نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
نویسندگان
1 دکتری حقوق بین الملل، دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی
2 دکتری حقوق بین الملل دانشگاه قم
3 استادیار دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، واحد تهران مرکزی
چکیده
کلیدواژهها
موضوعات
عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسندگان [English]
Denial of Justice (DoJ) is considered as a major basis of claims in international investment disputes. Despite of this fact, the concept is not clear of ambiguity in meaning, scope and the necessary conditions. The relation between DoJ and Exhaustion of Local Remedies(ELR) is of the questions with no clear answers. This challenging subject has also been appeared in the case of Certain Iranian Assets before the International Court of Justice (ICJ). However, in the opinion of the authors has resulted in vague expressions from the court’s side. Since in one hand by considering inadmissible the US objection on non-ELR, the court concludes that Iranian companies didn’t benefit of any possibility for successful vindication of their rights before US courts and in the other rejects Iran’s claim for DoJ on the basis of non-existence of any obstacle on the way of Iranian companies to be present before US courts for applying for their legal rights. Therefore, analyzing the concepts of DoJ and ELR and evaluation of ICJ’s judgment in this regard compose the main question of this article. The result of descriptive-analytical study of the authors by using Library Research Methods proves that the narrow concept of DoJ includes inaccessibility of host State’s court to investor and impossibility of due proceeding in host State’s court. Furthermore, mere procedural access to courts with no possibility of just judgment doesn’t provide the investor with access to justice. In this regard The authors consider that the ICJ’s judgment is not free of criticism.
کلیدواژهها [English]
)