Information Technology Rights
Javad Salehi
Abstract
Overseas criminal investigations in Cloud Computing and its data users face limitations stemming from the principle of territorial sovereignty and the principle of non-interference in foreign state affairs. But the United States is trying to pass these restrictions on domestic law by passing and enforcing ...
Read More
Overseas criminal investigations in Cloud Computing and its data users face limitations stemming from the principle of territorial sovereignty and the principle of non-interference in foreign state affairs. But the United States is trying to pass these restrictions on domestic law by passing and enforcing CLOUD Act after failing in the Microsoft case. This is an experience that its achievements are facing other countries to avoid its negative dimensions. So investigating the legal aspects of the CLOUD Act, from function to its achievements and defections in overseas criminal investigations into cloud of technology companies, is the subject and purpose of this paper, which has been dealt with in a descriptive-analytical and critical approach. The main research question is, "what are the function and achievements of the CLOUD Act in the criminal justice system of the United States and other states in conducting overseas criminal investigations in Cloud Computing and its defections?" Research findings indicate that the CLOUD Act nevertheless directs the United States to its primary goal of accessing the stored data of the Cloud user in data center overseas. But access to data of Cloud Computing user in these circumstances is also affected by the disregard of the restrictions arising from the principle of territorial sovereignty and the principle of non-interference in foreign state affairs, which this time was justified in the domestic law stature but not permitted and accepted due to a violation of Cloud Computing user privacy restrictions.
Javad Salehi; Nariman Fakheri; Hossein Al Kajbaf; Mojtaba Babaei
Abstract
Balancing the rights of the accused and Intermediary on the International Criminal Court is one of the serious challenges of Thomas lubanga Dyilo. The primitive branch prefers the accused's rights on Intermediary's right and even pays its heavy price by staying procedure until the Prosecutor also prefer ...
Read More
Balancing the rights of the accused and Intermediary on the International Criminal Court is one of the serious challenges of Thomas lubanga Dyilo. The primitive branch prefers the accused's rights on Intermediary's right and even pays its heavy price by staying procedure until the Prosecutor also prefer the accused's right over other their tasks. But Prosecutor feel this precedent for Intermediary's security and the possibility of future collaboration stopping in risky International Criminal Court cases and to observe the requirements of a fair trial about accused without the impact. The Appeals Branch is also without evaluating the accused's or Intermediary right's priority over another, only criticize hardliner of primitive branch in staying proceedings and disobedience of prosecutor from the Court's orders and ruled to continue the procedure. Hence the Appeals Branch with his silence, does not offer any vision in giving priority to the rights of the accused on the Intermediary or balancing in other trials in the International Criminal Court.