clear that today’s Iranian management and policy strategies are not appropriately constitutes to meet the current and emerging needs of both the government and nation’s citizens. The author believes that at many points like dignity, culture, history and religion of the Iranian people and also the apparent split along generation, gender, economic gap, government shortfalls have contributed to serious programmatic problems and risks. Iranian government needs to make this area a priority. to help focus on this critically important issue, he offers a critique of the Iranian government discourse and an analysis of the theoretical challenges it pose. He illustrates his argument made in this paper with some reflections in detail.
|