درخت حوزه‌های تخصصی

Background and Theoretical Foundations: Throughout history, humanity has always been involved in numerous crises, including war and bloodshed, and their undesirable consequences and effects. Establishing peace and resolving conflicts has always been of interest to scholars, and accordingly, two main views have been put forward in this regard under the headings of "the originality of peace" or "just war". Meanwhile, sea bandits or piracy, which have a very old history and are as old as the history of human domination of the sea, have become a serious threat to the security of international trade in recent years, since 2008, due to reasons such as changing the behavioral pattern of pirates who often take hostages and extort money. The crime of piracy is one of the first international crimes with global jurisdiction, and has always been the subject of discussion among scholars of various legal systems. One of the important issues in this regard is how to establish peace or a just war with this phenomenon. Methodology: In this research, which uses a descriptive and analytical method, piracy was studied in a comparative manner from the perspective of just war theory in Islamic jurisprudence and international law. The data collection tools in this qualitative research are the use of library resources and texts, and electronic journals, with a common approach in identifying and critiquing the research conducted. Findings: It shows that the Islamic legal system and international law have presented mostly similar and sometimes different views in this regard, but ultimately, both legal systems support the observance of ethical and humanitarian principles. Conclusion: The results show that today, the issue of war is an important issue and challenge that can only be accepted when it is accepted as a just challenge in the international arena. Therefore, considering the principles of international law and the actions of pirates, in many cases there are many similarities with the term war in Islamic jurisprudence, and their behavior and actions, which often lead to the deprivation of sea security, can be considered as war, but observing the principles of just war is both essential and of fundamental importance in the Islamic legal system.

Whether floor crossing is democratic or undemocratic under Article 70 of the Bangladeshi Constitution is a significant question. The major goal of this rule is to prevent Members of Parliament (MPs) from voting against their party, lest their seats in Parliament be vacated. However, this article's violation of the Members of Parliament's (MPs') right to free speech is a major matter for worry, as it violates their fundamental rights. The primary purpose of this study is to examine the existing floor crossing law to determine whether or not it constitutes a breach of fundamental rights as embodied in the Bangladeshi Constitution, and to identify the gaps prevalent in the provision regulating floor crossing. This paper employs the doctrinal research methodology, utilizing journal articles, textbooks, academic databases, and online resources. In this study, we've attempted to introduce the provisions of floor crossing and describe it with historical context, Article 70 of the Constitution of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh, and provisions in other nations such as the United States, the United Kingdom, and India. We have reviewed the rationale for barring floor crossing and why this provision will not be altered. We have also reviewed a recent incidence involving floor crossing and a case study that constructively critiques the regulation. We have determined that floor crossing is abandoning one's party in Parliament to vote for the opposing party during the bill's voting or passage, and we have provided recommendations to fix this issue and make the provision of floor crossing acceptable for the benefit of our people.

The resignation of an arbitrator constitutes one of the grounds for the termination of an arbitrator’s mandate, as provided for in most national arbitration laws and institutional arbitration rules. However, the legal dimensions and implications of such resignation- including its effects on the parties’ rights and the arbitral proceedings- may vary depending on the arbitrator’s motives for resigning and the justifiability (or lack thereof) of those motives. For instance, the acceptance of a resignation, the method of appointing a substitute arbitrator, the possibility of continuing proceedings before a truncated tribunal (i.e., without replacing the resigning arbitrator), and even the arbitrator’s potential civil liability may be subject to differing legal determinations based on whether the resignation is deemed justified. Domestic and international arbitration laws and rules have addressed arbitrator resignations through divergent approaches, often focusing solely on the replacement of the arbitrator while neglecting broader legal and ethical challenges. These challenges include the permissibility of resignation, its acceptance, its impact on the continuation of proceedings, and the prevention of its abuse. The unique characteristics of the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal have rendered the issue of arbitrator resignation particularly significant within its framework. Notable in this regard are the Tribunal’s jurisprudence and its modifications to the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules- aimed at mitigating procedural delays arising from resignations. One of the most consequential procedural rules derived from the Tribunal’s experience is the addition of Paragraph 5 to Article 13 of the UNCITRAL Rules, which imposes an obligation on the resigning arbitrator to continue participating in proceedings (post-resignation) in cases where they have already taken part in the merits hearing. This provision, known as the Mosk Rule, has introduced a distinctive mechanism to safeguard procedural integrity. This article examines the rationale behind the Mosk Rule, its legal effects in light of general principles governing arbitrator resignation and replacement, its implications on the parties’ rights, the imperative of ensuring fair and equitable proceedings, and the preservation of arbitration’s legitimacy and credibility. Furthermore, the study proposes measures to deter unjustified resignations and mitigate their adverse impact on arbitral proceedings.