نشریه پژوهش های حقوق تطبیقی
سال بیست و چهارم شماره 4 (پیاپی 110، زمستان 1399)

In current world, cases referring to arbitration as means of resolving dispute is an undeniable necessity. Due to some deficiencies in Iranian legal system, strengthening this institution seems to require protective of other legal instruments; one of the most important of which is the principle of good faith. Since currently there is no specific criterion for behaviors with good faith in Iranian arbitration laws of our country. This article by examining the principle of fair trial, introduces criteria and factors such as "Clear Hand, Prohibition of inconsistent behavior, Timely production of documents, Prohibition of Evidence hiding" as standards for measuring the parties behavior in obligation to good faith and continuity during the arbitration proceeding. Procedural of good faith concerns proper enforcement of principles of arbitration. Therefor it leads the arbitrators and the parties to the effectiveness of arbitration. In this article by investigating the laws related to arbitration in English and Iranian law and judicial proceeding, analyzes these standards using descriptive-analytic method and the obligation of arbitration parties in this regard and English and Iranian legal system approaches has been examined.

One of the most important theories in corporate law is the organ theory.According to this view, the will and actions of directors are deemed to be will and actions of the corporation. Analytically, the personality of directors and corporations is considered to be integrated and this identification is divided into two types of absolute and relative. According to absolute identification, the personality of the director is merged into that of corporation and his personal existence is ignored.

And according to the second point of view, while accepting the identification of directors and corporation, the personal existence of the directors in the internal relations of the corporation is not ignored. And the will of the director at the time of making decision or taking action for the company is considered to be the successor and manifestation of the will of the corporation and the decision of the director is considered to be decision of the company. The organ theory has a significant impact on the criminal and civil liability of corporations and on the fact that the restriction of directors’ authorities against third parties is not valid. In the past, the board of directors was considered to be the sole organ of a corporation, but currently other managers are also considered to be its organ. .The organic theory of directors in corporations is accepted in Germany and England. Although there is disagreement in Iranian law, some jurists are inclined to the above theory.

Transnational companies are pursuing expanding trade and makeing profit.this issue leads  this companies to ignores the social dimension of their measures. Therefore, the governments have tried to regulat and guarantee corporate social responsibility through the hard  law and soft standards contained in investment treatis. In this study, the Status of social responsibility in the investment treatis of Canada, Brazil, the European Union and finally Iran has been examined and evaluated, and it seems that the approach of Brazil and the European Union in guaranteeing social responsibility according to Accurate explanation of examples and reference to international legal documents has been more successful. In the post TCOPA investment treatis.In Iran the  trend towards formulating social responsibility can be detected . Though  these restrictions have not been effective in balancing the interests of foreign investors with the public interest, and have been faced challenges such as the traditional nature of investment treaties, the soft nature of rules and ambiguity in explaining the concept of social responsibility, lack of international character. Therefore, the arbitration tribunal should also support to grow and strengthen this responsibility by giving a balanced interpretation of the rights of the investor and the host country and the classic rules of investment. Rivison of the content of  the  investment treatis, and giving  more attention to the  rules of social responsibility than protecting a foreign investor, is another solution that should be considered.

A bank account is a credit container created under a contract between an authorized depositor and the account holder, giving the customer the ability to deposit and withdraw money. Under UNCITRAL Model Law on Secured Transactions 2016, there are clear provisions on the creating security right against funds credited to a bank account. According to this law, the account holder can enter into a security agreement without the intervention of the deposit-taking institution. In this case, the security right cannot be effective against the deposit-taking institution unless pursuant to an order of a court or the deposit-taking institution’s consent.  If the security agreement is registered in the Registry, it can be invoked against third parties. It is also possible to involve the bank in the creation of the security agreement with a tripartite agreement called a control agreement, which in the latter case, the security agreement can be invoked against third parties without the need for registration. In Iranian law, although it is possible to implicitly derive the certifying to create security right against funds credited to a bank account from Article 21 of the Law on Elimination Barriers to Competitive Production and Improvement of the Financial System of the Country, approved in 2015, which speaks of a special bank account, but the conflict of this article with the provisions of mortgage in the Civil Code and its non-compliance with the general rules of mortgage, this implicit implication will not be able to persuade the legal community to accept the security right against funds credited to a bank account. Therefore, in order to keep pace with developments related to collateral transactions in the international legal system, it is appropriate to fill this legal gap by applying the provisions of the UNCITRAL Model Law.

The Rescue Doctrine is the focus of discussion on the civil liability of those endangering others toward Good Samaritans in American law. It means that rescuer who has been injured during the rescue have the right to receive compensation from a person that his harmful and culpable actions led to the need for that rescue operation, even if the attempt to save is unsuccessful. Because the harm incurred by the rescuer is the predictable result of negligence. In Iranian law, despite of not specifying this doctrine, the result of the analysis of the generalities of civil liability in the form of the Tasbib Institution is similar to American law and the damages to the rescuer can be claimed from causing of danger.

One of the important issues to be taken into account in investment agreements is to define the applicable law or resourcesgoverning the agreement. Upon defining the applicable law, based on the mutual agreement or through applying conflict resolution rules, it is possible for the parties to define the place of reference, interpretation, analysis, and inference of various topics. In the international agreements, such mutual agreements are binding and shall be applied by the
investigating authorityin analyzing and eventually granting the reward as for the disputes raisedout of the agreement. However, in the international commercial agreements, in particular, the investment cases, the arbitration authorities are hardly inclined to have exclusive use of the law or the defined resources. Actually, they commonly have direct or indirect useof other resources (non-defined resources)in different ways. The main subject of this article is the limits of arbitration authorities in referring the cases, using non-defined resources and the impact rate of such resources on the outcome of the agreement.

In Common Law system, the aggrieved party could recover benefits delivered to the breaching party as remedy for breach of contract. In normal contract damages, the defendant must compensate the plaintiff for losses suffered as the result of breach; while restitution damages seeks to prevent unjust enrichment by the breaching party and serves this purpose by restoring the gains received by the defendant to plaintiff. In Iranian law, restitution arises in cases of voluntary or involuntary dissolution of contract and in some cases may serve as damages. The research reveals that, notwithstanding some differences in particulars, there many similarities between the two systems in the subject under discussion.