The International Criminal Court (“ICC”) was founded on the principle that individuals who commit the most heinous crimes must be brought to justice and be held accountable to their crimes. However, the ICC is a treaty-based court and restricted by the normative elements in treaty-law including customary rules of international law prohibiting treaties from modifying the rights of third parties, the principle of pacta tertiis nec nocent prosunt. Increasingly, the Bush administration and other non-parties to the Rome Statute have invoked this principle to object to the prescriptive and adjudicative powers of the ICC. This paper evaluates the jurisdictional bases of international criminal law in order to evaluate the validity of these objections. This paper describes the principle and evaluates whether in fact the Rome Statute modifies the rights of non-party states. Assuming that the principle does apply, this paper then evaluates whether there is an exception to the pacta tertiis principle. This paper concludes that no state has exclusive jurisdiction over non-party nationals and that, in fact, the pacta tertiis principle is not invoked by the ICC’s exercise of jurisdiction over non-party nationals. Even were it to apply, the ICC’s jurisdictional bases reflect current norms of customary international law and are thus exceptions to the pacta tertiis principle.

French students, workers and public opinion protest over new Labour Law and the Mr. Dominique de Villepin performance as a complete U-turn on this controverial law has turned into a symbolic event of high significance. The protests became a challenge to a certain model of capitalist economy that a large part if not most of french society regards as a danger to national standards of justice or equality, (that radical notion wich is the central value in france republican motto). After all, the revolts send messages. The message resembles the two different philosophical approaches: Egalitarianism and Progressivism. The writer suggests a larger explanation for the matter and that is France reacts to political and social forces before anyone else and knows that continuing expansion and market Liberalization are essential, indeed inevitable. Similarly, the unrest and reform in France can be interpreted as a signal of using the most important element in the new model of market economics which is competition rule alongside with efficiency.

The end of the Cold War and the intensified worldwide trend of democratization have transformed the grounds for political and social activities in the Middle East like other regions of the world. The current of Islamism has been unquestionably affected by this environmental change. Focusing on changes in political Islam in Egypt, this article seeks an answer to the question what impact the current of Islamism has received from the rise of a strong alternative rival over the past quarter century, i.e. democratic values. The author tests the hypothesis that with the growing popularity of democratic values in the Middle East arising from the global trend of democratization, political minimalists (moderate Islamists) have attracted further public attention. The maximalists (radicals) have also divided into two groups: most of them have left violent means and act like political minimalists, and a minority, which insists on continuing previous militant ways, has been sidelined. In order to test the hypothesis, the author examines changes in statements and deeds within elements of Islamists as well as the occurrence of schisms in the 1990s.

The theoretical innovations leading to new ways of thinking about new areas of international affairs is increasingly needed in a field such as international law that has driven to great degress of both specialization and fragmentation. To elucidate the theoretical underpinnings of contemporary scholarship through recourse to the methods employed by various theories the author has decided upon one method for appraisal: Systematic Approach. This idea of method which he adopts for this article is the application of a conceptual apparatus or framework to the concrete problems faced in the international community and on its relevance for lawyers and legal scholars facing contemporary issues. According to him, this approach assumes that International Law is a unified system of norms, institutions, mechanisms and regimes.

The latest researches and studies on youth affairs, totally affirm this reality that the youth question has a multidisciplinary identity in research and a cross-sectoral identity in the government administration. As the same, a question such as youth rights has a significant conceptual and operational relation with the other related issues. This article, by accepting these assumptions, attempts to discuss on the interrelation between the question of youth civil & political rights and the complicated question of Development. In this study, which is categorized in two national and international analysis levels, two main models, namely the model of “Grass-root Pressure” and “Authorities Will” have been recognized in national attentions to the youth rights. Regarding the international level, three main approaches to the youth rights, namely the Protective-Welfare, Human Rights, and Developmentalist have been discussed and analyzed. The case of youth civil & political rights in Islamic republic of Iran, and the dominant model in this case is another discussed point.