Analytical Investigation of Non Liquet in Iran's Legal System and ‎International Law; with Special emphasis on its Solutions

Document Type : Research Paper

Author

Department of Public International Law, Department‏ ‏of Law, Faculty of Humanities and Social ‎Sciences, University of Kurdistan, Sanandaj, Iran‎

10.22059/jcl.2023.359365.634505

Abstract

It is impossible to legislate for every feasible situation. Therefore, in all legal systems there are silences and gaps, issues and matters as to which it seems to regulate. This is also true of the Iran’s legal system, and perhaps particularly true of the international legal system due to the slow legislative process and its normative and institutional weaknesses. This paper provides an analytical framework to develop a comprehensive understanding of non liquet in both systems, with an emphasis on the range of possible solutions. The author is of the opinion that, rather than being a complicated issue, non liquet and its solutions which have significant consequences for any legal system, goes back to the very heart of our understanding of that legal system.
In Iranian legal system which is based on Islamic jurisprudence (figh), the Islamic Consultative Assembly (the legislator) has not only enacted general principles and rules in order to fill gaps in the system, but also on the adoption of reference to authoritative Islamic sources or authentic fatawa and legal principles that are not contrary to the Shari’ah, the judge has to deliver his judgment and settle disputes based on sources other than the law. But in the international legal system, it is necessary to distinguish between two issues. The International Court of Justice cannot refrain from delivering judgments in contentious cases. By resorting to the source-based (general principles of laws, equity, Martens Clause and the residual principle), or method-based approach (analogy, a contrario reasoning) the ICJ can take steps to avoid non liquet. However, in advisory proceedings, it is possible to face non liquet without being necessary to fill it. As a result, the court shall not be held to be in denial of justice and convicted, even by making a non liquet declaration to the effect that the law is non-existent or unclear on a particular issue.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1. - Books & Articles

    1. Anderson, Scott Alan (2006). Legal Indeterminacy in Context (Dissertation). The Ohio State University.
    2. Bandarchi, Mohammad Reza (2019). The silence of the law and the method of its defeat. Quarterly of Legal Encyclopedias, 2(3), 49-63. Doi:22034/LAW.2019.239554 (In Persian).
    3. Bederman, David (2002). The Spirit of International Law. University of Georgia Press.
    4. De visscher, Charles (1957). Theory and Reality in Public International Law. Princeton University Press.
    5. Dehghani, Parisa; Ramazani Ghavamabadi, Mohammad Hossein, Alipour, Mohammad Reza (2022). The Martens clause in International Criminal Law; the Nature and Interpretive Functions. Criminal Law Doctorines, 19(23), 123-156. Doi:30513/CLD.2022.3988.1634 (In Persian).
    6. Dworkin, Ronald (1986). Law’s Empire. Harvard University Press.
    7. Emami, Seyed Hassan (1992). Civil Law (Vol. 6). Islamic Bookstore, Tehran (In Persian).
    8. Enabulele, Amos (2012). The Avoidance of Non liquet by the International Court of Justice. Commonwealth Law Bulletin, 38(4), 617-652.
    9. Falsafi, Hedayatollah (2015). Permanent Peace and Rule of Law; Dialectics of sameness and difference. Tehran, Farhang-e Nashr-e No Publication (In Persian).
    10. Falsafi, Hedayatollah (2018). The Course of Reason in International Law System. Tehran, Farhang-e Nashr-e No Publication (In Persian).
    11. Fastenrath, Ulrich & Knur, Franziska (2016). Non Liquet, Oxford Bibliographies.
    12. Fitzmaurice, G (1974). The Problem of Non-Liquet: Prolegomena to a Restatement, In: Mélanges off erts à Charles Rousseau: La Communauté International. Paris.
    13. Gary, Christopher (1999). The Philosophy of Law: An Encyclopedia. Routledge.
    14. Ghafari, Hoda (2011). Ratio between Shariah law and the rule of law judicial system in Republic Islamic Iran. Public Law Research, 14 (36), 107-132 (In Persian).
    15. Ghari Seyed Fatemi, Seyed Mohammad; Piri, Heidar; Mahmoody, Seyed Hadi (2019). Discovery of Legal Rule through Analogy by the International Court of Justice. Public Law Studies Quarterly, 49 (4), 1149-1169. Doi: https://doi.org/10.22059/jplsq.2019.258819.1753 (In Persian).
    16. Hart, Herbert (2015). The Concept of Law. Translated by Mohammad Rasekh, Tehran: Nashre Ney (In Persian).
    17. Jabari, Mostafa (2009). Fatwa or Law? Article 167 in Iran’s Constitution. Private Law Studies Quarterly, 38(3), 127-137. Doi: 1001.1.25885618.1387.38.3.7.8 (In Persian).
    18. Jghatayee, Abbas;  Nassiran,  Davoud; Abbassian, Reza (2019). The Executive Territory of Legal Principles and their Relationship with Islamic Reliable Sources and Fatwa. Contemporary Comparative Legal Studies, 10(18), 279-303 (In Persian).
    19. Katouzian, Amir Naser (1992). An Introduction to the Science of Law. Tehran: University of Tehran (In Persian).
    20. Katouzian, Amir Naser (2002). Civil Law Course: The General Rules of Contracts. Vol. 2., Third edition, Tehran: Enteshar Publication (In Persian).
    21. Katouzian, Amir Naser (2006). Philosophy of Law. Vol. 2, Tehran: Enteshar Publication (In Persian).
    22. Katouzian, Amir Naser (2008). A Step towards Justice. First Edition, Tehran: Mizan Publication (In Persian).
    23. Kelsen, H (1934). Zur Theorie der Interpretation. Revue Internationale de la Théorie de Droit, No.8.
    24. Kelsen, Hans (1934). Reine Rechtslehre. Leipzig-Wien.
    25. Khoeini, Ghafoor & Zolfaghari, Soheil (2012). Legislative Voids and Application of Jurisprudents: Legal Opinions in the Judicial System of Iran (A survey of Article 167 of IRI Constitution), The Quarterly Journal of Islamic Law Research, 12 (2), 79-100. Doi:30497/LAW.2012.1028 (In Persian).
    26. Kiyotaka, Mdrita (2017). The Issue of Lacunae in International Law and Non Liquet Revisited. Hitotsubashi Journal of Law and Politics, 45 (1), 33-51.
    27. Lauterpacht, H (1973). The Function of Law in the International Community, 2nd Ed.
    28. Lauterpacht, H (2017). Some Observations on the Prohibition of “Non Liquet” and the Completeness of the Law, in: Sources of International Law. Martti Koskenniemi (ed), London: Routledge.
    29. Lesaffer, Randall (2005). Argument from Roman Law in Current International Law: Occupation and Acquisitive Prescription. EJIL, 16 (1), 25-58.
    30. MacCormik, Neil (1995). Legal Reasoning and Legal Theory. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
    31. Mahmoudi, Seyed Hadi & Talebian, Seyed Amirhamed (2023). Critics to the distinction between primary and secondary rules in the law of international responsibility of states. Comparative Law Review, 14 (1), 313-334. DOI: https://doi.com/10.22059/jcl.2023.356341.634477 (In Persian).
    32. Nerep, Erik (1983). Extraterritorial Control of Competition under International Law: With Special Regard to US Antitrust Law. Stockholm: Norstedt.
    33. Piri, Heidar (2023). Analogical Reasongin in International Investment Law; Its Functions and Inclusions, Encyclopedia of Economic Law Journal, 30(23), 187-200. DOI: https://doi.org/10.22067/economlaw.2023.82481.1276 (In Persian).
    34. Piri, Heidar; Dehghani, Parisa (2023). The Role of The Martens Clause in Codification and Criminalization of International Crimes, Legal Studies, 14(4), 253-288, DOI:10.22099/JLS.2023.41999.4549 (In Persain).
    35. Quane, Helen (2014). Silence in International Law. BYIL, 84 (1), 240-270.
    36. Raz, J. (1979). The Authority of Law, Oxford, Clarendon Press.
    37. Reisman, M (1969). International Non-Liquet: Recrudescence and Transformation. International Lawyer, 3 (4), 770-786 .
    38. Tebbit, Mark (2005). Philosophy of Law: An Introduction. Routledge.
    39. Vereshchagin, Alexander (2007). Judicial Law-Making in Post-Soviet Russia. Routledge.
    40. Weil, Prosper (1998). The Court Cannot Conclude Definitively...' Non Liquet Revisited. CJTL, 36, 109-118.

     

    - Cases

    1. Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary in the Gulf of Maine Area (Canada/United States of America), ICJ Reports, 1984.
    2. Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, ICJ Reports, Advisory Opinion, 1996.
    3. Lotus, PCIJ (Ser.A) No.10. (Emphasis Added), 1927.
    4. Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Question between Qatar and Bahrain (Qatar v. Bahrain), Merits, ICJ Reports, 2001.
    5. Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States), ICJ Reports, 1986.
    6. Nicaragua v. United States of America), Jurisdiction and Admissibility, ICJ Reports, 1984.
    7. North Sea Continental Shelf (Germany v. Denmark and Netherlands), ICJ Reports, 1969.
    8. RIAA, Trial Smelter, (U.S. v. Can.), 194, Vol. 3.
    9. S. Wimbledon, PCIJ, Series A, No.1, Judgment of 17 August 1923.
    10. The Prosecutor v. Bosco Ntaganda, ICC Trial Chamber, ICC-01/04-02/06-1707, 4 January 2017.

     

    - Documents

    1. International Law Commission, Third report on general principles of law by Marcelo Vázquez-Bermúdez, Special Rapporteur, Seventy-third session, Geneva, A/CN.4/753, 2022.
    2. Statement of H.E. Mr. Abdulqawi Ahmed Yusuf, President of the International Court of Justice before the Sixth Committee of the General Assembly, New York, 1 November 2019.
Comparative Law Review
Volume 14, Issue 2
Autumn $ Winter 2023-2024
January 2024
Pages 655-677

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics