Mohammed Mejd Kabry; Azam Ansari
Abstract
Determining the grounds of exclusive jurisdiction in private international disputes is extremely important. However, there is no international uniform criterion for determining the grounds of exclusive jurisdiction. Thus, different legal systems have adopted various approaches to determine their courts' ...
Read More
Determining the grounds of exclusive jurisdiction in private international disputes is extremely important. However, there is no international uniform criterion for determining the grounds of exclusive jurisdiction. Thus, different legal systems have adopted various approaches to determine their courts' exclusive jurisdiction. While a few legal systems have explicitly specified the subject matters falling within their courts' exclusive jurisdiction, the other legal systems such as the Iranian legal system have not determined the grounds of exclusive jurisdiction. So an important question arises about the approach of the last legal systems; in such legal systems, what criteria can be used to guide the judges to determine the grounds of exclusive jurisdiction? This article examines the approach of some legal systems and evaluates some suggested criteria. Finally, the article demonstrates that in the absence of the international uniform concept of exclusive jurisdiction, the judges have to determine the exclusive jurisdiction on a case-by-case basis. They also have to consider the state sovereignty, the subject matter of the dispute, the disputing parties, and the purpose of the lawmaker in providing a particular jurisdiction rule.
Azam Ansari; Mohammad Mahdi Hajian
Abstract
Like a number of international treaties, provisions of WTO Agreements are
subject to ambiguities and problems. Hence, interpretation of WTO provisions is
of great importance to Dispute Settlement Body of World Trade Organization
and international trade lawyers. In this regard, using general principles ...
Read More
Like a number of international treaties, provisions of WTO Agreements are
subject to ambiguities and problems. Hence, interpretation of WTO provisions is
of great importance to Dispute Settlement Body of World Trade Organization
and international trade lawyers. In this regard, using general principles of law
provided, particularly, by Articles 31 and 32 of the Vienna Convention on the
Law of Treaties (VCLT) require special attention. This Article intends to provide
an answer to this question: To what extent are these principles able to affect the
interpretation of WTO provisions. By considering different interpretation
methods, this Article shows that the general principles of law play an undeniable
role in interpreting and understanding the provisions of WTO. Applying these
principles assists the panels and appellate body to discharge their function and
lead to convergence between WTO and other international legal systems. This
approach has been affirmed by WTO Dispute Settlement Body.
azam ansari; Mohammad Mahdi Hagian
Volume 2, Issue 7 , March 2015, , Pages 157-180
Abstract
The disciplines of dispute settlement understanding (DSU) in the World Trade Organization have set out the framework of proceedings in WTO's dispute settlement system. Although WTO's dispute settlement understanding has limited the panels and the appellate body to settle the members' disputes ...
Read More
The disciplines of dispute settlement understanding (DSU) in the World Trade Organization have set out the framework of proceedings in WTO's dispute settlement system. Although WTO's dispute settlement understanding has limited the panels and the appellate body to settle the members' disputes under the covered agreements, they have, in some cases, encountered with issues that have not been mentioned under the dispute settlement understanding and the covered agreements. In such cases, the panels and appellate body, mostly, resort to the general principles of law. Nevertheless, in this context, an important question is posed: What is the legal basis for using the general principles of law by WTO's dispute settlement body? By considering provisions of dispute settlement understanding and relevant case law, this article shows that on the basis of inherent jurisdiction, the panels and the appellate body can use the general principles of law for the purpose of resolving the procedural issues.
