درخت حوزه‌های تخصصی

Independence and impartiality are essential indicators for qualified arbitrators. However, the criteria for assessing these indicators differ among competent authorities when addressing challenges to arbitrators. One contentious aspect is the nationality of the arbitrators. By examining arbitration rules and issued decisions, a distinction was made between commercial arbitration and investment arbitration. The ICSID rules of arbitration explicitly mention common nationality with the parties as a criterion for challenging an arbitrator. The ICSID practice has also influenced investment arbitration outside of ICSID, given the significant role of nationality throughout investment law. Conversely, in commercial arbitration, the role of nationality is less pronounced, to the extent that the international character of arbitration in various legal systems is determined by the differences in the parties' places of business rather than their nationalities. Consequently, the nationality of arbitrators in commercial arbitration cannot solely serve as a basis for challenging an arbitrator without other supporting factors.

The present study is devoted to determining the relationship between religious and legal norms in the regulatory framework governing organ transplantation as a method of treating diseases in the Islamic Republic of Iran. It has been established that the set of normative acts regulating this field consists of the fatwas of the Supreme Leaders, as well as laws and subordinate regulatory legal acts. The author concludes that in contemporary Iran, religious norms – by legitimizing transplantation (including from unrelated donors and even from animals) – have been flexibly adapted to the needs of Iranian society. As a result of the study, the author finds that at the present stage in the Islamic Republic of Iran a balance has been achieved between the requirements of religion and legal norms in the regulation of transplantation. This balance has allowed the country to emerge as a world leader in meeting the demand for donor organs.

Natasa Nedeski’s Shared Obligations in International Law is a careful, conceptually ambitious monograph that fills an important gap in contemporary international-law scholarship by moving the debate about “shared responsibility” onto the terrain of primary obligations. Building on the SHARES research project, the book develops a positive-law concept of “shared obligations,” offers a systematic typology (most importantly: divisible vs. indivisible shared obligations), and maps the doctrinal consequences of this typology for performance, attribution and the secondary obligations of cessation and reparation. The argument is meticulously argued, richly illustrated with instructive case studies (Nauru, Eurotunnel, the Kyoto commitments, the Marshall Islands cases and others), and closely attentive to the ILC materials and the broader architecture of the law of obligations. The book’s chief value is conceptual clarity: by foregrounding the structure of the primary legal duty the author is able to show—persuasively—that how a duty is shared shapes who can be held responsible, what remedies follow, and how claims should be framed in adjudication. The monograph is essential reading for scholars, judges and practitioners interested in multilateral governance and international responsibility.

Iran’s petroleum sector relies heavily on arbitration as the primary method of resolving disputes arising under Iran Petroleum Contracts (IPCs), particularly those involving sensitive exploration and production (E&P) oil field projects. Here provides a comprehensive doctrinal analysis of the ad-hoc arbitration agreement contained in IPC Appendix P, demonstrating how it adapts international procedures, principally the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules—to the specific requirements of Iran’s legal system. Through detailed examination of statutory frameworks, including the Law on International Commercial Arbitration (LICA) and constitutional constraints imposed by Article 139, the research exposes the procedural, jurisdictional, and enforcement challenges faced by parties engaging in petroleum arbitration in Iran. It further scrutinises the IPC’s multi-tier dispute resolution architecture, incorporating negotiation, ADR, ministerial review, and arbitration, and highlights the unique features of Iran’s arbitration landscape, such as the mandatory application of Iranian law and restrictions on damage types. The study compares Iranian practice with international standards and identifies both areas of convergence and structural divergence. The article concludes with practical recommendations for contract drafters, counsel, and arbitrators navigating disputes under IPCs, focusing on arbitrability approvals, procedural efficiency, enforcement strategy, damages assessment, and tribunal selection.