درخت حوزه‌های تخصصی

The claim of Russia’s humanitarian intervention in Ukraine serves as a legal justification for theuse of force. However, there is no evidence supporting allegations of genocide in the Donetskor Luhansk regions. While the majority of states oppose Russia’s invasion, this does not justifyoverlooking the rule of law, particularly the law of neutrality. In Ukraine’s struggle againstRussian aggression, the United States and its allies have provided weapons and military trainingto Ukrainian forces. This unprecedented support violates the prohibition of the use of force andthe law of neutrality. According to the Thirteenth Hague Convention of 1907, neutral countriescannot supply “war material of any kind” to belligerent powers. Consequently, Russia holdsthe right to take countermeasures against governments violating neutrality. Furthermore, underArticle 52 of the First Protocol to the Geneva Convention of 1949, Russia may target weaponsin Ukraine’s possession. However, if Russia targets these weapons before they are actively usedby Ukraine, such an attack could violate jus ad bellum, as the transfer of weapons alone cannotbe classified as an armed attack against Russia.

bodies in history. The arbitrators of this institution have referred to general principles of law, citing Article 5 of the Claims Settlement Declaration, in various cases for decision-making. Among the general principles of law, if not the most important, undoubtedly one of the most important principles is the principle of good faith. This principle plays a significant role in ensuring justice and fair adjudication. The present study, using library and documentary sources and a descriptive-analytical method, examines the role and status of the principle of good faith in the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal. The research findings show that the tribunal, recognizing the importance and role of the principle of good faith in ensuring justice and fair adjudication, has referred to and established a bridge between the two legal systems of Iran and the United States in various procedural and substantive instances. The principle of good faith has played an important role in the tribunal.

The term “legal consequences of international responsibility” covers the new legal relations which arise under international law as a result of a State’s Internationally Wrongful Act (IWA). In this context, three types of obligations can be identified: the duty (a) to perform the obligation breached, (b) to cease the wrongful conduct, and (c) to make full reparation for the injury caused. In the Certain Iranian Assets Case, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) found that the United States had breached Articles III (1); IV (1) & (2); and X (1) of the Treaty of Amity. This article seeks to explore the legal consequences of US international responsibility. Specifically, it examines these consequences in the light of the International Law Commission's Articles on State Responsibility and the relevant case-law. The study recruits a descriptive-analytical method, relying on library sources for collecting data. In the Certain Iranian Assets Case, the ICJ concluded that, due to the fact that the Treaty of Amity no longer creates obligations on the Parties, as of October 3, 2019, the US has not obligation to perform its duties under the Treaty or to cease the wrongful conduct. The Court only ruled that the US should provide reparation for the injury caused. The most important finding of this article is that the Court is likely to reach similar results in the Case of Alleged Violations of the 1955 Treaty of Amity. Consequently, the United States bears no obligation to comply with the Treaty of Amity following its termination in October 2019. Similar to the Certain Iranian Assets Case, this termination has similar implications concerning the US responsibility to compensate the damages incurred by the injured State.

Background and Theoretical Foundations: One of the dual challenges in the world of organization and management is job engagement versus job burnout. Some believe that job engagement is the positive antithesis of job burnout. Job burnout is a problem in modern societies related to living in an advanced world, particularly in the modern work environment. Researchers have identified some consequences of this phenomenon as decreased motivation, dissatisfaction, and the intention to leave the job. The main objective of this research is to examine and compare the impact of job engagement and burnout (based on the Job Demands-Resources model) on the turnover intention among seafarers. Methodology: This research is applied in terms of its objective and descriptive-survey in nature. The statistical population consists of 300 employees working in maritime organizations in Mazandaran province, with a sample size of 169 selected through random sampling based on the Krejcie and Morgan table. To measure the research variables, questionnaires were used for job demands (role conflict, job conditions, and work-home interference) from Rizzo et al. (1970), Mohammadi et al. (2011), and Wagena & Geurts (2000) with 15 questions; job resources (supervisor support, self-esteem, and feedback) from HSE, Rosenberg (1965), Hackman & Oldham (1975) with 11 questions; job burnout (exhaustion, cynicism, and professional efficacy) from Maslach (1996) with 10 questions; job engagement (vigor, dedication, and absorption) with 12 questions; and turnover intention from Cammann et al. (1979) with 3 questions. Their validity was calculated using content and face validity methods, and their reliability was confirmed by calculating Cronbach's alpha. For data analysis, demographic information (descriptive statistics) was used, and for inferential analysis, correlation tests and structural equation modeling were employed. Findings and conclusion: Statistical data analysis indicates that the impact of job resources, job demands, and job engagement on job burnout are 0.81, 0.60, and 0.30 respectively; the impact of job resources on job demands and job engagement are 0.92 and 0.70 respectively; the impact of job engagement on job burnout is 0.30; and the impact of job engagement and burnout on employees' intention to leave are 0.30 and 0.72 respectively. The research results showed that job burnout and engagement affect seafarers' turnover intention. Additionally, job engagement and demands impact burnout, while job resources influence engagement. Job demands affect seafarers' burnout, and the relationship between demands and resources as well as the impact of job resources on job burnout was confirmed.