فصلنامه پژوهش حقوق عمومی
سال چهاردهم شماره 37 (تابستان 1391)

Obligation in the universe of law substantially comes from the agreement of persons (legal acts) or results from the events which are binding at law (legal events). The fact that one can create, at his sole will, a binding obligation for him or another, is not justifiable in the view of some lawyers while others considered it as an exceptional issue. This article examines and analysises holding ones unilateral will obligatory toward him in a way so as to be the origin of a legal right for the other party. Futhermore,in this writing,besides the inspecting theoretical opinions of those who agree and disagree to this institution, it has been tried to introduce what is more acceptable to the criteria of domestic law by referring to its possibe examples in the law of Iran.

Ombudsman expands throughout the world in middle of twenty century and got some multi-functions. This institution has high flexibility and accords with different legal system. Whit considering defects in judicial review of different legal systems and also failure of those tribunals which were suppose to support citizens right’s against governmental institutions were the reasons of its quick and multilateral spread. so Sweden Ombudsman Institution is as institution which applies ultra-judicial review and supported tribunals and accomplished judicial review for protecting and also supporting citizen’s rights. In the first part of this article, condition of its extension, its reasons, and its multilateral function would be investigated and in the second part, ultra judicial review and condition of its application by this institution would be posed.

Commercial relations have always been one of the main factors at the international plane. Such relations have been crystalized either in the form of bilateral agreements or in the form of multilateral cooperation such as World Trade Organization which has offered many effects. On the other side, international plane is increasingly expanding and getting more complicated than ever and new bodies, principles and organizations are emerging. The nature of international society requires that these bodies whether commercial or others have interactions. That means, while each of them goes its own way, they should cooperate with others to develop international society.It is clear that WTO, because of its importance, can create a huge volume of principles, rules and jurisprudence that can play role in international law, and at the same time be affected by international law. This organization is body that is emerged out of international law and its legal order is in complete relationship with international legal order. The organization respects many principles of international law like equality of states, good faith and settlement of disputes in its legal order. The rules established in the framework of the organization are related to treaties and rules established before or after the emergence of the organization. Also, the jurisprudence of dispute settlement panels shows the relationship of this organization and public international law. And finally, many of the principles of international law are applied in the dispute settlement system of this organization. For example, dispute settlement panels and appellate body in interpreting agreements refer to principles of interpretation in international law. In settling the disputes, they do not confine the applicable law merely to agreements of the organization but they also apply principles of international law.

Parallel importation takes places when products protected by patent, trademark or copyright are first placed on the market, and then (re-) imported into a second market without the authorization of the original owner of the intellectual property.Many of the firms in the developing countries, with the support of their national states, are engaged in this form of trade. Parallel importation, would prevent any monopolization and hence would provide the developing countries with many products at low costs. By contrast, the advanced countrie's main purpose is to protect their enterprises and to do so their prime endeavours have been to bar any re-importation which has not secured the prior consent of the original owners. Hence, while the developing countries have adopted the exhaustion of the intellectual property rights at the international level, the developed world has done it at the national and regional levels.The prime intent of the latter is to enhance their technological and industrial level and secure their competitive edge.This dichotomy finds its way in Article 6 of the TRIPS whereby Members Countries have been given the option of choosing any one of the principles (national, regional or international exhaustion) they may deem fit for their development.The Iranian new law on patent, industrial property rights and trademarks, for reasons unexplained, has adopted the national exhaustion principle. This approach may not be in consonant with the economic and industrial advancement of Iran. Its replacement with the adoption of an international exhaustion is, therefore, Recommended.

One of the main challenges facing international arbitration is the issue of reopening and revising the final and binding awards and decisions of an arbitral tribunal, especially when the procedural law and the arbitration agreement are silent regarding this issue. Some international arbitral tribunals conclude that they have an inherent power or authority to revise their final and binding decisions in some exceptional cases such as fraud and perjury or discovery of some new and determining facts and evidences. The Iran-US Claims Tribunal had been following the same trend for many years in its chamber cases. Recently, the Tribunal in its Decision of 1 July 2011, came to this conclusion that the Tribunal has no authority for revision, due to lack of express language of the procedural rules of the Tribunal as well as the silence of the Algeria's Accords in this regard. This paper will examine the Tribunal's practice with regard to the question of the revision in past and will analyze the recent Decision of 1 July, 2011 in this context.

Every legal system embodies diverse, proportional and agile rules in order to insure achieving the goals of substantive rules. Disproportionality and imbalance between the mentioned rules may prevent the legal system to achieve its goals. To ensure the legal protection (in such aspects as criminal, civil and administrative law) of those, whose rights have been violated in field of environment, trade of goods, services (in cyber space or fiscal space) and etc… it is necessity to enact appropriate rules. Nowadays some legal systems allow class action and to that end incorporate proportional procedure rules whereby a person or a group or an association as an advocate – and without the need for any joining or membership thereto - may take legal action.The prime intent of this paper is to introduce this legal institute, elucidate its advantages and disadvantages and to examine the possibility of its implement in the Iranian legal system and hence the need for its legislation.

The prosecutor is the director of public claim for protection of community and victim rights in Iran and the United States. This prosecutor’s role is so highlighted that the subject of observance of the accused’s defense right including disclosure of evidences favor to accused and blockage of corrupt evidences against him (or her) by prosecutor has been considered negligibly. In U.S law according to several Supreme Court’s sentences, the prosecutor’s function of prohibition of debarment and necessity of disclosure of evidences favor to accused has been explicitly mentioned. Although that explicitness as the prosecutor’s function is not seen in the law of Iran, but it has been deduced from requires of prosecutor’s impartiality that considered implicitly and explicitly in the rules of Iran that prosecutor must not avoid from disclosure of evidences favor to accused and must block the corrupt evidences against him (or her). Nevertheless, it is worthy that rules and precedent consider to the vacuum in this field and note the prosecutor’s function about that cited affairs.

The judicial review is a control that its sanction is annulment of administrative act (regulations) or obligation of administrative authorities to do it according to judicial verdict. Consequently, the judicial review is the relation between two competences: the executive competence that regulations are established in this framework and the control competence that judicial review is applied in its context. Perhaps, the most effective competence of the Administrative Justice Court is the judicial review competence on the regulations mentioned in article 19(1), where investigation of them is by the General Assembly as the highest authority in the Administrative Justice Court. The aim of this article is to analyze methods of applying the judicial control of regulations by Administrative Justice Court (formal and substantial) and evaluation of their legality standards. In this scope, we are going to prove the hypotheses that by distinction of the parties of article 19(1) and extensive interpretation of them, the General Assembly can have an absolute and general control over regulations. In fact the judicial review should not be based on a limited interpretation of Article 19 (1). Instead, this control can be applied more effectively by considering the logic of functions of the Administrative Justice Court according to articles 170 and 173 of the constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran and general principles of the administrative law and public law (effective protection of citizenship rights and guaranty of legal security).