درخت حوزه‌های تخصصی

Modern piracy poses a significant challenge to global stability, jeopardizing international order and creating insecurity on the world's waterways. While reminiscent of traditional piracy, contemporary piracy manifests in distinct forms that diverge from its classical antecedent, particularly in terms of violence, the breadth of activities, methods employed, and underlying motives. Currently, the jurisdiction over these offenses rests with domestic courts. Despite the concerted efforts of the international community to prosecute perpetrators within these courts, both governments and international law have encountered considerable obstacles in achieving success. A particularly contentious issue is the jurisdictional complexities faced by governments during legal proceedings. In light of various United Nations Security Council resolutions, the concept of universal jurisdiction has evolved, albeit subject to diverse interpretations. The Islamic Republic of Iran has adopted specific procedural frameworks to address this issue. In accordance with Iranian law, both universal and territorial as well as personal jurisdictions are invoked to combat the immunity associated with modern piracy. The provisions articulated in Articles 3, 4, 7, 8, and 9 of the Islamic Penal Code unequivocally indicate that the Islamic Republic of Iran possesses substantial jurisdiction over individuals accused of modern piracy. Nevertheless, it is evident that legislative capacity remains underutilized, particularly concerning the existing gaps and deficiencies in the definitions and punitive measures related to piracy within the Islamic Penal Code. This has inadvertently resulted in piracy being perceived as a subset of other criminal offenses. Nonetheless, Iranian courts, grounded in the principles of universality, territoriality, and personal jurisdiction as delineated in the aforementioned Articles of the Islamic Penal Code, do indeed possess the requisite authority to adjudicate piracy cases.

The Iran-United States Claims Tribunal is an international body established based on agreements reached in the Algiers Accords, tasked with resolving legal disputes between the parties and their nationals. The Tribunal’s contribution in reducing conflicts and the volume of cases handled demonstrates its effectiveness in peacefully settling disputes and implementing beneficial arbitration practices. However, controversies exist regarding the enforcement of the Tribunal’s awards, particularly as paragraph 7 of the General Declaration stipulates the establishment of a Security Account by Iran to secure the enforcement of financial judgments against the country, while no specific provisions are made for other awards. This situation has led to Iran’s objections regarding the absence of a similar mechanism for the enforcement of awards in its favor, deeming the recognition and enforcement framework of the New York Convention inadequate in this context. The present study aims to analyze the enforcement mechanism of the Tribunal’s awards through a descriptive-analytical method, focusing on the applicability of the recognition and enforcement framework of the 1958 New York Convention. The central research question is: What mechanism governs the recognition and enforcement of awards issued in favor of Iranian parties? The fundamental hypothesis posits that, according to existing practices, the New York Convention is applicable to the enforcement of these awards. Research findings indicate that the New York Convention possesses the necessary capacity for the enforcement of the Tribunal’s awards. Furthermore, the Tribunal’s dual nature, addressing claims from two states as well as claims from nationals of one state against another, does not create an obstacle in this regard.