Showing 3 results for United Nations
Volume 1, Issue 1 (3-2024)
Abstract
The theory of the responsibility to protect was approved in 2005 in the output document of the United Nations Summit (A/RES/60/1) and in 2011, it was included in the Security Council Resolution 1973 regarding military intervention in Libya. The theory of the responsibility to protect implies the commitment of the international community to end the worst forms of violence and crime in humanitarian crises and internal armed conflicts. This article by using the qualitative method and document-library sources, books, articles and reports and internet notes, dealing with NATO's military intervention in Libya in 2011, which led to airstrikes, the creation of a no-fly zone, and ultimately the change of Muammar Gaddafi's regime, criticizes its application in Libya.The findings of the article show that although the theory tries to fill the gap between the former obligations of UN member states under international humanitarian law and human rights with this reality that the human population facing the threat of genocide, crimes against humanity, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity must be supported, France, the United States and NATO have exploited the 1973 resolution for their political-military goals and have caused the stoppage of the development of the theory and the skepticism of the international community towards the goals and intentions of the world powers in the application of the theory and as a result of the design of the new approach of responsibility during support.
Volume 15, Issue 3 (12-2011)
Abstract
Under Article 50 of the CISG, if the seller delivers a good that does not conform with the contract, the buyer may reduce the price in the same proportion as the value that the goods actually delivered had at the time of the delivery bears to the value that conforming goods would have had at that time. In this case, the buyer acts unilaterally and is not subject to his/her resort to the court and substantiating the lack of conformation before it, although, in any case, the convention provides remedy for the buyer resorting to an undue option. In some cases, in Imamia Jurisprudence and Iran Law, as where there is the claim for some portion of the object of sale belonging to the other and the buyer may be able based on option in sales unfulfilled in part to get some portion of the price and, in some places due to defect in the object of the sale, may cancel the sale or keep it at the price of getting compensation; they all can be legally considered as instances of price reduction. This paper attempts to compare the instances of price reduction in the 1890 Convention, Imamia Jurisprudence and Iran Law, and while putting the concept of price reduction in the Convention, examines its similarities and differences with the ones in Imamia Jurisprudence and Iran Law. In the end, it is discussed whether this option can be possibly applied as a rule in other transactions or not.
Mr. Edris Karimi, Dr Zahra Fotourehchi, Dr Mohammad Hassanzadeh Mahmoudabad,
Volume 21, Issue 2 (6-2021)
Abstract
This paper examines the time effect and severity of UN and US sanctions on the misery index in 41 countries under sanctions during 1991-2018 using new unbalanced composite data and the Generalized Least Squares (GLS) method. The estimation results of time effects of UN and US sanctions show that there is no time effect in relation to the effect of sanctions on the misery index, so that the passage of time has no increasing or decreasing effect of sanctions on the misery index. Moreover, the estimation results of the severity effects of UN and US sanctions on the misery index indicate that the imposition of the mild and moderate UN sanctions, while influencing positively the misery index, has no significant effect on the misery index; however, severe UN sanctions has significant positive effect on the misery index. In addition, the imposition of moderate sanctions by the United States has no significant effect on the misery index, but mild and severe US sanctions, have positive and significant effects on increasing the misery index by average coefficients of 3.20 and 12.14, respectively. Generally, the impact of UN multilateral sanctions on the misery index has been greater than of US unilateral sanctions.
