سیدیاسر ضیایی

On March 10, 2020, the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal issued a partial ruling in Case No. A15 (II: A). This case was brought by Iran based on the alleged violations by the United States of principle A and paragraph 9 of the Algiers Accords regarding the restoration of Iran's financial position to what it was before November 14, 1979, and the arrangement for the transfer of "Iranian assets,".  According to the Tribunal the issuance of a ruling in the said case required establishing Iran's ownership of the assets in question. Therefore, the Tribunal, by resorting to conflict of laws rules, chose U.S. law as applicable law for determining ownership. Accordingly, Iran's ownership of the claimed assets and the applicability of the U.S. obligations to them were conditional upon the delivery of those assets to Iran. The question arises whether the Tribunal adopted a correct approach regarding this matter. This paper seeks to address this question by employing a descriptive-analytical method and library resources, relevant case law, and dissenting opinions of the Tribunal's judges. A unified approach has not been adopted in this regard, however, considering the Tribunal's nature as an international tribunal and the Algiers Accords as a treaty, applying a state's domestic law to a dispute related to alleged violations of an international treaty is not a commendable approach.

After coup d'etat of 1953 in Iran, Iran's relations with the United States entered a new phase and continued until the Shah's departure from Iran on 9th Jan. 1979, and perhaps shortly thereafter that. Meanwhile, many contracts were signed to commerce  military items between the two countries. But with the end of friendly relations between the two countries and the subsequent signature of Algiers Accords and the establishment of Iran-United States Claims Tribunal, allegations of breach of these contracts formed the basis for a case filed by Iran in the tribunal which is still pending. Given the lack of governing law in these contracts, it is important to determine their governing law which is subject to determination of their legal nature. Thus, this paper seeks to determine legal nature of arms and military equipment contracts between the United States and Iran by conducting analytical research. Given the five reasons as a strong sign of the existence of treaty elements in these contract, it can be concluded that the contracts in question are in fact treaty under the in the sense of Vienna Convention on the Law of treaties.

In recent decades, there have been serious concerns about food insecurity and the “starvation of civilians” as a war strategy in armed conflicts. In this regard, the International Criminal Court has verified its jurisdiction over proceedings against the crime of “starving civilians” by the Rome Statute provisions concerning international armed conflicts. However, this crime has been neglected in non-international armed conflicts. To bridge this legal gap, based on the provisions of Act 123 in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court regarding the possibility of revising the statute, the propositions made by Switzerland were accepted in 2019 to insert a relevant law with the consensus of proponents. In this paper, a descriptive-analytical approach is adopted to determine the legal justifications for recognising this crime as a war crime in non-international armed conflicts and inserting it into the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. The most prominent finding of this study indicates that, with an emphasis on legal coherence in the regulations of international criminal law and the necessity of developing supportive coverage for civilians, the insertion of this rule into the Statute is an inevitable step to plug the existing normative gap. Furthermore, the effective power of the media to reflect facts and verify what goes on in the atmosphere of conflicts, especially in support of civilians, cannot be denied. Undoubtedly, the media and networks of the IRIB World Service play a key role in reflecting critical human conditions and crises in the region. Some media suggestions are presented at the end of this paper to enhance the IRIB World Service functions.

In the second half of the 21st century, stakeholders of the petroleum industry established international arbitration precedents, which gave birth to important verdicts and legal principles in international law. These precedents have played a key role in resolving disputes. According to the analytical and explanatory review of theories and verdicts of international arbitration regarding the rules of different countries through desk methods, online documents, and online references over time, it is concluded that arbitral verdicts have not only resolved the petroleum sector disputes but also effectively prevented their recurrence through meticulous cause analysis.

Cryptocurrencies are digital assets created using encryption techniques intended to serve as a means of exchange. Given their cross-border nature, it's important to consider their status within the international legal system. While many governments have recognised cryptocurrencies as money, others view them as assets that can be traded, like goods or services. Under certain conditions, they may also be treated as investments. This raises the question of how cryptocurrencies should be classified under international law of trade and foreign investment law. The hypothesis is that categorising cryptocurrencies as goods, services, or capital presents challenges in applying traditional international law of trade and foreign investment frameworks. The World Trade Organization, as the most critical component of the international trade regime, lacks explicit rules related to cryptocurrencies. Applying the principles of the national treatment and the most favoured nation within this framework to cryptocurrency-based transactions will encounter obstacles. One of the most significant challenges in classifying cryptocurrencies as foreign capital is determining whether these assets meet the requirements for such classification, regardless of their origin. If cryptocurrencies can be considered securities or telecommunications services, they may be included under the scope of the World Trade Organization's legal system. Additionally, investing in technology such as distributed ledger using cryptocurrencies, purchasing company shares with cryptocurrency, buying equipment for investment purposes, or acquiring AI tokens could all be examples of capital under general investment treaties.

Following the request from the Sub-Regional Fisheries Commission (SRFC) for an advisory opinion, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea (ITLOS) addressed its advisory jurisdiction. This paper aims to examine this aspect of the ITLOS Advisory Opinion of 2 April 2015. The research method is  descriptive – analytical and the information has been collected through library sources. The paper will explain that with a functionalist approach and an evolutionary interpretation of Article 21 of the ITLOS Statute and Article 138 of the Rules of the Tribunal, ITLOS established that the full Tribunal has jurisdiction to give the advisory opinion requested by the SRFC and this authority is not merely for the Seabed Disputes Chamber. This advisory opinion paves the way for other bodies to obtain an advisory opinion from the Tribunal as regards the international law of the sea. It can rightly be considered a new way for the Tribunal and lead to the development the law of the sea.

The purpose of the present study is to review the judiciary mission of the International Court of Justice against the political performance of the Security Council in international disputes. The research method is descriptive-analytic and the results showed that the court should never avoid pursuit of solving important political disputes just because they are in terms of political issues and aspects, even though there were no provable principles in international laws.

The desire of states for economic development on the one hand and maintaining a healthy environment, on the other, raises the issue of conflict between the economy and the environment. States have concluded many treaties to protect the environment, as well as many treaties to support foreign investment. These two legal systems have caused a conflict of interest in the development of countries. To determine the position of environmental protection against the economic interests of foreign investors, it is necessary to examine the international precedent. One of the most important practices in which the conflict between the two can be observed is the precedent of the International Center for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), which deals with disagreements between foreign investors and the host states in a specialized manner. Therefore, the main question is that in the arbitration precedent of the foreign investment center, to what extent the environment has been protected against the interests of foreign investors? The hypothesis is that ICSID, as an investment authority, takes side with foreign investors in this conflict. However, the descriptive-analytical study showed that inspite of the ICSID background i.e. the cases of Metalclad Corp. and Compañiá de Aguas del Aconquija S.A. and Vivendi Universal S.A. in which investors received priority in their conflict with environmental promoters, in recent cases the ICSID showed preference towards the environmental aspects. This change of precedent showed itself in two cases i.e. Compañía Del Desarrollo De Santa Elena, S.A. Pac Rim Cayman LLC. However, ICSID has determined the compensation for the benefit of the investor for the losses caused by the stoppage of investment, so that a part of the expected benefits of the investor is also compensated reconciling the two sides.

The principle of immunity of states is one of the recognized principles in the international society. This general principle rooted in equality of sovereignty of States which results to no jurisdiction of national courts in foreign. Intervention of States in economic, simultaneously with private persons, caused to irrationality of immunity of States; So restrictive immunity substituted full immunity of States and private or commercial behaviors (jure gestionis) become as an exception to immunity of States.For determination of jure gestionis scope some criteria exist like nature of act , purpose of act , bargain party , properties type , profitability and governing law on transaction. Present research beside analyzing the State practices in legislating and adjudicating of United States of America, Canada, United Kingdom, Iran, Austria, Switzerland and Iraq shows that all of them have accepted the nature criteria. Also European Convention on State Immunity 1972 has accepted same criteria. But in opposite UN Convention of State Immunity and their Properties 2002 codified compound criteria means nature, purpose and bargain party.

Some argue that Iran Petroleum Contracts (IPC) are buy-back (bai' motaqabel) agreements. However, considering the basic criteria of such agreements—including the absence of a concrete object, subject of the contract, and design/development at the time of contract conclusion—IPCs cannot be regarded as buy-back contracts. The main research questions are why IPCs cannot be categorized as one of the common legal contracts such as sale, barter, and reward (Ji’ala) and whether they must be defined within the scope of Iranian or international law.  The findings of this analytical and comparative study outlined three different views concerning the nature of IPCs: (1) administrative contracts governed by domestic laws of the employer, i.e., the government, (2) private contracts governed by Article 10 of the Iranian Civil Code, and finally, (3) contracts with international and transnational features. There are arguments made in favor of each view. In terms of Iranian laws, IPCs are marked with special features with similarities and differences in comparison to other contract types specified in the Iranian Civil Code such as sale, barter, reward, and lease, while they cannot be classified as either one of these.

Cryptocurrencies is a class of digital asset that is controlled using cryptographic algorithms and often works in a decentralized manner. Some experts believe that cryptocurrencies could be the future currency or international money. Therefore, cryptocurrencies and related technology might disrupt many things, including finance and law. Fiat currencies derive their authority from the government or monetary authorities. For example, the Federal Reserve back-stops each dollar bill. However, Cryptocurrencies are not backed by any public or private entities. Therefore, it has been difficult to make a case for their legal status in different financial jurisdictions throughout the world. In order to determine the positions, capacities, and challenges of cryptocurrencies in international monetary and financial law, it is necessary to first analyze the status of cryptocurrencies as money and then examine the position of cryptocurrencies in the International Monetary Fund as well as some other international financial organizations. Monetary and financial organizations have had different positions towards cryptocurrencies. The International Monetary Fund has done little more than encouraging the use of government cryptocurrencies. The position of international financial institutions has also been different in this regard: from the pessimistic approach of the Bank of International Settlements and the European Central Bank to the organizing approach of the Financial Action Task Force, as well as the passive approach of the World Bank Group. It seems that in order to use the benefits of cryptocurrencies (such as blockchain technology in international transactions) and avoid the problems caused by them (such as currency instability and financial crimes), it is necessary to complete and strengthen the international monetary and financial law system in this regard.

Dealing with corruption is now in the focus of domestic law and international law documents. Several international documents have been prepared to deal with corruption, in which corruption in the banking system has also been taken into consideration. Among them, the International Convention against Corruption, the International Convention on Organized Crime and the 1988 Basel Agreement can be mentioned. In Islamic approaches to banking corruption based on some Islamic rules such as; The prohibition of robbery and misappropriation of wealth has been countered. The present article has first examined and analyzed the situation of dealing with banking corruption from the perspective of international law by reviewing international documents, after that the Islamic approaches and teachings of dealing with corruption have been pointed out, so that in this way, the capacities of these two systems in dealing with bank corruption in a historical and analytical way. The conclusion of the research is that the major differences in these two legal systems will cause the non-criminalization of some criminal behaviors, the existence of numerous rule-making institutions in the field of fighting banking corruption, and the lack of a specific rule-making authority in Islamic jurisprudence in the field of fighting banking corruption. .

Nowadays, by emerging new Actors in the name of Non-State Armed Groups (Transnational Armed Groups) in worldwide, the nature of Conflicts has been changed and transformed; so that, concept of traditional division of conflict to Non-International Armed conflict and International Conflict has been confronted by challenges. Determining of Armed Hostilities between States and such Groups which are based in territory of other states caused difficulties regarding to classification of these Conflicts and raises the question that in which category of conflicts (International, Non-International, Internationalized, International and Non-International or qua Non- International) it should be classified. Should the substantive rules referred in Common art.3 and APII of Geneva Conventions transformed to Customary Law; then, its content shall be applicable to Extraterritorial Armed Conflicts against Non-State Armed Groups. However, formal aspect of Non-International Armed Conflict definition does not change easily in customary law, but its concept for International Humanitarian Law, referred in International Documents for such conditions, can be applied through International Customary Law. By matching of different types of conflicts with conflicts between States and Transnational Armed Groups, it is possible to achieve this conclusion that such conflicts don't placed in the type of IAC, NIAC and Internationalized Armed Conflicts; but, it can be considered as »qua None State Armed Conflicts«.

Concluding the "Convention on the Legal Status of the Caspian Sea" which is known as "Aktau Convention" in 2018, the Fishery Zone was recognized as one of the four regions of the sea. Regarding to the Conventionchr('39')s silence on many of the jurisdiction issues in the region, the purpose of the paper is determining the jurisdiction of the Caspian Sea coastal states in the light of international law.  

the present topic was done by descriptive-analytical method and in regard to gathering the mainly qualitative information of research using library method by investigating withinthe books, authoritative papers  and related websites.

Studing Persian legal texts as well as international comparative studies shows that the present article has been innovative compared to the aforementioned articles in terms of the scope of jurisdiction and the time studied in the fishing area. In other words, the study of this article includes the "legislative", "judicial" and "executive" jurisdiction of the coastal states in the Caspian Sea in recent times and after the concluding the Aktau Convention.

The results of the paper shows that According to the international law, coastal states have Legislative, Judicial and Enforcement jurisdictions on some  issues in the fishery zone widely and extending the mentioned regulations by the five coastal states to the Caspian Sea is the best way to solve future jurisdiction challenges.

Transferring right to reparation, as one of the consequences of succession of states, has always been debatable. International court of justice, meanwhile, has issued decisions which has consisted of the said issue in its proceedings, that is necessiating to revisiting them. The article in hands, explains the views of international court of justice (ICJ) on how the judicial organ of the united nations organization (UN), in three following cases considering slovakia, Nauru and Namibia (South West Africa), East Timor and occupied Palestine situations, has had the opportunity to making clarify the issue in question. It has taken a cautious approach not to intemprancing progressive development. The present paper has showed that judicial practice of this court, despite the said cautionary, has never confirmed the impossibility of transferring the right to reparation from a predecessor state to successor one. These aspects of practice of the said court are under discussion in this paper.

Environmental impact assessment refers to the processes of forecasting, identifying and evaluating the effects of projects and development decisions on the environment, human health and the well-being of society.This obligation is a key State’s Commitments to protection of environment and improvement of environmentally sustainable development. The International Court of Justice described this concept in some of its Judgements; in particular in the 2010 Judgement on the Pulp Mills on the River Uruguay and the 2015 judgement on the Construction of a Road in Costa Rica along the San Juan River and Certain Activities Carried Out by Nicaragua in the Border Area . The main question that this paper seeks to answer it is: What is the legal nature and content of this obligation in the light of the ICJ case law? ICJ recognizes the customary nature of the obligation of environmental impact assessment and explains its content.The result of the descriptive-analytical studies of the ICJ Judgements in evaluating this hypothesis confirms the Court's developmental step in identifying the environmental impact assessment as a customary rule,In addition, the Court’s states that the content of the environmental impact assessment should be determined in each case, but in any way, monitoring the environmental impacts of developmental activities is not only necessary before doing them rather they need to be continued during such actions.

The mainstream discourses in the current century have been human rights and environmental rights. The primary responsibility for the respect and ensuring of human and environmental rights belongs to governments. Meanwhile, the role of transnational corporations in violating human rights and environmental rights is often more than governments. For this reason, today, with passing the "respect to human rights" era, it is necessary for transnational corporations to ensure human rights. In fact, transnational corporations which enjoy of community, water, air, land and other resources of the host State should take some actions for social development of the host society. The responsibility of transnational corporations in the social development of the host government is known as "Transnational Corporation Society Responsibility - TCSR". This responsibility, which includes the commitment to ensure human rights, is rooted in principles such as right to development, obligation to technology transfer, fair treatment principle and development condition in foreign investments. The social responsibility of transnational corporations is also shaped by some national law regims and international law. Conversely, challenges also threaten the social responsibility of transnational corporations such as legal problems in host and parent State of TNCs, expences and benefit formula, taxs for social development and responsible-decision maker unity. By examining the performance of some transnational corporations in realizing their social responsibility, we can see the current status of this concept in the international arena.

The jurisdiction of the International Courts, including the International Court of Justice, to enforce regulations on the peaceful settlement of disputes, through existing definitions, necessitates the existence of a dispute. Identifying a "legal dispute" does not depend solely on the subject matter of the litigation submitted to the court, nor does it rely solely on the subjective purpose of the States concerned, but rather on a purely technical process involving both the court and the parties to the dispute.

This research is of theoretical type and the research method is descriptive-analytical and the method of data collection is library and has been done by referring to documents, books and articles.

The standard purpose of a dispute, whether with the former or the new approach of the Court, is to protect the judicial performance of the Court. Determining whether there is a difference in the Courtchr('39')s transferable function, as noted in the Northern Cameroon case. Arguments made to deny the existence of a dispute, or in particular a legal dispute, have seldom been accepted. Therefore, objecting to jurisdiction based on the refusal of a dispute between the plaintiffs is not a promising and successful policy.

Ethical considerations: 

In order to organize this research, while observing the authenticity of the texts, honesty and fidelity have been observed.

Looking at the Courtchr('39')s previous approach in some of the cases under consideration, the Court as to establish a dispute has rendered flexible and expansive interpretation, so that it has not even acted strictly in the application of formalities and procedure as well as to refer to real and material sources of the legal system. However, the new procedure is based on the method of establishing a dispute based on objective proof of the dispute.

The State responsibility is consequence of the breach of international obligations by States. The international court of justice as a judicial organ of United Nations is one of the most important body for assessing responsibility of States. Referring to international jurisprudence, and especially ICJ precedents, The International Law Commission (ILC) enacted articles on State responsibility in 2001 namely “Draft articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts”. Thus the court’s judgments are relatively in accordance with ILC State responsibility draft after 2001.One part of State responsibility draft is the concept or consequences of state responsibility dividing into three parts, including general rules (containing cessation and continued duty of performance and assurances and guarantees of non-repetition), reparation (containing restitution, compensation and satisfaction) and serious breach of Jus Cogens (containing not recognizing and non-cooperation with wrongful situation). Although ICJ jurisprudence is in conformity  with arrangements and concept of legal consequences mentioned in ILC draft, the court conduct is different with ILC approach in some instances such as simultaneous use of compensation methods and satisfaction, altering of compensation payment scope, and extension of scope of obligations in serious breach of Jus Cogens that should not be recognized.

After 27 years of diplomatic efforts by the five Caspian coastal States to determine the legal regime of this Sea, it resulted in the signing of the "Convention on the Legal Status of the Caspian Sea" in Aktau, Kazakhstan on August 12, 2018. Although this Convention has taken steps to determine the jurisdiction of coastal States by dividing the Caspian Sea into different maritime zones, including territorial waters, contemplation on the provisions of this Convention shows that there are no rules in many jurisdictional matters in the territorial waters of this Sea. Furthermore, the absence of such a treaty can cause serious problems for the Caspian coastal States, especially the Islamic Republic of Iran. Under international law of the sea, coastal States have legislative, judicial and enforcement jurisdictions on a wide range of issues in the territorial waters area. It is concluded in this study that extending these regulations by the five coastal States to the Caspian Sea is the best way to resolve future jurisdictional challenges.

This article tries to respond to this question that how we can analyze foreign investment sanctions against Iran in the light of regulations concerning on capital flow in international law? Finally, it can be understood that capital or foreign currencies are entered to or withdrawn from the states intentionally or unintentionally. Intentional restraints against inflow and outflow of capital might be contrary to some of the international obligations. This analysis should have been done in four chapter which consist of capital restrict and flow in international economy, capital restrict and flow in international law, foreign investment in international law: from promotion to restriction, and analysis of foreign investment sanction in Iran. Capital Restrict and Flow In International Economy Free flow of capital as a result of global trade liberalization has been a subject of the economists’ attention. There are different economic schools which have different view to capital flow. Capital flow isn't supposed in Mercantilism because of importance of import of capital and consequently increasing of gold storages of State. In Physiocracy school there is this belief that capital turnover is a natural rule. After that in economic liberalism the voluntary trade strengthened. In this view flow of capital is in the top of its possibility. In contrast, Marxism and Socialism were opposite with the freedom of capital movement. In Islam economy also there are subjective and objective limitations in trade. Keynesians believe that State should control on the capital inflow and outflow. In the view of Milton Friedman (New Classics) the right way is self-regulation of the market e.g. in capital trade. There is also the theory of Impossible Trinity in which respecting to inflow and outflow of capital and stability of domestic exchange is impossible. The superior view in the nowadays world is assimilate to Keynesians meaning that international organizations can supervise on the free movement of exchange and capital in the world.  Capital Restrict and Flow in International Law (Structural View) As PCIJ stated as a principle States have sovereignty in regulating of currency movement. International Monetary Fund, World Trade Organization, European Union, Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Group 20 (G20), free trade agreements, and bilateral foreign investment treaties emphasize on this principle. There are also exceptions to the free flow of capital, which shall be restrictively and conservatively applied. In other words, after World War 2 Bretton Woods regime restricted this freedom. IMF advise capital movement and restrict it to economic infrastructures in the country. WTO allowed cash and non-cash capital inflow in TRIMS and GATS and restricted it balance of payments. European Union enforced capital movement and restricted it just in breach of tax law of members and public policy or public security. In OECD capital movement just can be restricted in economic crisis. Capital Restrict and Flow in International Law (Contractual View) multilateral trade treaty also supports from the capital inflow and outflow but some of them –like U.S. agreements- support of that more than others. In BITs if core term of definition of investment is non-physician capitals, so capital flow is supported better by free transfer clauses by which investor can transfer its currencies to foreign easily. Capital flow can be happen in nine type which include: voluntary inflow movement, involuntary inflow movement, voluntary inflow restriction, involuntary inflow restriction, voluntary outflow movement, voluntary outflow restriction (general), voluntary outflow restriction (special), involuntary outflow movement, involuntary outflow restriction. Capital flow just in three type of them: voluntary inflow restriction, voluntary outflow movement and voluntary outflow restriction. Foreign Investment in International Law: From Promotion to Restriction Although foreign investment trend increased in 1990 decades and States competed in encouraging of investors, but sometimes this trend decreased cause of some host State or national State policies or involuntary reasons like security of host State. Some economists believe that respecting of inflow of capitals for investment without restrictions isn't favorable. So States tried to restrict inflow of capital for investment which mostly happened by colonialized country. Analysis of Foreign Investment Sanction in Iran In investment sanction of Iran inflow capital sanction is due to some non-economic policies. These sanctions are against allowed exceptions set out in international law because goal of that exceptions are safe of economy of State. These sanctions breaches IMF rules as capital flow restriction just permitted where economic infrastructures are undermined or economic crisis is ongoing. These sanctions by EU States are violation of article 63 of Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, 2007 in which just public interests of States can be justify capital flow restrictions. In according to relations of Iran and United Stated of America, Treaty of Amity, article 7 of Economic Relations and Consular Rights, 1955 prohibited any restriction on payments, remittances and other transfers of funds to or from the territories of each other except to the extent necessary to assure the availability of foreign exchange for payments for goods and essential to the health and welfare of its people. In any way these restriction shouldn't be taken in discrimination. Although U.S. withdraw of Amity Agreement in 2018 but this treaty would be applicable till one year after withdrawal declaration and U.S. is responsible for the enforceable period. Also some bilateral investment agreements of Iran and other States mentioned to the free transfer clause. For example, investment sanctions by franc and Japan is against of their investment treaties by Iran in which capital flow restrictions just is allowable in situation of safe of balance of payments and protecting of debtors, as the same the treaties by Austria (with exception of balance of payments) and by Germany, Italy and South Korea without any exception. By adoption of JCPOA, EU and US obliged to seize investment sanctions on oil and gas and Petrochemical. So any capital sanction like re-imposition of sanctions by president of US is against several recognized international rules.

Given the importance of the natural environment for human life, any damage and destruction is unreasonable and unacceptable. Being the subject of disagreement among different jurists, the basis of responsibility for environmental damage has been fluctuated between human and the environment. Consequently, the discussion of environmental damages and the necessity to compensate for them has always focused on human beings and any assessment of environmental damage in judicial or arbitration courts has been based on human rights. The International Court of Justice, in its recent judgment in the dispute between Costa Rica v. Nicaragua, for the first time in its history, recognized the notion of "pure environmental damage" and proceeded to assess these damages. The present article, analyzing the judgment of the Court about the concept of “pure” environmental damage and the method of its valuation, through a descriptive-analytic method will conclude that the pecuniary valuation of all dimensions of environmental damage is not so consistent with the reality and the appropriate methods will be proposed.

Jurists consider the most important achievement of the United Nations Charter to be "prohibition of resorting to force" based on Article (4) 2 of the Charter. The only exception provided in the Charter is the use of force under Article 51 in the framework of "legitimate defense". At the same time, some believe that customary international law also recognizes the right to self-defense against an imminent attack. After the September 11 incident and the spread of the cross-border threat of terrorism, some countries try to assign the title of terrorist to their opposition groups and resort to force against these groups even in the territory of other countries. A group of jurists presented the theory of "preventive legitimate defense" in the form of an expanded interpretation of Article 51 of the Charter to deal with non-urgent terrorist threats. The question is, can this theory be defended according to the procedure and principles and methods of legal interpretation? The answer is that interpretative theories do not support this legal approach, and no unified practice has been developed to support this theory by governments or international institutions; But this assessment does not mean ignoring the necessity of providing a legal solution to fight terrorism. The possibility of legitimate defense against terrorist acts in the territory of a state that has effective support is certain, and it can be defended in the territory of a state that has general support. Also, according to the procedure of the Security Council and some governments, l

Intellectual property rights system acts in support of intellectual works by instruments such as Paris, Bern and the agreement on trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights (TRIPS). In parallel, international foreign-investment law system acts in support of foreign investors through bilateral treaties of foreign investment. A notable question is if foreign intellectual works can be supposed as "foreign capital" and if so, what is the scope and instances of IPs protections? In response we shall distinguish protections offered by IPs legal system from those of BITs. Because there is some deferences in protected items list, duration of protection and national-international protection of foreign IPs.
It seems that foreign intellectual works can be an example of "foreign capital" under the bilateral treaties of foreign investment. In this way, the protection of owners of the intellectual works would be more than what is endowed by TRIPS agreement. In other words, such guarantees as national treatment, most favourd nation treatment (MFN) in as well as fair and equitable treatment and arbitration clause are added to TRIPS protections for owners of intellectual works. The most notable protection offered by the BIT system is the prohibition of expropriation. This research identifies such guarantees and examines them through the lens of the TRIPS and BIT system.

Currently, the most important issue in the Caspian Sea is its delimitation. This article briefly outlines the legal implications of the delimitation of the sea. The results showed that by neglecting the Staples (nondenial after confession) affirmed by the International Court of Justice, Iran could change its rapid and serious stance in the course of the dialogue resulting from the treaty to the negative consequences of some treaties.