Business Law
Godarz Eftekhar Jahromi; Ahmad Heidari
Abstract
AbstractBalancing the relationship between The Full protection and Security Standard (FPS) and the public health is one of the oldest challenges within the body of the international investment laws; since the protection of public health, without regulating the host countries, leaves room for harm to ...
Read More
AbstractBalancing the relationship between The Full protection and Security Standard (FPS) and the public health is one of the oldest challenges within the body of the international investment laws; since the protection of public health, without regulating the host countries, leaves room for harm to foreign investment, and the strict protection of foreign investment, can lead to the losing the public and fundamental interests of the host country.Therefore, within the current paper, there is an attempt to examine the legal system that overrules these concerns within the body of the international investment laws.The question which remains is how can host countries maintain their public health whithout breach of the Full Protection and Security Standard, and Creating their international responsibilities.This study shows that, the international investment laws do not take a clear stance when it comes to regulating the relationship between public health, and the implementation of (FPS), and that they are in fact in some cases paradoxical and disorganize .For example, although the fight against Covid-19, as an example of public health through quarantine, restrictions and bans, Recognizes the right of sovereignty of the host country, it may also have an international responsibility for them.
Godarz Eftekhar Jahromi; Ebrahim Eslami
Abstract
With the advent and development of information and communication technology, human life has undergone fundamental changes. Some human behaviors which have been traditionally criminalized in every society, today take place in the form of criminal ideas in a language specific to the computer systems or ...
Read More
With the advent and development of information and communication technology, human life has undergone fundamental changes. Some human behaviors which have been traditionally criminalized in every society, today take place in the form of criminal ideas in a language specific to the computer systems or through online network. Thus there is a new world called cyberspace in which traditional boundaries have become meaningless. Perhaps some crimes against persons are planned and committed far from the residence of the victims or it is possible that ones’ usual means of everyday life are used as criminal tool against him/her or others. Today, cyber terrorism as an international crime has become the subject matter of controversies among international lawyers and the main question in this context is determining the courts’ jurisdiction which in turn poses another question as to application of procedural law rules in this respect. Traditional rules and principles regarding jurisdiction have been challenged by criminal acts which are committed through cyberspace. This paper seeks to provide an appropriate answer to the question that in the case of transnational cyber-crimes, how and to what extent courts of a given State may claim and exercise jurisdiction and on the other hand in the case of conflict of jurisdiction which rule or rules should apply to resolve such a conflict. Providing an appropriate answer to the question requires dwelling on international standards governing conflict of jurisdictions and studying practices of those states which are pioneers in combat against cyber-crimes.
