Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Friday, February 22, 2008
A symposium was held (21.02.2008) in Teheran University, on the Role of the International Court of Justice in Continuity and Development of International Law; for this, 13 Professors, lecturers and PhD Candidates presented their views on the issue in three sessions.
The opening, was the speech of the honorable professor of Teheran University and the Chairman of the Iranian Association for United Nations Studies (the institute which the meeting was held by) Professor Djamchid Momtaz. After the opening, the lecturers whom were gathered from Teheran University, Shahid Beheshti University, Allameh University and the Esfahan University presented their articles.
The main issues concerned with, were Procedural Rules, ICJ in Human Rights and the Humanization of International Law, Use of Force and the problem of Interpretation in the tradition ICJ has been leaving behind for international scholars.
The most critical part of the ceremony, at least to me, was the presentation made by Professor H. Phalsaphy from Shahid Beheshti University, by the name Episode of Interpretation by the ICJ; Professor Phalsaphy in his presentation, which was less disheveled and less boring than the others, and in his words, in an utter juris diction fashion, numbered three elements for a customary international rule instead of the two well known ones very rhetorically!
Professor Phalsaphy concluded that since the ICJ has discovered or in better words, addressed redundant series of international customary rules, the opinion of the bench would be the 3rd element right after the material practice and the opinion juris of the practicing states for a rule to be constituted. The whole speech was so thoughtful, but the snap supra mentioned conclusion he made after all his discussions made the situation a little bit uncomfortable for everybody who thinks of international system as a state centered (at least still) system.
The only way I could correlate the two parts of premises and the conclusion, was to presume, that he meant that it has been the subsequent practice of states to give the ICJ (as an international institution) the authority to confirm the existence of a costmary international rule (which is a very controversial discussion itself), but claiming that no rule of costume can exist without permission of the ICJ is a little bit Far beyond any sort of legal reasoning in international law, and supposing the international law as a pure-Saxon system, the possibility which professor Phalsaphy strongly rejected in the intro of his speech, is just unjust and deeply a misleading gesture for his students.
notwithstanding, it is too soon to judge; because the papers are unpublished and I hope there is a bit of chance left for a more reliable reason for such a huge claim to be found in this famous and really knowledgeable professor of international law`s paper.