پرویز دهقانی

The most common strategy to prevent cybercrime in Iran is to refine content. However, filtering is not consistent with criminological knowledge approaches and contradicts the natural rights of citizens, including the right to liberty, equality and the right to security. The findings of this research show that the high use of filtering results in "civil disobedience," "society laziness in protecting morality," "generalisation of crime," and "juvenile delinquency and victimisation". The findings of this research show that the high use of filtering results in "civil disobedience," "society laziness in protecting morality," "generalisation of crime," and "juvenile delinquency and victimisation". There are already some levels of these unfavourable outcomes in Iran's cyberspace. The conclusion and theory of this article is that sustainable prevention of crime in cyberspace is realised when crime prevention is planned in a "right-wing paradigm" through "community measures" and with respect for individual rights and freedoms. Therefore, it is suggested that by moderating the policy of filtering in the current way, a participatory prevention pattern is implemented so that citizens of cyberspace follow the issue of prevention as a right (the right to cultural participation).

Multi-party arbitration as one of the platforms and mechanisms for resolving disputes in domestic and international commercial relations, which has been recognized by domestic and international regulations, is of course due to the existence of legal relations between persons in a multilateral manner, which expands and ;he complexity of relationships between individuals in the field of domestic and international trade is considered to be its generator. The acceptance and implementation of multilateral arbitration leads to fundamental concerns in opposition to the requirements and legal principles of arbitration, including the principle of consent, the freedom of individuals in determining the arbitration panel and the necessity of equal treatment with those around the arbitration, which, of course, by separating them in terms of whether or not they are imperative. The field of legitimacy of the implementation of multilateral arbitration is facilitated and concerns subside. The provision of legal guarantees to comply with the arbitration requirements, especially in the implementation stage of multilateral arbitration awards, eases the mind and strengthens the public interest in multilateral arbitration with a single origin.

The current research is of a theoretical type with a descriptive analytical method and the method of collecting information is in the form of a library by referring to documents, books and articles.

Ethical Considerations: 

In all stages of writing the present research, while respecting the originality of the texts, honesty and trustworthiness have been observed.

The findings indicate the realism of arbitration rules and internal regulations and international documents in providing models and formulas that involve repelling and resolving challenges and concerns of non-compliance with arbitration requirements, especially in multilateral arbitrations with a single origin.

Arbitration requirements in the general sense and multilateral arbitration in a special sense in the phenomenon of satisfaction with the principle of arbitration are considered binding legal rules and the requirements of arbitration regarding equal treatment in the general sense and equal treatment in determining the arbitration panel in the specific sense of the mandatory legal rules It is considered as a supplementary factor and based on this, the hypothesis of the absolute authority of the requirements and principles of arbitration is rejected.

The formalities of arbitration agreements seek to make sure that the parties involved have in fact reached an agreement. As well, the issues associated with the realization of the formal condition and the consent for arbitration are often intertwined and considered together. In Iran’s legal system, the formalities of arbitration in international trade differ on the basis of 1. Whether they are considered by a national court or arbitration authority; 2. The stage of the agreement. After analyzing various theories, the New York Convention and, where possible, the easier formalities in arbitration law in both state judicial authorities and private ones are accepted.

This research is of theoretical type and the research method is descriptive-analytical and the method of data collection is library and has been done by referring to documents book and articles.
Ethical Considerations: In order to organize this research while observing the authenticity of the texts honesty and fidelity have been observed.

The convergence of the dominant way of thinking in the legislative system of statutes in Iran with the dominant international law governing international arbitration in formalities foreseeing the validation of arbitration agreements holds promise for a facile settlement of differences of Iranian businessmen taking into account the new findings in international trade.

Currently, in both the statutes of Iran and the approach of the international arbitration bodies emphasizing the performance of organizational arbitration, there is a need to implement formalities on validating the international trade arbitration agreements. It is done to facilitate the procedure regardless of the stage at which it is - on the national and international level - and despite difficulty in identifying the dominant law.

According to legal regulations, endorsers of a commercial document hold severally liable against its holder; due to legal rules, the holder has some duties to perform. Among these duties, after the demand and protest for non-payment in legal time is litigation within a certain legal time. There are different opinions regarding inclusion of the guarantors in article 286 of Iran’s trade law and judicial procedures are also divided and vary, and according to some rulings of some branches of Iran’s Supreme Court, the guarantor is included in the subject of article 286 while some of the branches consider it outside of the article 286 subject. This difference resulted in the issuance of Supreme Court’s precedent decision no. 597 on 1995 May 2nd which rules on the exclusion of the guarantor in the subject of article 286 inclusion. In this paper, along with reviewing the ruling, the guarantor inclusion-exclusion cases in the subject and ruling of article 286 of the Iran’s trade law is determined; it is found that article 286 rules on endorser guarantor but the guarantor of other document’s responsibles are out of that. However, the court’s decision comprehensiveness is debatable. Hence, the document holder’s citizens’ rights is more clear toward the guarantor.