درخت حوزه‌های تخصصی

Background and Theoretical Basis: In today's world, due to the relatively complex procedures of judicial proceedings in national and international courts, the use of arbitration for the resolution of disputes is expanding. International maritime arbitration has a special place because more than 90 percent of goods and maritime trade is carried out by sea and ships, and this type of arbitration has been identified as a special category of arbitration in the guidelines of the International Bar Association (IBA). Relatively few law firms specialize in maritime arbitration, and there is a need to pay attention to the resolution of disputes between shipping companies at the national and international levels, given the high volume of international trade. Methodology: In this research, using a descriptive-analytical method, the identification of the parties and the entry of a third party into the arbitration of maritime disputes were studied and analyzed. The purpose of this article is to analyze and discuss the approaches adopted by arbitral tribunals and courts regarding the legal status of non-signatory parties in the context of the two main centers of maritime arbitration: London and New York. Findings and Conclusion: As a matter of principle, only parties who have executed an arbitration agreement will be bound by it. However, there are exceptions where parties may be allowed to refer to or be forced to arbitrate even though they have not signed an arbitration agreement.  In the maritime industry, the issue of determining whether an arbitration clause is binding on third parties is critical. The structure of this section is susceptible to disputes involving non-signatories. Usually, maritime contracts are concluded by third parties in the framework of agency relationships, and contracts are assigned. Also, whether bills of lading can bind the holder to the charter party's arbitration clause is often disputed. The complexity of today's maritime trade has resulted in operators such as ship-owners, charterers, and cargo owners often operating in a corporate group structure where affiliates in specific business areas are interrelated and sometimes operate as an organization. "Front" for other companies.

One of the most significant issues concerning territory in both international and domestic law is the question of islands. Islands, whether as subnational political units or as extensions of the mainland, give rise to various legal complexities. Among these, the issue of sovereignty over islands linked to the mainland remains a crucial topic in international law and politics. In recent years, some of the most notable territorial disputes have centered on sovereignty over islands between different States. A prominent example is the long-standing dispute between Iran and the United Arab Emirates over the three islands of Abu Musa, Greater Tunb, and Lesser Tunb, which, although rooted in the past, has entered a complex form between the two States since the early 1980s. This article aims to review one of the most reliable and authoritative books on Iran’s sovereignty over these islands in the Persian Gulf, titled Historical, Political, and Legal Foundations of Iran’s Sovereignty over the Islands of Tunb and Abu Musa, authored by the late Davoud Hermidas Bavand (1934–2023). Bavand was a distinguished Iranian diplomat and an expert in foreign policy and international law. The book was first published in English in 1994, followed by the first Persian translation by Bahman Aghaei, published by Ganj-e-Danesh Library Publishing in 1998. The following review is based on the first edition of the book.

This article investigates the articulation of contractual claims within the framework of commercial and investment arbitration, addressing the recurrent question of when a contractual breach by a state-owned entity may rise to the level of a treaty breach attributable to the host state. Through a doctrinal and jurisprudential analysis, it traces the evolution of this issue from early academic debate to key arbitral precedents such as SGS v. Pakistan, SGS v. Philippines, and Garanti Koza v. Turkmenistan. The article discusses the interpretive challenges surrounding umbrella clauses, the distinction between contractual and treaty obligations, and the impact of forum selection clauses on arbitral jurisdiction. It further assesses the role of broadly drafted dispute resolution and most-favoured-nation clauses in extending treaty protection to contractual breaches. The analysis demonstrates that arbitral practice remains inconsistent and fragmented, revealing tensions between party autonomy under contract and the internationalisation of state responsibility under investment treaties. Drawing on comparative case law and practical experience from Iran, the article concludes with drafting recommendations for foreign direct investment contracts to preserve treaty-based avenues of redress. By clarifying the conditions under which contractual obligations may be internationalised, this