درخت حوزه‌های تخصصی

Worker wages represent a critical dimension of labor rights, encompassing all forms of remuneration arising from employment contracts. Given the inherent power imbalance between employers and employees, there exists an ongoing concern that employers, driven by the desire to minimize operational costs, may offer unjust wages to workers. Consequently, various frameworks are employed across societies to establish minimum wage standards. Social security stands as a fundamental indicator of the welfare levels of workers and vulnerable populations, providing a vital criterion for evaluating public satisfaction with governance. This research employs library resources, alongside descriptive-analytical and comparative approaches, to examine the relevant laws and documents within the national legal frameworks of Iran and Canada, as well as pertinent international instruments. The findings, based on the study's hypotheses, suggest that the systems governing equality in rights within Iran and Canada, as well as in international documents, emphasize the right to receive insurance benefits and secure employment as foundational elements of equality rights. Furthermore, the domains of relief and support serve to enhance these foundational structures.

This article aims to address theoretical and practical issues arising from the author’s "lived experience" in dealing with the developments and intricacies of international arbitration, with a particular focus on experiences related to the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal. These discussions are presented in two parts. The first part consists of general observations that emphasize, on the one hand, the unique importance of the Tribunal in contributing to the maintenance of international peace and security through the peaceful resolution of disputes between two predominantly adversarial states. The Tribunal is referred to as a symbolic institution embodying the "ideal of arbitration for peace." On the other hand, this section highlights the hybrid and multifaceted nature of the Tribunal and its manifestations, noting that the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal is a multifunctional institution. It simultaneously serves as an international commercial arbitration tribunal, an international investment arbitration tribunal, a tribunal with jurisdiction over contractual disputes between two states, and a public international law tribunal. This multifaceted nature allows its awards to be examined from various perspectives. The second part primarily examines the Tribunal’s jurisprudence from the perspective of the interaction between distinct legal cultures involved in international arbitration and the mutual influence of their legal backgrounds on the arbitration process. This selection is made with consideration of the judicial issues prevalent in Iran and seeks to highlight the Tribunal’s unparalleled role in deepening the legal knowledge and practical skills of Iranian lawyers in dealing with international claims. In this regard, issues such as the non-requirement of power of attorney for legal representatives, the admissibility of written witness testimony (affidavit) by the parties, the submission of written witness testimony and oral testimony by individuals with a personal interest in the case or a master-servant relationship with the parties, the ability to cross-examine witnesses during hearings regarding the content and veracity of their testimony, and the standard applied by the Tribunal for meeting the burden of proof and the burden of production are all examined in light of the Tribunal’s various rulings.

Notwithstanding the explicit provision for interpretive awards under Article 32 of Iran’s Law on International Commercial Arbitration, their application in domestic arbitration remains contentious. However, their existence may be inferred from instruments such as Article 9 of the 2022 Arbitration Fee Regulations. The absence of a comprehensive definition for interpretive awards has perpetuated conceptual confusion and facilitated their misuse as substitutes for revision procedures—a problematic tendency that, when considered alongside the significant benefits of properly utilized interpretive awards, underscores the critical importance of precisely understanding this legal mechanism. Interpretive awards must be conceptualized within established legal frameworks including res judicata and functus officio. Crucially, such awards address only those ambiguities arising from either drafting deficiencies or divergent party interpretations, rendering them fundamentally distinct from supplementary or corrective awards. In international law, interpretive awards appear in various instruments including the 1976 UNCITRAL Rules (which govern the Iran-U.S. arbitration agreement). International practice demonstrates that valid interpretation requests must satisfy specific criteria: (1) demonstration of genuine ambiguity; (2) pursuit of clarification rather than substantive modification; (3) direct relevance to the award’s scope; and (4) grounding in established factual circumstances. Proper requests should additionally include: (a) the ambiguous text; (b) explanation of the ambiguity; and (c) the parties’ conflicting interpretations. The jurisprudence of the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal confirms that failure to meet these requirements has resulted in uniform rejection of interpretation requests.