مقالات رزومه دکتر جعفر نوری یوشانلویی

Due to the relation between arbitration and adjudication, arbitrator’s actions could cause responsibility for them because it may exceed the limits of law and justice. In American law, on the base of equity, if the arbitrator’s acts blemish the path of fair result, regardless of the provisions in law and precedent, in addition to incurring him responsibility it may cause his award to be annulled. Also in Chinese law, as it will come later, the arbitrator and his judgment can face the same fate. However, it seems in Iran according to article 489 of civil procedure law and principle of finality of the arbitrator’s award, we should limit ourselves to the provisions of law and the timeline that it entails. But this apparent argument is against the principle of fair trial, because firstly it’s not right to dismiss the actions of a responsible arbitrator (either disciplinary, criminal or civil responsibility) that can cause uncertainty to fairness of his award and second, it’s possible e.g., receiving a bribe by him get stablished years later and it’s not just to stick to the provisions of article 489 and its timelines and declare his award correct. So, in this article, comparatively, we are trying to analyze the American and Chinese approach to this matter so in this way with comparing and assessment of existing legal capacities in Iran, we could find a resolution for this legal gap and present an alternative. This will be done in a descriptive and analytical method.

With the outbreak of the Covid19  pandemic, the ways to prevent the spread of the virus challenged the privacy at national and international scope. Conflicting the right to privacy with other rights, such as protecting the lives and health of others or securing public interests requires taking an appropriate approach to balancing privacy protection with the need for reasonable and necessary information and action due to prevention of the spread of the pandemic. This article takes a comparative view; it uses library resources, studies the guidelines and follows practical measures at the pillars and legal status of the conflict between privacy and citizens' right to health and the fight against the Covid 19 pandemic in Iran and France to address the questions whether control of pandemic can be one of the exceptions to the need to protect the privacy of individuals, and if so, what the legal principles and rules governing this response are. In order to answer these question, the author emphasizes the legal gaps in the current legal system of Iran, both in the field of substantive laws and in the field of defining organizations and technical institutions whose existence and powers are derived from legislative channels. It is argued that the privacy, as one of the most vulnerable areas of fundamental rights and its provision mechanisms in the event of widespread diseases as an emergency situation, should be comprehensively supported in light of specialized legislation based on universal principles of human rights. It is emphasized that providing public health should not act as an extra-legal tool to violate the right to privacy, and governments can make decisions and take action in this field within pre-defined legal and technical frameworks.

Today, there is widespread acceptance and emphasis on the role, function, and importance of regulation across all economic sectors, as encapsulated by theories of "regulation" and "regulatory governance." Within various economic sectors, banking regulation has been identified as particularly critical due to its inherent fragility. In addition, pursuing liberalization of financial and banking services, by deregulation and eliminating the current contradictory regulations, is found to be vital. The establishment of the World Trade Organization (WTO), as an entity for the expansion of free trade, including financial and banking services, is based on the same fundamentals. In this study, we seek to determine whether Iran's existing banking regulations could potentially hinder its accession to the WTO. Our investigation also tries to ascertain whether the WTO's legal framework mandates the adoption of specific levels of banking regulation. Ultimately, taking a broader perspective, we aim to describe and analyze the compatibility between these two seemingly contradictory concepts—regulation and liberalization.

In this article, which constitutes a qualitative legal study, we employed an analytical-descriptive approach as our research methodology. While the predominant approach in the first two parts is the descriptive method, the third part has a complete analytical approach. From a goal-oriented viewpoint, while our first two parts can be described as implied research, the last part has a fundamental approach.

The research outcomes reveal that Iran's current banking regulatory framework does not pose a barrier to its potential membership in the international organization. Specifically, while regulations more stringent than those established by the Basel Committee may hinder accession, the absence of such strict measures or non-compliance with Basel standards is not viewed as a hindrance. Additionally, it's noteworthy that the organization's legal framework does not mandate the adoption of any specific level of regulation, providing flexibility in this regard. The research findings also indicate that regulation can follow different types of objectives (including pursuing domestic goals, maintaining domestic and international financial stability, and liberalizing financial services trade) hence there is no conceptual contradiction between these two mentioned notions.

Our analysis uncovered no conflicts between the concepts of regulation and liberalization, either in terms of their conceptual compatibility or within the legal framework of the World Trade Organization. The lack of exact compliance between Iran’s banking regulations and the standards of the Basel Committee, will not act as an obstacle to the country’s accession to the World Trade Organization

Competition law, which governs the economic activities of entities operating in commercial and economic markets, is now facing a new challenge with the emergence of cryptocurrencies. While adhering to the philosophy of competition rules and the economic nature of these markets, it becomes necessary to conduct a legal analysis of the Bitcoin market from a competition perspective in order to identify various forms of anti-competitive behavior. In such cases, the application of competition rules and corresponding penalties needs to be tailored to the market structure. The occurrence of anti-competitive behaviors is possible in new formats, which should be taken into consideration when assessing market structure.One of the most significant forms of anti-competitive behavior is the abuse of dominance, which includes selfish strategies and the 51% attack. By manipulating the original blockchain and compromising the decentralized nature of Bitcoin, this behavior not only violates the principle of fair competition but also leads to market failure. A dominant position can also arise through mergers and monopolies involving dominant equipment. Additionally, algorithmic collusion, which involves altering the algorithm and creating a fork, represents a distinct form of cartel practice that enables the 51% attack. Attacks themselves constitute another form of collusion in this market, further complicating the competition landscape.Considering the self-regulatory nature and global structure of the Bitcoin market, competition rules and entities involved face the challenge of defining governance authority while accounting for the difficulties of imposing penalties due to anonymity criteria. Establishing an effective and productive relationship with developers is crucial for the safe application of competition rules in the market. Furthermore, it is possible to enforce competition law on registered agencies that operate as legal entities in compliance with local legal frameworks.

The transportation of goods by sea plays a crucial role in global commerce, accounting for over ninety-three percent of goods transported worldwide. This preference for sea transport is primarily due to its ability to move large volumes of goods at lower costs compared to other transportation methods.Safety is paramount in ensuring the successful operation of maritime carriage. Ships must be equipped with the necessary technical instruments to guarantee safety. Maritime law establishes regulations for this purpose, commonly referred to as "seaworthiness." In essence, a ship must possess the required capabilities in all aspects to fulfill its designated mission, transport goods within the agreed timeframe, and deliver them safely to their final destination. The absence of seaworthiness poses risks to the ship itself, its cargo, its crew, and other individuals on board. Such events can have varying consequences, ranging from the most severe, such as ship sinking and total destruction of cargo, to the mildest, such as delivery delays resulting in economic losses due to market conditions. The comprehensive characteristics and essential conditions of a ship for the proper execution of a carriage contract are encompassed by the term "seaworthiness."The carriage of goods by sea and the operation of commercial ships are governed by two types of contracts: contracts of carriage and charterparties. International conventions, contractual agreements, and established customs in the field of carriage impose an obligation on ship owners and carriers to ensure the seaworthiness of their vessels. This research aims to address fundamental questions related to seaworthiness, including the criteria for evaluating it and how to determine if a ship owner or carrier has fulfilled their seaworthiness obligation. It also explores the legal nature of the seaworthiness commitment and the similarities and differences between this commitment in contracts of carriage and charterparties. Additionally, the study examines the proof of breach of this obligation and the resulting effects on the rights and obligations of the parties involved.This research adopts a library-based methodology, drawing insights from legal literature. The authors conclude that seaworthiness is a multidimensional and relative concept. It encompasses not only the ship's engines, hull, and technical aspects but also the competence and skills of the ship's personnel (captain, engineer, and crew) and the necessary certifications. The type of cargo and its stowage on board the ship can also impact the seaworthiness of the vessel. Seaworthiness can only be determined through a case-by-case assessment, considering various factors such as the type of contract, vessel, cargo, timing (season), and the location of contract execution (sea, ocean, lake, etc.).This article examines the legal nature and basis of the seaworthiness commitment in international conventions and different legal systems. It establishes that the commitment to seaworthiness is an implied and legal obligation imposed on carriers and ship owners, even in cases where the contract remains silent on the matter. Moreover, the carrier's responsibility for ensuring seaworthiness does not adhere to the general principles of liability. Under Article 386 of the Iranian Trade Law, the carrier's liability is based on the "assumption of responsibility." In other words, the carrier can only be exempted from liability if they can demonstrate that external factors caused the damage. However, this general principle is modified when it comes to the lack of seaworthiness. According to paragraph 1 of Article 55 of the Iranian Maritime Law (adapted from paragraph 1 of Article 4 of the Hague Rules-1924), the carrier's liability resulting from a breach of the seaworthiness commitment is based on the "presumption of fault." In practical terms, the carrier can be relieved of liability by proving that they exercised due diligence in ensuring the ship's seaworthiness. This distinction has significant implications in legal disputes involving cargo owners and carriers, as well as ship owners and charterers

Public- Private Partnership (PPP) is a mechanism by which the private sector and the public sector work together to implement infrastructure projects and provide services. The aforementioned partnership contracts involve several risks, among which the most common and most effective risks are legal risks, based on the research conducted by the Fraser Institute in relation to the world economic freedom index, among the 14 components that consist of major problems and obstacles. were structural and executive in the field of investment, the multiplicity, instability and inappropriateness of laws are higher than other components. However, the studies show that it is possible to reduce the severity of the negative burden of legal risks governing such contracts by improving and standardizing the laws governing them, along with managing such risks with the help of conditional clauses in the contract.Therefore, the legal risks in the laws governing the field of public-private partnership were identified in this research, which were mainly caused by the inflation of current regulations, frequent changes of laws, contradictions of laws and regulations, lack of transparency of the legal system, and legislative deficiencies. Finally, by examining the changes in the legislative system governing public-private partnership contracts, solutions were presented and suggested to manage these risks in order to guarantee efficient executions for such contracts.

Nowadays, block chain technology can be used in all stages of international trade, from contracts to shipping and ownership documents. Considering the crucial role of bills of lading in transportation, the use of technology-based documents will create advantages, opportunities and even a new perspective for facilitating oil trade. However, it seems that oil trade on a global scale has not yet fully accepted the block chain technology, and so far, specific legal frameworks for issuing bills of lading based on technology have not been formed. In addition, technology use in the oil trade will be accompanied by problems and challenges. This issue will become more complicated due to Iran embargos in recent years, especially in the field of oil industry and trade. Therefore, in this research, while trying to identify the legality of block chain bills of lading based on existing domestic and international regulations, we will deal with the effects and challenges of its application in oil trade, including Iran's oil trade.

Advances in science and its developments in today's world for the better production of goods have led to the development of new theories and solutions that may also pose risks in the products offered to consumers, but current human knowledge can not recognize it. While the present study proves that the advancement of science simultaneously leads to the discovery of defects and dangers of these goods, and legal knowledge should provide appropriate coverage to compensate for the damages caused by them. Therefore, the issue of coverage of damages due to development risks is one of the most challenging issues in the field of civil liability that has been studied in most legal systems, but in Iranian law and jurisprudence, the risk of technology development and liability has remained silent. Therefore, the nature and characteristics of development risk with a descriptive and analytical method are studied in detail in this article and the possibility of covering such risks in a restorative and preventive manner in the form of compulsory insurance, compensation guarantee fund, punitive damages, issuance of prohibition agreements, and The application of the precautionary principle has also been proven

Despite the necessity of speed and irrevocability of arbitral awards, because of considerations of due process and public order in dispute resolution a certain limit of judicial review on arbitral awards has been recognized in national legal systems including annulment of arbitral awards on the basis of a disputing party litigation. Except for appeal from arbitral awards in French law for domestic awards which with the agreement of the parties leads to a de novo judicial review and in Iranian law is not allowed, hearing an annulment case in both legal systems is only on the basis of the grounds which have been referred to by the parties and court may annules an arbitral award accordingly. In this article, comparative study of grounds for annulment of arbitral awards in French and Iranian law reveals that in French law the grounds for annulment of arbitral awards are more limited especially in international awards and more coherent than Iranian law.

In countries such as Iran, which have old and aging reservoirs and most of these reservoirs are in last years of their lives, optimal operation and increase of productivity in the oil and gas industry through management systems has been predicted in the energy strategy documents. This indicates an integrated legal management approach to oil and gas reservoirs in the Country is necessary. Not only is this concept not standardized in the laws and regulations of the Country, its elements and processes are not properly explained yet. Therefore, in this article, while explaining the nature of this concept and its elements and processes, the theory of comprehensive and integrated legal management of oil and gas reservoirs is proposed. And the elements of integrated management of oil and gas reservoirs, including environmental, geological, technical, technology, economical, financing and legal and contractual considerations were determined. On the other hand, the implementation of this concept and its elements require the appointment of its responsible institution. Therefore, the National Iranian Oil Company has been introduced as the responsible institution to monitor its proper implementation of comprehensive and integrated legal management of the country's oil and gas reservoirs.

World Trade Organization was founded with the purpose of freeing the trade between its members, in accordance with the principles of guaranteeing free trade among its members, the reduction of tariffs, the elimination of all forms of trade discrimination, and the transparency of trade laws and regulations. Nevertheless, the freedom of trade without any limits would concern the countries for their sovereignty and national security. Therefore, beside the general exceptions embodied in article 20, the article 21 of GATT was drafted under the title of security exceptions. This article reads as follows:“Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed:(a) to require any contracting party to furnish any information the disclosure of which it considers contrary to its essential security interests; or(b) to prevent any contracting party from taking any action which it considers necessary for the protection of its essential security interests  (i)   relating to fissionable materials or the materials from which they are derived;(ii) relating to the traffic in arms, ammunition and implements of war and to such traffic in other goods and materials as is carried on directly or indirectly for the purpose of supplying a military establishment; (iii)   taken in time of war or other emergency in international relations; or (c) to prevent any contracting party from taking any action in pursuance of its obligations under the United Nations Charter for the maintenance of international peace and security.”   From the very beginning of the entry of GATT into force in 1947, until the foundation of WTO and thereafter, the interpretation of article 21 has been a subject of debate between the States and in the relevant literature. The main question in the interpretation of this article is to what extent the State-parties to GATT 1947 (and the members of WTO) have the freedom to invoke article 21, specifically, its paragraph (b). Can refraining by a State from its obligations by invoking this article be objected by other States or assessed by the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB)? We have suggested in this article that security exceptions are not specific to GATT and that several investment treaties, such as the Treaty of Amity, Economic Relations and Consular Rights between Iran and USA, also include similar exceptions. Nevertheless, in a general categorization, the security exceptions are drafted in two different methods. In the first, the language used for the security exception implies a degree of autonomy for States in recognizing security emergency and invoking it. The article 21 of GATT, as can be easily attested, falls in this category. Without using ancillary principles of interpretation, a reader could not reasonably assume any limit for the State’s discretion in invoking the security exception. The first method has thus been called the “self-judging” wording. In the second method, the language used in a treaty does not imply any self-judging property for the security exception. Article 20-1 of the Treaty of Amity between Iran and the USA has been drafted in this latter method. Through the negotiations of GATT in 1947, the security exception was inserted following a proposal from the USA. The history of drafting and resolution of this article shows that it has been found ambiguous from the outset of its drafting. At the 1947 and 1994 rounds, a number of different interpretations for article 21 have been presented. According to one interpretation, any State has full autonomy to recognize national emergency and to legitimately invoke article 21, and such autonomy cannot be objected by other States or assessed by the DSB. According to a second interpretation, although States have full autonomy to recognize national emergency, they shall observe good faith while invoking article 21. In accordance to a third interpretation, although States can themselves determine their security interests, the legitimacy of their invoking of article 21 can, without any boundaries, be retrospectively assessed by the DSB. The thesis proposed in this article is that the first interpretation is not acceptable as the State-parties cannot have limitless freedom to invoke article 21 and that the legitimacy of invoking this article can be assessed by the DSB by considering objective standards, such as good faith. The DSB itself acknowledged the same approach in Russia- Measures Concerning Traffic in Transit. In this case, the panel primarily considered whether it has the jurisdiction to qualify the legitimacy of invoking article 21by Russia. The panel reasoned that since the article 21(b) enumerates a limited number of scenarios, the members can only invoke that paragraph in the event one of those scenarios occur. In addition, the panel found that the emergency circumstances are objective in nature. This objectivity confers the panel to assess the legitimacy of invoking paragraph (b). Since the resources for this study include essays, books and the awards rendered by the DSB, this article first briefly reviews the sources using library research and,then, using descriptive analytic method, attempts to examine the core of the controversy, explore the history of its emergence and evolution, and evaluate the contending readings involved, analyzing both the views submitted in the literature  and the positions adopted practically by the States and the DSB.

The assignment of a contract is referred to as the situation where the contract status of one of the parties is transferred to a third party that is considered alien to the contract being assigned. Given the specific conditions of oil and gas upstream contracts, and their compliance with public law principles besides the rules of private law, the assignment of such contracts should be taken into account considering their inevitable challenges. Focusing on the current regulations and conducting a comprehensive study of scientific texts, the present study identifies and discusses important challenges such as the commitment to comply with the host government's specific laws, the effect of the contract party's personality at the oil and gas upstream operations, the problems caused by the public ownership of the oil and gas resources, the requirements for an efficient and well-planned production, the need for transfer of knowledge and technology, compliance with the environmental requirements and public order restrictions in the assignment of the upstream oil and gas contracts with the aim to observe these considerations during the assignment of such contracts.

Since about one decade ago, a new and growing trend of negotiating for concluding the “mega-regional trade agreement(s)” has emerged, in which international trade and service are being regulated in parallel with investment-related obligations under one single agreement. It seems that such agreements which currently are being negotiated, or some have even been concluded, are ambitious projects for pursuing the aim of creating an integrated and multilateral system to govern both international trade and investment comprehensively. For this goal to be achieved, it is reasonable to assume that these agreements should, among other things, be primarily capable of providing proper responses to the challenges have been raised in response to the international investment law regime so as to eventually be able to present balanced and legitimate types of international investment agreements which could be embraced by all states. Accordingly, in the present research, through an analysis of the investment-related provisions of the distinguished instances of mega-regionals, we try to explore their capability to overcome the challenges have been raised in the field. The research also addresses the systemic impacts may mega-regionals have on the international investment law’s regime, particularly on each of its sources. Keywords: Regional Trade, International Investment Law, The backlash, Investment Arbitration, mega-regional Trade agreements, Integration.

Achieving the results of upstream oil and gas operations in order to attract international investment is essentially possible by preventing or fully covering the risks posed by them, and to ensure this, several insurance methods have been used so far; Umbrella insurance agreement is one of the new innovations whose applications in the Iranian legal system have remained unknown and the purpose of writing this article is to identify this insurance method.

In order to achieve the objectives of the research, the authors have used the library method and review of sample agreements provided by some international insurance companies as well as similar insurance contracts.

In comparison with the usual insurance methods in the insurance industry and umbrella insurance agreements, the authors found out that Spending less time, paying lower premiums, conducting more negotiated negotiations, less contractual disputes, more flexibility in inserting insurance coverage and, most importantly, the ability to extend it to employers, major contractors and subcontractors involved in a project are some of the advantages that will be achieved if umbrella insurance agreements are used in upstream oil and gas projects.

In the course of this study, umbrella insurance agreements are able to cover the risks of all upstream oil and gas phases, including exploration, evaluation, development and production, also this kind of agreements can provide suitable insurance coverage under a single agreement for risks such as oil leakage from Wells, eruptions, loss of drilling mud, clogging of drilling tools in wells, breaking of wall pipes, damage to equipment during transfer to offshore areas, damage to production and extraction equipment, infliction of casualties and financial damage to third parties, Environmental pollution, suspension and delays in operations, damage to maritime cargo and the like, which reveals the need for immediate adoption of this insurance method in upstream oil and gas operations.

As there are many differences between oil and gas law, and international trade law, so oil and gas transportation law and therefore oil and gas maritime transportation law has exclusive specifications in comparison with maritime law. In the article, authors tried to list this specifications. These are related to type of contract, different clauses including technical, compliance, immunity and limitation of liability. In addition, safety standards, specific incoterms, world trade organization regulations, experienced personnel, various costs, import facilitations, and damages of transportation are inspected. These specifications need to be considered while formation of contracts, therefore contractual risks would be managed, controlled and decreased.

Take- or- Pay is a kind of long-term contract for purchase and sale of natural or liquid gas. Parties in the contracts are usually faced with some problems such as economical imbalance of contract and the impossibility of its implementation by the parties. So far, there are many specific solutions for the problem. One of the solutions is makes pricing of the contract through a pricing formula independent of oil price. This has been considered as the way of exiting this deadlock. To predict the price review clause at the time of signing the contract (as the Exit Clause) is the best example for solution of these problems. Checking out the reasons leading to price changes and the price review clause are going to modify the price to avoid potential disagreements during negotiations. The arbitration arising from this clause are the important topics discussed in this essay.

The manufacturing and production activities have been explicitly predicted in article 2 of the Iranian Trade Act and have been considered as inherent to commerce. The growth of production is the foreground of economic development, and support of domestic production and the improvement of business environment, is nowadays the priority of study programs in commercial and economic law, through which, there are now broad fields available for its realization; and the evident conformation of which include anatomy of manufacturingcontracts, legal management of foreign investment contracts, prevention of imported dumping, the adoption of supportive laws governing special economic zones, modification of tax laws, combating contraband of goods and foreign exchange, reviewing banking laws, and facilitating the participation of foreign trade and industrial activists in the country. But the constraints of international sanctions from one hand, and the WTO integration requirements on the other hand, and, finally, the deficiencies and ambiguities about current laws and regulations, along with the weakness of economic policies, have been a major barrier to domestic production, which has long been a challenge between protectionism and globalization of the economy and made the critique of the existing legal status a necessity to explain the desired supportive system, using the experiences of advanced countries in the process of industrialization of the country and the competitiveness of the domestic economy.

biogenerics are one of the most important and complex kinds of drugs in the world.all countries try to produce and commercialize these druds because this production helps them to become so powerful in science and pharmaceuticals. but the process of production and commercialization must be supervised by governments and international organization.in this article we want too take a look at this subject.

«Corporate social responsibility» is the term of 1990 extensively، with the liberation of the economy and a profound gap between the role of the social and economic، was created، emerged. The theory is، at first، be fitted; as effects alien before it aspect of the commercial enterprises، solely for economic activity for your maximum profit for attention of return and profit without cost، for it، was unthinkable. Activities and tasimat the company، directly or indirectly، to the community at large، which includes the concept of environment، economy، culture، values، customs and.. . Fitted، fitted the influence and the company should be consistent with the legal principles such as the principle of compensation، the responsibility for compensation for losses incurred on the community is tolerant and receptive.