نشریه پژوهش های حقوق تطبیقی
سال نوزدهم شماره 1 (پیاپی 87، بهار 1394)

Securities markets manipulation will affect their fairness، reduce public confidence in the markets، and prevent them play their role properly. Legal and economic paradigms disagree on the definition of manipulation، especially about how it can be distinguished from other activities and transactions. For various reasons such as efficiency and market integrity، investor’s protection and moral considerations، legal systems have prohibited it; and for dealing with it، they have set up civil، disciplinary and even criminal sanctions. Information-based manipulation، action-based manipulation and trade-based manipulation are the main three types. The latter sort is important and more complicated.

In the contemporary era، technical revolution has provided new opportunities to create and save copyrighted works in digital format more easily and faster than before. Moreover، consumer preferences have shifted from using written works to digital ones. Consequently، the orphan works have become a more problematic issue. So far، different jurisprudences have adapted different solutions to solve this problem. Generally، these solutions may be classified into two general groups. One is ex-ante or upstream solutions، which intend to preclude the problem، and the other aims to cure the problem، which are ex-post or downstream solutions. Despite the enormous researches to find the best solution to resolve the orphan work problem، there is no unanimous solution، and the efforts to find the efficient solution are still continuing. Although finding a new solution is desirable، the aim of this article is to review the present solutions to find out their drawbacks and privileges، and finally، to propose a solution combined of the approved privileges of the main solutions.

Nowadays، situation of securities provisions in an accordance with huge transactions in this part and its increasing role in the countries economyenjoyes specific importance. It is essential to remind that national treatment principle is one of the principles of General Agreement on Trade (GAT) in services of WTO، and has been enacted in order to secure non-discrimination in the trade of goods and services under the WTO regulations. N-T says that all the countries that want to become a member of WTO should avoid doing any treatment or enacting any regulation، which results any exemption or any privilege. As Iran now is at the treshold of joining WTO، its essential to correspond its regulations whit the WTO principles. This article represents the qualifications of Iran regulations in securities exchange section with emphasis on the national treatment principle، which is one of the examples of non-discrimination principle، and represents some solutions for amendment of these provisions and gain most correspondence with this principle. After a concise research between Iran regulations and WTO regulations، we concluded that some of Iran regulations are inconsistent with the WTO wto rules and should be amended.

The priority right is a right that preserves the first applicant’s right for a patent in one of the member countries of the convention، treaty or agreement for a limited period in another country or its member states. The priority right، particular priority right and leniency deadline are the same in nature. The priority right may be under multilateral and bilateral conventions or considered as national priority right. The principle is that this right cannot be rejected، and according to the principle of independence of the patent certificate، patent invalidity does not lead to the rejection of the priority right. The priority right plays an important role in supporting the patent applicant، including، the possibility of patent in the member country of Convention، Treaty and Agreement; time criteria for determining the novelty and invention step of the claimed invention; time criteria for the best method in implementation of invention; time criteria for the discloser and publication of invention; and saving money and creating opportunities for the patent in a different country are thought out. This right creates for the inventors an importance effect، i. e. “peace of mind in the protection of intellectual works”.

There is no on uniform and consistent practice in the international community on the secession of Crimea from Ukraine and it`s integration into Russia. Although the number of dissenting countries are greater and the state attitudes are contradictory in comparison to former positions. The western states and the U. S. A are of the opinion that – in their written statements in Accordance with the international law of the unilateral declaration of independence in respect of Kosovo case- the scope of the principle of territorial integrity is confined to the sphere of relations between the states. Therefore non-state groups have no obligation to respect this rule. Russia، on the other hand، is of the opinion that one of the essential elements of the principle of territorial integrity is to provide guarantee against dismemberment of the state`s territory. In the opinion of Russia، unilateral secession is allowed only on the Remedial Secession Theory. Russia is of the view that there must be certain condition، such as outright armed attack by the parent state، threatening the very existences of the people in question، and all efforts should be taken to consideration in order to settle the tension between the parent state and the ethnic community concerned whiting the framework of exciting states. This situation dose not exist in Crimea in the time of holding referendum. Different positions of states in this case including the debated in the General Assembly have shown that there is still contradictory state practice. Therefore، it seems that there is no well-established rule in this matter in the international law.

House of the Representatives in the U. S.، as the National Assembly of this state and one of the two pillars of the Congress، is headed by Speaker and، Chairman of the Majlis is the head of the Islamic Consultative Assembly of Iran. Although the constitutional texts and fundamental laws do not provide a special place for these two authorities، however، they have an undeniable role in the structure of government and in the courtyard of their houses. A comparative study of the two shows that parliamentary traditions and historical practices have made a range of qualifications and powers for the Speaker of the House of the Representatives that are hard to see in the Iranian Majlis. The chairman of Majlis has been limited by the internal regulations statute، and it has explicitly resolved these issues. It is should is to be noted that the President of the Majlis، compared to their counterparts in the United States، has a greater administrative powers.

Provision of new evidence at appellate stage, despite a new claim, does not contradict with the two-phased proceeding. Although the standard of nobility of evidence in the Civil Procedure Code of Iran has not been mentioned clearly; however, by drawing attention to the process of enactment of some articles of the Civil Procedure Code, two different criteria can be inferred. By relying on section ‘’C’’ of article 348, and articles 96, 220 and 219 of Civil Procedure Code, we can deliver a strict definition of new evidence, and it will be evidence that has not been provided in the first instance’’. Accordingly, those pieces of evidence that, in spite of being provided, for whatever reason have not been examined by the first instance court, will not be considered new ones at the appellate phase. Based on the second approach, as our case law inclines to, all pieces of evidence that have not been verified at the court of first instance, are providable at the appellate stage. In the UK, a conception similar to the first standard, but narrower, has been accepted; accordingly, new evidence must not be provided at the first instance stage, and the applicant proves that it was out of reach, even though reasonable and normal efforts were made. Additionally, evidence must be of credibility and has impact on the result of action.