Unilateralism and regulation – Mehr News Agency Iran and world’s news
Mehr News Agency, International Report, In the past several decades, international decisions and positions have been gradually organized through unilateral mechanisms, which, although its validity is not on the margins of international law rules or outside of it, except for its members and decision-makers, but due to the power of influence of the authors of such a mechanism in the pillars of the international community The decision of a few influential countries has been imposed on many subjects of international law.
Currently, many of the unilateral rules that have emerged in recent years and are recognized as international norms by their authors, not only have not been developed and discussed in international organizations such as the United Nations, but also lack any treaty basis or basis based on authoritative sources of international law. Without any global consensus and only because of the goals of a number of influential international actors, they have been supported and imposed on all subjects of international law.
Therefore, the application of the title of international norm, rule or regulation to decisions outside the framework and rules of international law by the minority of the international community, which appear under titles such as instructions, standards, deeds and declarations, is clearly contrary to the principles and goals of the United Nations, as well as judicial decisions. It is international. In any domestic legal system, the fact that a norm, before being approved as an official law, must gain its legitimacy by going through the procedures stipulated in the constitution of that country is an undeniable fact. Based on this, the discovery and development of a norm in international law will not be formed except with the consensus of a large part of the international community, whose governing procedures are derived from the United Nations Charter and the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.
Also, by moving away from the official institutions of international law and escaping from the law, it is not possible to create a rule outside the realm of international law and give it meaning. The argument that the unilateral decisions of an institution outside the legal realm are legally valid and considered as an obligation on the members of the international community has been explicitly rejected by jurists. From a legal point of view, rule and norm-making in international law is valid only when it has gone through certain formalities in international law and carries with it the specific consent of governments in creating international obligations. In dealing with the case of Qatar against Bahrain, the International Court of Justice considers a number of decisions as having the international obligations of governments that can only create obligations for governments in accordance with the rules and regulations of international law in order to have a legal status with them.[۱]
In fact, what international law is trying to achieve today is the prohibition of unequal exercise of power under any title in the world arena, especially since such an effort is made by strengthening the concept of “rule of law in international law” in the resolution of the United Nations General Assembly called the Organization’s Decade of International Law. United Nations[۲] It was established to reveal the necessity of strengthening the rule of law in international relations.[۳]
In addition, in 2005, the heads of states emphasized the need to implement the rule of law in both the national and international arenas, so that the concept, which was mostly considered to belong to domestic law and was challenged by some governments in the international arena, would gain double legitimacy.[۴]
Therefore, no governmental or non-governmental international organization (official or unofficial) can cast the slightest doubt on the concept of the rule of law in international law, but when international law is often criticized for its silence and lack of response to important political, social or moral issues. Condemnation is placed, the opportunity is provided for the description of the mentioned requirements by the influential countries to normalize their self-interested description of the silent issues of the international community in the form of guidelines, protocols, resolutions, recommendations and action plans, so that their demands are met.
The Group of Seven is a means of realizing such a desire, which by making decisions in the international context, removes the legal and political obstacles to the approval of important and key rules of the international community in the interests of its member countries, in order to guarantee the influence and benefit of the member states. Establishing a special financial action group[۵] Under FATF, establishing a missile technology control regime[۶] known as MTCR and the ratification of the Hague Convention on the Proliferation of Ballistic Missiles[۷] All of the Group of Seven’s initiatives are aimed at securing the interests of its members, which are not the result of an international consensus, nor are they able to create global norms.
None of the aforementioned guidelines and recommendations, which are among the initiatives of this group and the basis of the recent attacks against the country, can impose a binding legal obligation on the members of the international community or oblige them to follow their guidelines. The above-mentioned initiatives are only informal and non-binding associations that, due to the lack of a treaty basis or other positivist sources of international law, do not benefit from the possibility of creating and paying for international norms at the level of the international community (either under soft or hard law).
For this reason, it can be said that contrary to paragraph 1 of article 2 of the United Nations Charter, which according to the Treaty of Westphalia was the guardian of the independence of countries against a pre-designed hegemony based on the principle of equality of sovereignty of countries in international relations, today the basis of countries’ compliance with the instructions and rules of the relevant regimes Their fear is the financial punishments of power-seeking governments that have intimidated and followed most of the world’s countries due to their influence and possession of economic resources.
Now, the opportunity to accept the imposed decisions of a group of influential countries of the international community, which have contributed the most to creating global crises with the slogan of eliminating economic inequalities, has ended. At the present time, international law cannot ignore its inseparable link with the concept of the state’s consent and support the unilateral and coercive mechanisms created by power-hungry countries whose only intention is to invent such international covers to strengthen their position and attack the independent governments of the world.
Based on this, obtaining any consensual consensus against the inalienable rights of the Islamic Republic of Iran in the international community is a negation of the country’s right to sovereignty in the international system. Therefore, the West’s fake regulation and norming against the country’s missile program is not only pointless, but also a violation of the mandatory rules and regulations of international law. Honoring and recognizing the peaceful missile program of the Islamic Republic of Iran is one of the obligations of the international community towards the country.
Dr. Abbas Ali Kodkhodaei
[۱] See Case Concerning Maritime Delimitation and Territorial Questions between Qatar and Bahrain (Qatar v Bahrain) (Jurisdiction and Admissibility) [۱۹۹۴] ICJ Rep. para. 25
[۲] United Nations Decade of International Law
[۳] UN. General Assembly (44th sess.: 1980-1989), A/RES/44/23
[۴] World Summit Outcome Document, UN Doc. A/RES/60/1, 16 Sept. 2005, at para. 134.
[۵] The Financial Action Task Force (FATF)
[۶] Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR)
[۷] The Hague Code of Conduct against Ballistic Missile Proliferation (HCoC)