مطالب

Climate change is a global issue, driven largely by greenhouse gas emission, with carbon dioxide (CO2) being the biggest contributor. Iran, one of the top 10 emitters globally, faces unique challenges in reducing its CO2 emission due to economic sanctions, data gaps, and limited experience with climate policy. To help guide decision-makers, this study uses the Simplified DICE model—DICE model is a widely accepted tool for analyzing climate and economic interactions—to evaluate different strategies for emission reduction. These strategies mainly include carbon pricing, investment in renewables as mitigation of emission growth, and improving energy efficiency. The results show that such policies can positively impact GDP, temperature stabilization, and emission levels. This research provides the first numerical framework tailored to Iran’s specific context, offering practical insights for policymakers. Key policy implications include the necessity to overcome sanctions in aspects of Investment and technology absorption, improved data collection to refine future analyses, and adopting cost-effective measures that balance economic growth with environmental sustainability.

In this paper, the competitive market of crude oil exports of Iran and the world is modeled using game theory. In the present research, we have focused on OPEC's internal competition within the game theory framework to analyze the economic conflicts between OPEC members in detail. In the conditions where each of the producers has their own goals and limitations, the amount of access to the desired goals for each producer depends not only on the decisions they make, but also is affected by the prevailing atmosphere in the oil market, including the strategy of other competitors, sanctions, and different situations of economic growth and oil sale price level. In recent years, Western countries, especially the United States, have imposed extensive sanctions against Iran, mainly targeting. In this regard, three players of Iran, Saudi Arabia, and the United States of America (USA) were defined and a model for the game between them was presented. Then the presented model was solved as a cooperative game and the equilibrium point was obtained for it. The results obtained showed that the three main players have the conditions for cooperation by choosing the options of "reducing pressure and fewer sanctions", "reducing pressure and cooperation", and "cooperation", and Iran can only improve its conditions by competing with Saudi Arabia in OPEC.

Bifurcation constitutes a procedural mechanism in arbitration whereby complex disputes are segmented into separate and distinct issues to be addressed individually over the course of the proceedings. This stratification enables a more organized and methodical approach, commonly by isolating jurisdictional questions from the substantive merits of the case. Through the division of the dispute into discrete phases, bifurcation enhances procedural efficiency, allowing the parties to focus their efforts on pivotal matters while avoiding unnecessary expenditure of time and resources on ancillary issues. As a result, this mechanism often contributes to notable reductions in both the duration and overall cost of the arbitral process. In determining whether to bifurcate proceedings, arbitral tribunals assess key criteria: the preliminary objection must demonstrate substantive merit, be capable of adjudication independently of the merits, and possess the potential to resolve the dispute conclusively. The tribunal’s decision to implement this procedural tool ultimately depends on the specific facts and prevailing circumstances of the case.

The recent surge of artificial-intelligence (AI) activity has sparked concern that large-scale model training, cloud inference, and data-centre expansion could accelerate national energy demand. We marshal a 21-year annual panel for the United States (2004–2024) that couples multiple AI proxies—technology-stock valuations and a ChatGPT-era dummy—with four aggregate energy series (fossil fuels, nuclear, renewables, total primary energy). A five-stage empirical protocol implemented in Python combines Engle–Granger cointegration testing, higher-order ADF stationarity checks, linear and nonlinear dependence diagnostics (Pearson, Dynamic Time Warping, mutual information), multicollinearity screening (variance-inflation factors), and out-of-sample forecasting with linear regression, decision trees, random forests, and support-vector machines augmented by SHAP explainability. Across all tests we find no evidence that AI developments imprint on national energy use: AI variables cointegrate only with one another, their short-run correlations with energy vanish once trends are removed, their mutual-information scores remain near zero, and their inclusion never improves predictive accuracy beyond a parsimonious macro model driven by GDP, inflation, and population. SHAP rankings confirm that AI features carry negligible explanatory weight relative to conventional fundamentals. We conclude that, to date, AI’s macro-level energy footprint is statistically invisible—any electricity it consumes is either too small or offset by efficiency gains within the wider economy. Policymakers should therefore continue to anchor long-range energy scenarios to established economic drivers while monitoring localised data-centre hotspots that national aggregates obscure.

The Tigris-Euphrates basin is of high regional and global significance; however, the lack of a comprehensive multilateral agreement among riparian states has transformed the management of this transboundary watercourse into a political, security, and environmental challenge. The central issue addressed in this research is the evaluation of the quality of the application of the 'no significant harm' principle within the basin. Specifically, the study investigates whether water resource utilization—such as constructing dams beyond the natural capacity of the rivers and excessive extraction of groundwater—complies with legal obligations and the principles of equitable and reasonable utilization. This study employs an innovative interdisciplinary approach that integrates legal and technical analyses. The legal framework is established by examining customary sources, international conventions, and the insights of prominent international law scholars regarding the definition and scope of "no significant harm." Concurrently, up-to-date technical data on dam capacities, river flow alterations, and groundwater extraction—sourced from reputable publications—serve as the empirical basis for assessing the practical application of the principle. The findings indicate that mismanagement practices in water resource development can inflict significant harm on the ecosystem, regional wetlands, and the livelihoods of local communities. Therefore, the formulation of a comprehensive framework and the advancement of multilateral cooperation for the equitable and reasonable use of the Tigris-Euphrates resources is imperative.

Emerging markets are those developing countries that are not fully developed but moving away from the traditional economies to be more industrialized by adopting a free and open market or mixed economy. Fast economic growth, growing middle-class, huge population growth and working age population, as well as consumption growth are attracted the multinationals to invest in emerging markets. Despite of its opportunities, these emerging markets also bring out the risks that must be faced and overcome by multinationals through its strategies and approaches. Qualitative research has been used for this study. This paper will try to evaluate the emerging markets from its governance, rule of law, politics, market and corporate sectors, as well as its institutions and regulations, while taking BRICS countries as example to represent the emerging markets. The findings shows that emerging markets are attractive yet still has issues that mostly on its governance, political stability, rule of law, corruption, and institutional voids. Thus, multinational firms could undertake this challenges by implementing right strategies and approaches based on each markets domestic features, using the five context to recognize the institutional voids, and refer to the Analyze-Benchmarck-Calibrate of developing a globalization strategy.

Economic sanctions have evolved into a pivotal instrument of foreign policy, enabling states to exert pressure without direct military confrontation. Traditionally viewed as tools for punishment or coercion, their strategic function as instruments of economic leverage is receiving growing scholarly and policy attention. However, a conceptual gap persists in understanding how sanctions operate not only as punitive measures but as proactive mechanisms for shaping global behavior and diplomacy. This study aims to bridge this gap by critically examining sanctions as instruments of economic statecraft, focusing on their ability to influence state behavior, uphold international norms, and serve long-term strategic interests. Adopting a qualitative, doctrinal methodology, the article analyzes key international legal frameworks, sanctions regimes, and historical case studies involving major powers such as the U.S., EU, and China. The findings reveal that while sanctions are often framed within legal and moral justifications, their effectiveness depends heavily on multilateral coordination, economic integration levels, and the credibility of enforcement. Ultimately, the study concludes that sanctions, when strategically designed and legally grounded, can serve as effective tools of economic leverage, but their overuse or misuse risks undermining their legitimacy and the broader international legal order.

In recent years, the increasing invocation of national security exceptions in trade disputes has strained the coherence of the multilateral trading system. This paper explores the legal and geopolitical implications of Article XXI of the GATT, focusing on how its growing use—particularly by powerful states—challenges the legitimacy of WTO dispute settlement mechanisms. Addressing a significant gap in legal scholarship, the research examines the tension between sovereign discretion and multilateral accountability, an area complicated by vague treaty language and political misuse. The study’s main objective is to assess whether existing WTO frameworks can effectively constrain the abuse of the national security exception while preserving state autonomy. Using a qualitative doctrinal methodology enriched by comparative legal analysis and a focused case study on Malaysia, the paper evaluates WTO rulings (notably DS512 and DS526), regional trade practices, and Malaysia’s middle-power diplomacy. The findings reveal a shift in WTO jurisprudence toward legal scrutiny of national security claims, emphasizing proportionality, necessity, and good faith. Malaysia’s cautious, multilateral approach offers a model for smaller states navigating coercive trade environments. The study concludes that reforming Article XXI is vital to maintaining the legitimacy of the rules-based trading order amid evolving geopolitical and economic challenges.