Check function analysis and rights holder in guaranteed check

Document Type : Research Paper

Author

Assistant Professor at Islamic Azad University of Mashhad

Abstract

The primary function of the check is that it is used as ainstrument in commercial and non-commercial transactions. In order to fulfill this role, the order for payment of the amount stated in the instrument must be immediate. However, the identification of certain features, and as well as the principles governing this instrument, have led individuals to issue promising check or as a guarantee instrument. An issue that seems to run counter to its function. The use of checks in this regard raises the question of whether such writing may be subject to the rules governing on negotiable instruments . This paper is based on the check that although promising checks are contrary to the primary function of this instrument as an instant payment instrument, , features and principles governing negotiable instruments, as amended by the Issuing Check Law. However, issuing a check to ensure that the objective obligations of this instrument are met by the issue and function of this instrument as an instant payment instrument not only excludes it from the rules and regulations governing check and generally negotiable instruments, but also checks in that regard as a guarantee instrument. Like a bank guarantee, it cannot be recovered unless it is required to fulfill the original obligation and to prove that it has not been fulfilled.

Keywords

References

 
Ambos, Kai (2008) Article 25: Individual Criminal Responsibility, Commentary on the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, Second Edition, O. Triffterer, ed. München, pp. 743-770.
Cryer, Robert & et al (2010) An Introduction to International Criminal Law and Procedure, second Edition, New York: Cambridge University Press.
Amenge Okoth, Juliet R. (2014) The Crime of Conspiracy in International Criminal Law, Asser Press, Springer, Hague.
Jain, Neha (2013) "Individual Responsibility for Mass Atrocity: In Search of a Concept of Perpetration", The American Journal of Comparative Law, Vol. 61, pp. 830-872.
Stahn, Carsten (2019) "Modes of Liability, International Law in Action: Investigation and Prosecuting International Crimes", University Leiden, Online Coursera, available at: https://www.coursera.org/lecture/international-law-in-action-2/modes-of-liability-o3nPk (last visited: 4/28/2019)
Stewart, James. G. (2016) "The Strangely Familiar History of the Unitary Theory of Perpetration", The Peter A. Allard School of Law, Allard Research Commons, forthcoming, Essays in Honor of Mirjan Damaška.
Timmermann, Wibke Kristin (2006) "Incitement in International Criminal Law", International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 88, No. 864, pp. 823-852.
Vajda, Maja Munivrana (2014) "Distinguishing between Principals and Accessories at the ICC", Zbornik PFZ, 64, (5-6), pp. 1039-1060.
Zgaga, Sabina (2011) "Participation in International Criminal Law", Law & Justice Review, Vol. 1, No. 2, pp. 99-132.
 
Cases
ICC, Prosecutor v Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on Confirmation of Charges, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/06, 29 January 2007.
ICTY, Prosecutor v Vasiljevic, Appeals Chamber, Judgment, Case No. IT-98-32-A, 25 February 2004.
ICTY, Prosecutor v. Momcilo Perisic, Appeal Chamber, Case No. IT-04-81-A, 28 February 2013.
ICC, Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga & Mathieu Ngudjolo Chui, Pre-Trial Chamber I, Decision on confirmation of charges, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/07-717, P-T. Ch. I, 30 September 2008.
ICC (A), Prosecutor v. Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Appeal Chamber, Judgment on the Appeal of Mr Thomas Lubanga Dyilo against His Conviction, No. ICC-01/04-01/06 A 5, 1 December 2014.
ICTR, Prosecutor v. Bizimungu, Mugenzi, Bicamumpaka, Mugiraneza, Trial Chamber II, Judgment and Sentence, Case No. ICTR-99-50-T, 30 September, 2011.
ICC, Prosecutor v Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Judgment pursuant to Art. 74 of the Statute Separate opinion of Judge Adrian Fulford, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/06-2842, T. Ch. I, 14 March 2012.
ICC, Prosecutor v Thomas Lubanga Dyilo, Pre-Trial Chamber I, Case No. ICC-01/04-01/06, 24 February 2006.
ICTY, Prosecutor v. Milorad Krnojelc, Trial Chamber, Judgment, Case No.: IT-97-25-A, 17 September 2003.
ICTY, Prosecutor v. Blagoje Simic, Appeals Chamber, Judgment, Case No. IT-95-9-A, 28 November 2006.
ICTY, Prosecutor v Mrksic and Sljivancanin, Appeals Chamber, Judgment, Case No. IT-95-13/1-A, 5 May 2009.
ICC (B), Prosecutor v. Germain Katanga, Trial Chamber II, Judgment pursuant to article 74 of the Statute, 7 March 2014.
ICC, Prosecutor v. Ahmad Al Faqi Al Mahdi, Trial Chamber VIII, Judgment and Sentence, ICC-01/12-01/15, 27 September 2016.
ICTY, Prosecutor v. Duško Tadic, Trial Chamber, Opinion and Judgment, IT-94-1-T, 7 May 1997.
ICTY, Prosecutor v. Dario Kordic & Mario Cerkez, Trial Chamber, Judgment, IT-95-14/2-T, 26 February 2001.
SCSL, Prosecutor v.Moinina Fofana & Allieu Kondewa, Trial Chamber I, Judgment on the sentence of Moinina Fofana and Allieu Kondewa, SCSL 04-14- T, 9 October 2007.
SCSL, Prosecutor v. Charles Chankay Taylor, Trial Chamber II, Judgment, 03-01-T, 18 May 2012.
ICTY, Prosecutor v Vasiljevic, Trial Chamber II, Judgment, IT, 98-32- T, 29 Novamber 2002.
ICTY, Prosecutor v. Duško Tadic, Appeals Chamber, Judgment, IT-94-1-A, 15 July 1999.
ICTY, Prosecutor v. Naser Oric, Trial Chamber, Judgment, IT-03-68-T, 30 June 2006.
ICTR, Prosecutor v. Jean- Paul Akayesu, Chamber I, Judgment, Case No. ICTR-96-4-T, 2 September 1998.
ICTY, Prosecutor v. Krstic, Trial Chamber, Judgment, Case No. IT-98-33-T, 2 August 2001.
ICTY, Prosecutor v. Tihomor Blaskic, Trial Chamber, Judgment, IT-95-14-T, 3 March 2000.
ICTY, Prosecutor v. Ante Gotovina, Ivan Čermak, Miladen Markac, Trial Chamber I, Judgment, Volume II of II, IT-06-90-T, 15 April 2011.
ICTY, Prosecutor v. Dario Kordic & Mario Cerkez, Appeal Chamber, Judgment, IT-95-14/2-A, 17 December 2004.

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics