درخت حوزه‌های تخصصی

In recent years, we witnessed the use of laser weapons in naval conflicts in the Persian Gulf, the Strait of Hormuz and the Sea of Oman. Conflicts that are not armed and under the laws of hostilities and the rights of war are not considered, and the use of laser weapons in them violates the principles of proportionality and necessity in international humanitarian law. Based on the Fourth Protocol of 1995 of the 1980 on Conventional Weapons and Article 86 of International Customary Humanitarian Law, the use of blinding and permanently blinding laser weapons is prohibited. Based on Article 36 of the 1st Additional Protocol of 1977, the governments in the production and use of new weapons should ensure that they are not prohibited from the point of view of international rules.the use of laser weapons in the aforementioned maritime conflicts is a violation of international obligations and has a criminal nature, and according to Article 2 of the 2001 international responsibility plan of governments, it causes the international responsibility of the governments that use it. The main goal of this research is to analyze the international responsibility of governments in using laser weapons in maritime conflicts in the Persian Gulf and the Sea of Oman. Therefore, by using an applied research with a descriptive-analytical method to collect the data obtained through library studies and field investigation, we have sought to realize this goal. The result of the research showed that laser weapons are a violation of international obligations in the field of intimidation, unnecessary pain and suffering, use by terrorist groups, intelligent murder,violation of the right to life and the right to reproduction. humanitarian rights, human rights and mandatory rules and universal obligations are international and are considered an international violation and cause the international responsibility of governments.

The world witnessed a change in the arrangement of international actors after the Second World War and the rise of international organizations in the international landscape. The International Maritime Organization (IMO) was one of these entities, acting as the UN specialized agency in maritime affairs. This study mainly aims at reviewing the regulatory role of the IMO, particularly the Port State Control (PSC) regime, by addressing its concept, as well as the legal basis and the control procedures. This mainly descriptive–inductive study describes and analyzes the legal bases of the PSC. Generally, IMO is identified with two types of functions: legislation and regulation. IMO’s regulatory function is reflected in two main tools, namely, the Audit Scheme of its Member States and Port State Control (PSC). With its supplementary nature, PSC is in fact an efficient maritime system for the safety and protection of the marine environment, encouraging states to watch for the safety of ships other than those flying their flags, especially those visiting their ports. This control system has led to an effective and efficient implementation of IMO rules and regulations.

Western discussions of human rights have led to the coalescence of two distinct positions regarding the fundamental, inalienable liberties that citizens should be able to enjoy as a matter of principle. The first, commonly known as the cosmopolitan perspective , asserts that one set of basic human rights is valid for all societies. The other claims that citizens of different societies may possess different sets of human rights, albeit ones that any thoughtful person would acknowledge to be essentially decent and appropriate to the cultural and historical circumstances of the community at hand. Among a great many prominent cosmopolitan theorists, David Held stands out as the most consistent and vociferous champion of a universalist conception of human rights. Arguably the most influential proponent of distinct packages of rights for various social milieux is John Rawls, whose controversial notion of the Law of Peoples explicitly calls on liberal societies to tolerate, if not actually respect, alternative ways in which a minimal cluster of basic rights might be articulated. This paper demonstrates first that these two, generally opposed poles of the debate over human rights have moved much closer to one another than one might expect.

The peaceful use of the various territories of the international community, including land, sea, air, and outer space, is one of the basic rules of international law, and the prohibition of the use and threat of force based on paragraph 4 of Article 2 of the United Nations Charter is one of the mandatory rules.None of the members of the United Nations have the right to resort to force in the seas and non-peaceful maritime activities. Although the 1982 Montego Bay, Convention on the Law of the Sea was drafted for peacetime, this does not mean that the aforementioned convention loses its validity and executive power when armed conflicts occur.In this research, using the analytical descriptive method, a review of the behavior of the United States in the peaceful use of the seas from the point of view of the United Nations Charter and the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea and the authors' analyzes has been done.The findings of this research show that the US government, according to the statements issued by this country, which have been prepared in line with the interests and oceanic policies of this sea power, has provided interpretations or perceptions regarding the maritime activities of the US in relation to the 1982 convention, which can endanger the peaceful use of the seas.The approach of the United States through the seven positions that have been examined in this brief article indicates that this country allows its military activities in order to secure its interests and is not subject to dispute resolution methods and peaceful goals. It does not consider the 1982 Convention as its legal obligation.   Therefore, the US wants absolute freedom of navigation in all sea areas. Naturally, this approach of a maritime power cannot be a suitable basis for guaranteeing the peaceful use of the seas and institutionalizing maritime diplomacy. 

Today, arbitration has become the most popular means of resolving maritime disputes. Arbitration as a binding dispute resolution method is proposed and recognized in the seventh appendix of the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea. One of the important requirements of arbitration is the observance of fair proceedings, which according to the New York Convention of 1958 and the European Convention on Human Rights, is under judicial supervision at the stage of identifying and implementing arbitration decisions and at the stage of protesting the arbitration decision. Considering that arbitration is a type of private judgment, it is required to observe fair proceedings, as a human right, therefore, identifying the fair arbitration and guaranteeing the implementation of its non-compliance is of great importance. Identifying the principle of fair arbitration as a human right and guaranteeing its non-compliance in various cases, in order to violate the human rights of the parties, needs to be read. In the current research, with the analytical and descriptive method and using library sources and judicial procedure and according to the basics of human rights and international documents as well as international judicial procedure, the principle of fair arbitration to It has been recognized as an inalienable human right . And it can be said: the agreement on the cancellation of the right to object to the arbitration award has no effect on the possibility of requesting the annulment of the arbitration award due to non-compliance with the principles of fair arbitration. The request to cancel the arbitrator's decision that is outside the deadline can also be accepted by relying on the principles of fair arbitration, and in case of a request to implement the arbitrator's decision, the arbitrator's decision will not be able to be recognized and implemented.

The naval conflict has undergone many changes due to environmental factors and various tools, as well as the increasing growth and development of marine technologies, aligned with the inclusion of new tools and methods in naval conflict and electronic warfare at sea. The procedure taken by countries indicates the acceptance of electronic warfare as one of the methods and tools of agreed warfare. However, from the perspective of international humanitarian law, the use of electronic warfare tools and methods is challenging, and international treaty law lacks a legal rule regarding this method of warfare. Indeed, the only guideline that has sought to regulate electronic warfare is the Air and Missile Warfare Directive, which imposes no legal requirements on governments. So the question we are going to answer in this brief is that, can humanitarian law be applied to electronic warfare? The purpose of this study is to explain and investigate the various dimensions of naval electronic warfare from the perspective of international humanitarian law, and proving that international humanitarian law can be applied to the methods and tools of electronic warfare at sea. The research method selected for the present paper is an analytical-explanatory method and the data collection method used is the library research method.

Exploiting the bed and subbed of the seas which are outside the governments’ sovereignty is always discussed since the countries severely need to these resources and the technological progress makes it possible to exploit these areas. Present study aims to respond this question that how resources of bed and subbed of the seas outside governments’ sovereignty are exploit based on law perspective, and how can analyze juridical attitude in this issue. In law perspective, according to the 1982 Convention on the Law of the Seas, these areas are the common heritage of humanity and International Seabed Authority is responsible in this field. In Islamic jurisprudence, exploitation of properties which do not belong to a specific person and freely are in access the public is named Anfal. But the bed and subbed of the seas are not included in any of the territories such as Dar al-Harb defined by the jurists, because no government have the right to claim sovereignty over these areas, and Dar al-Kofr is not in charge of these areas either. It is necessary to act based on international treaties and customary in such a situation. It means that Dar al-Islam is committed to act in accordance with existing international treaties and customary. Even if Dar al-Islam has not accepted any treaties regarding the bed and subbed of the seas, it is committed to implement international regulations based on international customary since international customary has known the bed and subbed of the seas outside the governments’ sovereignty as the common heritage of humanity.

With the increasing development of the shipbuilding industry in the global arena, the need for the presence of foreign companies in this field and especially investment in it was felt more than ever. The benefits of the presence of foreigners and the existence of sanctions against Iran gave special importance to how the contract was concluded. However, considering that the contract is considered an indefinite contract and its limits and limits are agreed upon between the parties according to the freedom of will (Article 10 of the Civil Code of Iran). In this research, we considered the conditions of the representative and the duties of its parties against the third party to be important and examined. The authors have tried to process the subject by using a descriptive-analytical research method and library data collection method. What was obtained from this research is the need to pay attention to the representative's behavior and the limits of authority granted to the representative by the principle. Considering all the aspects mentioned in this research, a relatively reliable contract can be concluded.

Arbitration, as a method of pacific settlement of disputes, is mentioned in Article 33 of the Charter of the United Nations, by which parties to any dispute endeavor to find a solution to eliminate their conflict. Yet, article 33 does not include other forms of arbitrations that the United Nations System deals with. International arbitrations are generally referred to as interstate arbitration, international commercial arbitration, and international investment arbitration. Although these arbitration-based methods of international dispute settlement are different, they all observe the same goal: the settlement of disputes by peaceful means and preventing the parties from resorting to adverse behavior. Due to their common goal, it calls the role of the United Nations in promulgating international arbitrations among its member States into question: Has the UN had any bold involvement in promoting and strengthening international arbitrations in the abovementioned fields? It seems that the influence of the UN on interstate arbitration is undeniable because of its main goal and principles; however, this article depicts that the UN policy regarding international arbitrations adheres to the forming and developing international commercial arbitration and international investment arbitration rather than inter-state arbitration. The UN also plays a mediocre role in developing thematic-oriented international arbitrations.

With the acceptance of international trade and its expansion in the 20th century, the need to prepare a suitable mechanism to resolve disputes, especially in non-international dimensions, became one of the important concerns to maintain commercial relations and contracts. And this caused that, despite the global skepticism towards arbitration, in a short time arbitration and mediation were considered as a way to resolve conflicts, especially regarding international commercial disputes. On June 26, 2018, the Singapore Convention was approved by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) regarding international agreements resulting from mediation. And the plan of UNCITRAL was modified in the field of international commercial mediation and international settlement agreements resulting from mediation. The purpose of ratifying this convention is to establish a binding legal system and an efficient framework and legal platform for the implementation of international agreements resulting from mediation. Previously, the adoption of the New York Convention by expanding the use of the arbitration method as a way to settle disputes was considered one of the most successful international treaties in this field. In total, the present research, with an analytical and argumentative method, seeks to respond to the main philosophy of concluding and the scope of application of each of the two New York and Singapore Conventions, by examining the weak and strong points of each, it explains the position of these two treaties in resolving conflicts and disputes and discusses the similarities and differences between the New York Convention and the Singapore Convention on Mediation.

In the third millennium, the number of environmental variables and the nature of the complex relationships between them have resulted in the complexity of competition in the business. Accordingly, the role of organizational intangible capital has been more touchable than ever. Actually, as the intensity of competition increases, the importance of intangible capital enhances and the importance of physical and fixed capital decreases. Due to its geopolitical situation and the presence of extensive maritime boundaries in the north and south, Iran possesses countless strengths and opportunities to obtain maximum resources and benefits from this God-given blessing. Therefore, preservation and expansion of maritime institutions in Iran has been raised as an undeniable necessity in all short- and long-term government plans. This study aims to have policy making regarding the management of organizational intangible capital and its impact on knowledge productivity in maritime institutions of the country. Participants were the experts of Iran’s maritime organizations, which include IRI strategic Navy, the Ports and Maritime Organization, and the National Iranian Tanker Company. Standard questionnaires were employed for data collection. Results showed that focusing on intangible organizational capital in the policy making of maritime institutions can have a significant impact on knowledge productivity in them, which can lead to benefiting from national capacities in maritime studies.