درخت حوزه‌های تخصصی

The resignation of an arbitrator constitutes one of the grounds for the termination of an arbitrator’s mandate, as provided for in most national arbitration laws and institutional arbitration rules. However, the legal dimensions and implications of such resignation- including its effects on the parties’ rights and the arbitral proceedings- may vary depending on the arbitrator’s motives for resigning and the justifiability (or lack thereof) of those motives. For instance, the acceptance of a resignation, the method of appointing a substitute arbitrator, the possibility of continuing proceedings before a truncated tribunal (i.e., without replacing the resigning arbitrator), and even the arbitrator’s potential civil liability may be subject to differing legal determinations based on whether the resignation is deemed justified. Domestic and international arbitration laws and rules have addressed arbitrator resignations through divergent approaches, often focusing solely on the replacement of the arbitrator while neglecting broader legal and ethical challenges. These challenges include the permissibility of resignation, its acceptance, its impact on the continuation of proceedings, and the prevention of its abuse. The unique characteristics of the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal have rendered the issue of arbitrator resignation particularly significant within its framework. Notable in this regard are the Tribunal’s jurisprudence and its modifications to the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules- aimed at mitigating procedural delays arising from resignations. One of the most consequential procedural rules derived from the Tribunal’s experience is the addition of Paragraph 5 to Article 13 of the UNCITRAL Rules, which imposes an obligation on the resigning arbitrator to continue participating in proceedings (post-resignation) in cases where they have already taken part in the merits hearing. This provision, known as the Mosk Rule, has introduced a distinctive mechanism to safeguard procedural integrity. This article examines the rationale behind the Mosk Rule, its legal effects in light of general principles governing arbitrator resignation and replacement, its implications on the parties’ rights, the imperative of ensuring fair and equitable proceedings, and the preservation of arbitration’s legitimacy and credibility. Furthermore, the study proposes measures to deter unjustified resignations and mitigate their adverse impact on arbitral proceedings.

استان انتاریو در کانادا اصلاحات گسترده ای را در آیین دادرسی مدنی خود آغاز کرده است. این بازنگری که با عنوان بررسی مقررات دادرسی مدنی (Civil Rules Review - CRR) در سال های ۲۰۲۴ تا ۲۰۲۵ انجام می شود، نخستین ارزیابی جامع در حدود چهل سال گذشته است. هدف از آن، مدرن سازی فرایندها، کاهش هزینه و تأخیر، و افزایش دسترسی به عدالت است.  مهم ترین و بحث برانگیزترین بخش اصلاحات، جایگزینی بازجویی شفاهی (oral discovery) با «مدل شواهد اولیه» (up-front evidence model) است که طرفین را ملزم می کند در آغاز دعوا، اظهارات کتبی شهود و مدارک محدود خود را مبادله کنند. طرفداران این طرح می گویند چنین روشی هزینه و تأخیر را کاهش می دهد؛ اما منتقدان هشدار می دهند که این تغییر ممکن است عدالت را تضعیف کند، به ویژه برای افرادی که بدون وکیل یا با آسیب پذیری های خاص به دادگاه می آیند و تنها از راه پرسش های حضوری امکان کشف حقیقت وجود دارد. با توجه به اینکه بیش از ۹۵٪ پرونده های مدنی در انتاریو پیش از محاکمه (Trial) حل وفصل می شوند، بسیاری از وکلا پرسش و پاسخ شفاهی را ابزار اصلی کشف حقیقت می دانند. از دیدگاه حقوق تطبیقی، این اصلاحات نشان می دهد که هر نظام قضایی برای مدرن سازی باید میان کارآمدی (Efficiency)و انصاف (Fairness) تعادل برقرار کند.

Environmental crises affect children's rights to such an extent that they can be boldly referred to as children's rights crisis. There are a variety of environmental crises, including air, water and soil pollution, destruction of ecosystems and resources, toxic pollution, the spread of infectious diseases, ozone depletion, rising greenhouse gases and so on which adversely affect various aspects of children's basic rights including right to life, right to health, right to education, right to welfare and adequate living standards, right to healthy nutrition and their cultural rights. The present paper seeks to explore the rights of children in environmental crises from the perspective of international human rights law (IHRL). Finally, the findings of this article indicates that, states and large corporations, which have the largest share in creating environmental crises, also have the greatest responsibility. Now, when environmental damage directly and/or indirectly violates the rights of children and governments are directly or/and indirectly involved in creating them, it makes sense to consider them committed to resolving environmental crises and guaranteeing children's rights. To this end, states should take effective action, including reducing greenhouse gas emissions, preventing ecosystem degradation, preventing pollution and global warming, respecting the right of children to be heard, guaranteeing the right to freedom of expression and association, and involving them in environmental decisions.

Although the era when children were primarily considered as a source of labor for the familyhas largely passed, the procreation of children remains indispensable for societal continuity.Views on children have shifted from characterizing them as the “private property of the family”to recognizing them as a “public good.” While children may not satisfy all the criteria of a purepublic good, it is widely acknowledged that society bears a significant role in the upbringing,education, and, ultimately, the costs associated with children. Nonetheless, although theconception of a child as a personal property of the family has changed, extensive governmentalintrusion into family privacy is similarly not accepted. This article employs a descriptive-analytical approach to examine arguments for and against this perspective, drawing on theoriesof public and socialized goods, with a focus on Iranian legislation. Children, due to their potentialbenefits, such as their future roles as workforce and taxpayers, exhibit characteristics of a publicgood; however, philosophical, legal, economic, and cultural challenges limit this interpretation.Iranian laws, particularly the Family and Youthful Population Support Act (2021) and Article3 of the Child and Adolescent Protection Act (2020), recognize government responsibility andmark a step toward conceptualizing children as public goods. This article posits thatwhetherchildren are characterized as public goods or as socialized goods, an obligation is thereby createdfor non-parents and, consequently, for the state as the representative of the nation, to share in thecosts associated with them.