فصلنامه پژوهش حقوق خصوصی
پیاپی 30 (بهار 1399)

The block chain is a decentralized ledger that has the ability to handle all types of financial transactions and data storage of electronic datasets. The study, in a documentary seeks to answer the question of how the block chain implementation plays a role in protecting copyright at the international phase. The key role of this platform in protecting the security, transparency, availability of users, preventing violations of intellectual rights and more and faster support for countries that implement this platform are copyright rights. But the identification of these indicators depends on the conceptualization, the expression of the function, the means of differentiation, and the challenges faced by this context. Due to the widespread use of this platform in the world, the release and publication of a work is a publication, and all countries that include the Berne Convention are required to support this work. Of course, block chain’s implementation is faced with challenges such as security of trade, the coordination of the inside and outside of it, and the lack of rules for the harmonization of licensing contracts, virtual currency validation, metadata storage and invariance, which requires the attention of policymakers in Implementation of this ledger in the legal system.

New York Convention on Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards is one of the most globally accepted treaties which offers a pro-enforcement policy. Basically, the precedent echoes the pro-enforcement policy of the Convention. The Convention gives the authority to the domestic Courts to restrict the grounds of refusal aiming to enforce more arbitral awards. The refusal grounds, Under the Convention. And public policy and arbitrability; private agreements between the parties and awards annulled in the seat of the arbitration. This article aims to study the pro-enforcement policy of the Courts in various jurisdictions such as Iran. The gathered information indicates that the Courts in many countries limit the refusal grounds relying on the most favourable regime rule under article 7 of the Convention. They construe the subject of public policy and arbitrability for foreign awards in a different way from domestic ones. Moreover, they apply the private set-ups of the parties only if they have been addressed duly in the determination period. Further, they give similar effect to the awards annulled if the grounds of invalidation have the same consequence in the enforcing country.

Anti-suit injunction is an order issued by a court or arbitral tribunal that prevents an opposing party to lodge or pursue a dispute before a national court in breach of that agreement. Considering the importance of this injunction in support of the arbitration, the status of injunction issued by arbitral tribunals in international arbitration shall be reviewed. However, since the jurisdiction of the tribunal is subject to the agreement between the parties, there are serious challenges regarding the authority and grounds for issuing this order by arbitral tribunals. The results of the research indicates that, contrary to the anti-suit injunctions issued by national courts, the injunctions issued by arbitral tribunals in international commercial arbitrations are becoming an acceptable procedure. These injunctions are based on arbitration agreements, international and national laws and regulations regarding arbitration. Since the origin of the Anti-Suit Injunction is common law legal system, Iranian legal system and its precedent are alien to such injunction. In addition, the function of Anti-Suit Injunction in Iranian law in the form of provisional measure cannot be justified. Anti-suit injunctions issued by arbitral tribunals have many advantages in the arbitration process such as flexibility, confidentiality, impartiality and the speed of arbitral proceedings.

Comparative commercial advertising, which is based on comparison of features and characteristics of competitors’ goods and services, is one of the most popular ways of advertising and an important means of protection consumers’ rights. A comparative advertising is legitimate in light of principles such as co-operation and piety, forbidding injustice and keeping the trust and it will not incur responsibility for the advertiser. If the conditions are not complied with and damages are brought to competitors, they may file a lawsuit against the advertiser’s unfair competition. Differences such as specific definitions of negligence in some legal systems, and quality of proof of harm, distinguish an unfair competition from a general civil liability dispute. The unfair competition lawsuit in a court of law may lead to the issuance of a warrant for compensation in cash, an order to stop broadcasting advertising, the insertion of a ruling in the press, or a correctional advertisement to compensate the damage sustained to the competitor's reputation. In this article, some international treaties and the laws of some jurisdictions have been discussed and it has been investigated how the law is enforced and implemented in Iranian law.

Rotterdam Rules by expanding the jurisdiction and arbitration scope, took an important step towards the unified application of international rules governing the Carriage of Goods by Sea. At the same time, the extended scope of competent authority in this Convention to hear a case by different and numerous authorities would bring divergent interpretations while they are still valid interpretations of international rules. Therefore it may defeat the main purpose of codification of international conventions supported in Rotterdam Rules. In this regard, the interpretation of international rules by national authorities gains the utmost importance in unification of international rules. The question is that whether national authorities in the judicial process are obligated to apply the rules codified in international conventions? Or when parties to a dispute have expressed their mutual consent on the applicability of a specific rule, can national authorities disregard international rules or can they set aside the agreement of the parties to a dispute? It seems that the prior development of domestic law is crucial to unified application on international rules governing the Carriage of Goods by Sea and this is possible only through interpretation of international conventions in its own framework.

In cases regarding investment, the first duty of an arbitrator is to consider whether the action by a State hosting property of a foreign investor, is in breach of its international agreement-based obligations or not. The duties of the host state are usually broad in wording which makes it difficult for arbitrators to investigate and settle such cases. In this line, the approach that is taken to assess a breach of state's obligation with regards to the protection of foreign investors to a great extent is similar with the methods employed in other legal cases. The aim of this article is to examine and analyze the effectiveness of such methods in order to test their applicability in international investment arbitration. Since the measures taken by host state are considered as the administration of its sovereignty against a foreign investor and the decision of the international investment arbitration, this article concludes that the legal regime for international investment arbitration calls for particular elements that brings about a distinct regulating regime as well as the application of special standards of review.

Issuing an award by the arbitral tribunal, having an impact on the whole proceeding, resolving a dispute, having jurisdictional character and finality of decision are the most important criteria in order to distinguish award from other tribunal decisions. Notwithstanding, beside these criteria, sometimes in this regard, it should be referred to award legal description has been done by the legislator. Although the first criterion is not particular one for recognition award but the second criterion has been used to recognize procedural order and, in this regard,, I think that Impact ability is enough. Indifference on the conception of dispute resolution has raised difference opinions on the nature of some decisions and types of award. When we use the jurisdictional character of decision either it refers to the judicial power of arbitral tribunal or to dispute resolution. Indifference on the conception of dispute resolution has raised difference opinions on the nature of some decisions and types of award. When we use the jurisdictional character of decision either it refers to the judicial power of arbitral tribunal or to dispute resolution.

Article 139 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran, which restricts and binds the referral of litigation regarding public and State property to arbitration, for obtaining an approval from the government and the parliament, has led to different views and legal opinions. In general, they can be categorized into “literalist” and “realist” theory”. The result of literalist theory is that article 139 applies to any dispute that on the one hand, there is the State, and it has been agreed upon by arbitration and thus if any dispute exists, it will be resolved by arbitration in which, it should obtain an approval from the government and the parliament, otherwise, the arbitration will not be valid. According to this view, article 139, in general, is not economically beneficial for the State and therefore it must be thought upon. In contrast, there is the realist theory which can be a response to the literalist theory and holds that, with a rational and principled interpretation, the principle can be freed from the problems which are arisen by former theory and also the dynamics of principle 139 is useful for the State in terms of national interest.