Compensation

The seabed chamber of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea is an authority for dispute settlement in seabed area cases. This chamber, in nature, is a specific judiciary for dispute resolution of this marine area in the tribunal. First, the governments must settle their disputes based on one of the peaceful resolution methods, and then should refer to the tribunal in case of agreement. Compared to the International Court of Justice in referring to dispute settlement, the most important feature of the tribunal and its chamber is the creation of a specific chamber and dispute settlement through arbitration and the presence of a special judge for dispute parties. Moreover, the seabed chamber can issue an advisory opinion, if required. Therefore, the jurisdiction of the chamber depends on two kinds of optional and compulsory jurisdictions of the tribunal, so that contractors and their guaranteeing states have joint liability for international seabed authority. It should be noted that states are responsible for an action and omission of the act causing harm in the seabed and under the seabed only in case of failure to apply their regulatory advice for contractors. The first and most important compensation for harm to the seabed is prevention from more hazards against seabed and under the seabed. Furthermore, immediate notification to coastal authorities and states, postliminium (restoration of the status formerly possessed), and complete compensation are forms of respective actions.

The conclusion of any contract aims at implementation of the obligations arising from it. Morality dictates that people adhere to what they assumed regarding others. The law also supported the moral judgment and in case of breach of obligations to oblige, compensation as a sanction is imposed on obligor. In view of the economic analysis, he also committed to respect his contract and the Contract shall be performed contrary to the intention of breaching party, and on both sides the effectiveness is motivated to build trust and to maximize contract efficiency. Typically there are two basic solutions in compensation for breach of contract. First, the obligation of obligator to perform obligation, secondly, payment of damages for non-performance, either by the parties in the form of penalty clause or by the court to refer the matter to the expert identified and they are required to pay it. In choosing one of these, economic perspective considers the economic benefits of each of these two solutions. If so economic benefit in cases where subjective commitment and intellectual damage on the implementation of the commitment, as compensation for these losses not compensated correctly, and basically cannot be estimated. In second view, sentence in view of the compensation usually refers to material damages or economic damages, in such cases compensation for losses caused to the obligee can be compensated better and more efficient method is considered. Finally, it must be borne in mind that the purpose of signing the contract because is its implementation and in cases where the performance of contractual obligations under changed circumstances faced hardships, the elimination of obstacles to the implementation of the contract will be resolved, it seems to modify the contract as a mechanism for the implementation of the contract must be considered unless they agreed to be imposed on them by law or judicial authority. In this case, unless the modification is done by mutual consent, it is modification by legal and judicial means economically, we'll see how the parties to the agreement have wanted to do risk allocation or choose the more efficient ones, that is, which party can a lower cost can bear the risk of changing circumstances and consider same party responsible for it.

Considering that Iran has both oil and seawater, which is the route of transportation of oil tankers, the legal system of Iran has been discussed in this paper. Also, regulations related to prevention and dealing with pollution caused by oil tankers, regulations on how to compensate for damages caused by oil pollution, filing lawsuits, and how to receive compensation due to damages are examined with comparison to American laws. Regarding Iran's laws, it can be said that this country has not passed advanced regulations domestically and independently. However, due to the international aspect of these incidents, conventions have been formulated by international organizations, and by joining them, Iran has aligned itself with the international community in this field. However, since most of its states are surrounded by the sea and a lot of oil is transported through its ports, the United States enacted legislation in this field before the international community, and the history of its legislation dates back to 1924. With its strong domestic laws, the United States has not acceded to international conventions and still considers its national laws to govern these matters. Hence, the laws of this country and its performance be set as a model for other countries that are struggling with these issues.

Introduction: The expansion of moral principles has been one of the necessities of human society throughout history. Also, the most important point that should be addressed in the discussion of moral damages is the definition of moral damages. Moral damage is one of the most challenging legal issues in the legal system of different countries. Therefore, in the present study, the researchers decided to compare the compensation for moral damages in the legal systems of Iran and England. Materials and Methods: The research was a review method, in order to achieve the goal of the research, in addition to electronic education books and virtual education in this field, articles related to the research keywords from 2004 to 2022 from the databases of Civilica, Magiran, Sid, Researchgate, Science direct, was reviewed. Conclusion: In the legal system of England, as in Iran, the "theory of fault" is the main basis of civil responsibility. Investigations indicate that in Iran, based on various laws such as the "Constitutional Law", "Criminal Procedure Law", "Civil Liability Law" and some other scattered laws, compensation for moral damages is mentioned, but it has many problems. While in countries like England, issues such as one-sided or two-sidedness of the damage, insurance coverage, social credit, job and financial resources of both parties to the damage, and reduced life expectancy are taken into consideration in issuing moral damages compensation orders. It seems that people's awareness of their rights in this field, the insurance coverage of moral damages and the compilation of the compensation table in frequent cases will help to follow up and issue judgments in these types of cases.

The examination of traditional legal institutions is a prudent approach to ensure effective contractual remedies. "Arsh" is one such institution that predominantly arises in relation to the option of defect. This paper aims to review the perspectives of Islamic legal scholars on Arsh in order to establish it as a general theory. However, it should be noted that this review does not propose a structural alteration in the nature of Arsh; rather, it intends to conduct a jurisprudential inquiry into the subject-matter. With regard to the nature of the general theory of Arsh, it can be categorized as a form of damages and compensation resulting from a breach of contract and contractual liability. In such cases, it aligns with the relevant legal principles. The basis of damages in the general theory of Arsh also exhibits a dual nature. While it is rooted in contractual compensation, if such compensation cannot be adequately provided, civil and obligatory liability may be invoked. One of the well-established legal-historical principles in the Civil Law system is the rule of Price Reduction, which bears resemblance to the institution of Arsh (i.e., the financial difference between a defective and non-defective item that is compensated to the customer) in the Islamic legal system. It is noteworthy that the foundation of Price Reduction lies in the principle of Commutative Justice, which serves as the basis for contractual liability in the realm of contract law.

The Iran-United States Claims Tribunal, established in 1981 as an arbitral body to resolve disputes between the Governments of Iran and the United States—as well as claims by their nationals against these States—has, by virtue of its mandate, played a pivotal role in the development of international law generally and the law of state responsibility in particular. In the absence of an international convention codifying the principles and rules of state responsibility, the Tribunal has drawn upon international judicial and arbitral precedents, as well as the United Nations International Law Commission’s Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, to elucidate customary international law in key areas. These include the structure and function of the state, attribution of conduct, unlawful expulsions, nationalization and expropriation of property, compensation standards, and state succession in wrongful acts. Through its jurisprudence, the Tribunal has affirmed the customary nature of these rules and clarified ambiguities in their application.

The principle of full compensation for damages is an accepted tenet in law, requiring that all damages incurred by the injured party be compensated. This study examines the methods of contractual compensation in the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal. First, the concept of the principle of contractual compensation and its conditions are discussed in various conventions and international legal documents. Given that the Tribunal represents one of the largest case- specific international arbitrations, its opinions and rulings can significantly influence or, at the very least, elucidate the practical aspects of arbitration within the realm of international law. This paper presents the rulings of the Tribunal, with a focus on decisions related to contract termination, reasonable compensation, and outstanding invoices. The findings indicate that in most cases, the Tribunal has awarded interest for damages and has followed a monetary approach to compensation.