mostafa elsan

Challenging arbitral award is a right recognized in Iranian and Australian law for a losing party. The suspensive and transitional effect of this objection, like judicial judgments, is an issue that needs to be addressed. The Civil Procedure Act of Iran is ambiguous regarding the effect of the objection on stopping or continuing the execution of the arbitral award. Iranian and Australian law also have differing views on whether the arbitration clause is subject to the original contract or is independent of survival. In the law of Iran, the annulment of the appealed arbitral award makes it ineffective. But Australian law provides for the possibility of a correctional award by the court or the return of the case to the same arbitrator or alternate arbitrator to resume the arbitral proceedings or to take such other action as, in the arbitral tribunal’s opinion, will eliminate the grounds for setting aside. This paper discusses the effects of challenging domestic arbitral awards in Iranian law through a comparative study in Australian law. Adherence to the arbitration clause and arbitral award, as far as possible, are the points that we will learn from Australian law in this paper, and they can be incorporated into the legal system of Iran in the form of amending the formal Acts or interpreting the Code of Civil Procedure based on real needs by courts.

Penalty [Fine] is one of the sanctions for frivolous lawsuits. Since this sanction is mentioned in the Note of Article 109 of the Civil Procedure Code briefly, there are several questions about it: First, can we imagine this sanction only after enacting the above code in 2000, or does this matter have a long history? Second, is the penalty imposed only on malicious lawsuits (frivolous lawsuits filed in bad faith), or like the American law, this sanction is applied in all bad faith lawsuits? Third, in contrast with American law, is the penalty imposed in the appellate procedure? Fourth, does imposing a penalty require a security for costs order, or is there no such requirement? Fifth, is it necessary to prove bad faith to impose a penalty, or is it sufficient to prove the absence of the plaintiff reasonable inquiry, as in American law? Sixth, unlike the approach of American law, what are the shortcomings of the court's limitation in determining the amount of the penalty? Answering these questions with a descriptive-analytical method and using library sources and judicial proceedings is the main goal of this article. In the end, while using the findings of the American Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the following result is obtained: 1. The penalty that entered the Iranian legal system in 1960 is only related to malicious lawsuits; 2. Its application is possible in the appellate procedure; 3. It is applied regardless of the security for costs order; 4. It is applied after finding the plaintiff bad faith; and 5. Its ineffectiveness is obvious in non-monetary and insolvency lawsuits.

As Subsection 7 of Article 84 of the Iranian Civil Procedure Code states, the claim is called without legal merit when even if true, has no legal basis. For example, if ‘A’ pays ‘B’s debt to ‘C’ without ‘B’s permission, ‘A’s claim against ‘B’ to recover the payment is without legal merit; Because even if true, ‘A’ may not legally recover the payment from ‘B’.
Although valuable studies about claims without legal merit have been done so far, the blank of some topics related to claims without legal merit is still felt in Iranian law: Firstly, there has not been a proper analysis of the origin of the claim without legal merit. Second, there are important challenges in identifying claims without legal merit that have not been studied so far. One of these challenges is whether the remedy sought has a role in considering a claim without merit or not. The other challenge is whether the plaintiff’s acknowledgment has a role in considering a claim without merit or not. Third, According to Article 89 of the Civil Procedure Code, dismissal is the sanction of filing a claim without legal merit. However, considering the court's entry into the substance of the claim to recognize the claim as having no legal merit, is this sanction appropriate for the Iranian legal system or not?
The lack of research on these topics has prompted the authors to write this paper. At the end of this paper, which is written with a descriptive-analytical method and by referring to library sources, the following results are presented:
The claim without legal merit has significant records in Shia jurisprudence. In this realm, one of the conditions of admissibility of the lawsuit is that the claim must have a legal merit. An “invalid claim” is a term that is considered equivalent to a claim without legal merit.
In addition to the term “invalid claim”, “non-enforceable claim” is also considered in Shia jurisprudence. According to this term, if the legal relationship between the parties is something that the defendant may terminate at any moment, such as a revocable contract, the court is faced with a non-enforceable claim.
In contrast to an invalid claim, a non-enforceable claim has a legal merit. In this claim, the court may bind the defendant and issue an award against him, but the defendant may prevent the award by revoking the contract. Therefore, there is a significant difference between invalid and non-enforceable claims, and the latter must be heard unlike the former.
The claim is called without legal merit when even if true, considering the “remedy sought”, has no legal basis. Therefore, as an example, if the plaintiff claims that only the offer and acceptance of the donation were made between him and the defendant (without pointing to the delivery which is one of the elements of the formation of the donation), but the remedy sought is the termination of the contract in which the donation is a condition of that, it should be said that the claim even if true, has a legal merit.
Although most of the jurists have linked the claim without legal merit to the plaintiff's acknowledgment of the lack of legal merit, if the plaintiff has remained silent regarding the lack of legal merit, we still face a claim without legal merit.
According to Article 89 of the Civil Procedure Code, dismissal is the sanction of filing a claim without legal merit. However, the close relationship between the lack of legal merit and the substance of the claim requires the issuance of a judgment as a proper sanction of the claim without legal merit.

Although the development of the use of information technology in commercial transactions especially in international type, is economically favorable, but it has not been widely accepted by stakeholders. This is also true regarding the electronic substitutes for possessable trade documents, such as bills of lading and insurance policies. One reason for such a phenomenon is that, these substitutes, legally do not have the special functions of their paper counterparts; due to the lack of specific requirements regarding their formation and the non-regulation of the relationship between "possession" and "electronic trade documents". Therefore, it is essential to eliminate such an obstacle. Consequently, this article, with a different method from other researches that have only examined the legal aspects of a certain type of electronic trade documents and also with an analytical and comparative approach, examines the existing legal solutions to equate functions of electronic substitutes with paper documents and the requirements that are necessary to implement each of these solutions. The result of such an analysis is that there are two main solutions in this regard: First, determining the requirements for the formation of electronic trade documents and equating the "control" of electronic trade documents with the "possession" of paper trade documents. Second, Identifying the electronic substitutes as possessable objects, provided that certain preconditions have been met. Finally, Due to the lack of appropriate regulations in Iran's legal system and based on the findings of this article; a suitable regulatory framework has been proposed.

The object of the lawsuit is usually limited to one. In cases where there are multiple objects, it is often clear what the plaintiff wants from the court. However, the multiple objects sometimes cause the court to face ambiguity in ascertaining what the plaintiff wants from the authority. For example; when the objects “Specific Performance” and “Damages of Non-Performance” are raised together, it is not clear whether the plaintiff intends to reach the expected point of the contract (its performance) or he prefers to receive the damages caused by its non-performance. This situation, which led to the emergence of the term “ncertain (indecisive) Lawsuit” in the civil procedural law, creates the following questions: First, is the uncertainty of the lawsuit solely due to the uncertainty of the object, or are there other examples of uncertain lawsuits? Second, what is the duty of the court in dealing with an uncertain lawsuit? Answering these questions in a descriptive-analytical method and using library sources is the main goal of this article. In this article, while looking at judicial proceedings, this conclusion is reached: Firstly, as well as the object of the lawsuit, the scope and the feature of the object, the cause and the defendant of lawsuit may lead to an uncertain lawsuit. Secondly, despite the similarity of an uncertain lawsuit with a doubtful lawsuit (subject of subsection 9 of Article 84 of the Civil Procedure Code), the court may not dismiss the uncertain lawsuit. Instead, it sends a notice to plaintiff to correct the uncertainty or obtain an explanation from the plaintiff to do so. However, in some examples of uncertain lawsuits, the court must issue an appropriate judgment without sending a notice or asking the plaintiff for an explanation.

Adam Smith, renowned economist and pioneer of the classical school, mentions the concentration of capital (investment) as a necessary condition for economic development and growth. This means that countries, in order to achieve proper economic growth, have to accumulate and equip capital. For developing countries, including Iran, whose lack of investment is an integral feature, attracting foreign investment to achieve proper economic growth and development is inevitable.But there are several obstacles in the way of transferring this investment, the most important of which are legal loopholes or multiple interpretations. This means that a look at the domestic regulations, especially the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran, indicates the existence of relatively major obstacles to the use of non-governmental systems to resolve disputes arising from investment. Even the use of judicial methods is questionable in terms of the impartiality of each country's domestic courts.Obstacles to resolving a dispute in the general sense means any law, custom or culture that makes it difficult or impossible to reach a compromise between the parties to a private law relationship. This article examines the barriers and challenges of arbitration in resolving disputes arising from foreign investment in the form of barriers arising from constitutional principles, barriers arising from international government immunity, and cultural and practical barriers. This research is applied in terms of purpose and descriptive-analytical in terms of method and nature. The necessary data and information have also been collected through the library method.

In order to defend a frivolous claim, the defendant may suffer from numerous fees such as litigation and expertise costs, attorney's fees, etc. One of the important questions is whether the demand for such fees caused by a frivolous claim is subject to proving the plaintiff's negligence or bad faith. In response, the Iranian Law situation is not very clear; Because according to Article 109 of the Civil Procedure Code, the security for costs order for frivolous claims, which is considered one of the ways to fee-shifting, is not subject to proving the plaintiff's negligence or bad faith. On the other hand, according to Article 515 of this Code, demanding fees from the plaintiff is generally subject to proving his bad faith. Along with the study of American Federal Law, resolving this ambiguity and conflict is the subject of this article. In this article, after explaining the concept of a frivolous claim, it is concluded that identifying the plaintiff's negligence (not his bad faith) is necessary for demanding fees caused by frivolous claims. In order to identify the plaintiff's negligence, some points must be considered: firstly, the negligence is identified according to the circumstances of the lawsuit. Secondly, the negligence of the pro se litigant or unrepresented party is measured by comparing him with the reasonable one and the negligence of the lawyer is measured by comparing him with the reasonable lawyer. Thirdly, as a rule, the pro se litigant or unrepresented party may not be considered negligent for filing a claim without a legal basis.

One of the basic principles in dealing with disputes is the impartiality of the investigating body. This issue is important not only in court proceedings, but also in resolving disputes through arbitration. Considering the ambiguous approach of the Iranian legislator regarding the principles of proceedings in arbitration, the concept and effects of arbitrator's neutrality are not clear in Iran's legal system. This is despite the fact that the neutrality of the arbitrator has been emphasized in the arbitration rules of England as well as the international arbitration institutions, and its scope has been expanded even before the start of the proceedings. This article, with a descriptive-analytical method, aims to investigate the concept, dimensions, and works adopted in these two legal systems regarding the neutrality and bias of the arbitrator. The present research concludes that unlike the legal system of England, there are still serious gaps in the legal system of Iran both in the basics of the necessity of impartiality of the arbitrator and in the description of its dimensions and effects

The importance of paying attention to the principles of proceedings and the need to comply with them requires that the arbitration rules and regulations, while explaining these principles, also provide for the guarantee of their non-compliance. The purpose of this article is to investigate the guarantee of non-compliance with the principles of procedure in arbitration in Iranian jurisprudence and law and English law.
The method of the present article is analytical description. Materials and data are also qualitative and data collection was used in collecting materials and data.
Ethical Considerations: In this article, the originality of the texts, honesty and trustworthiness are observed.
In the arbitration system of Iran, especially the international commercial arbitration law, attention has been paid to the principles of proceedings. However, due to generalization, there are gaps and ambiguities regarding the status and guarantee of non-compliance with arbitration principles. And the arbitration system of this country, considering the most minor issues, has faced non-observance of procedural principles with the guarantee of effective and efficient implementation.
Iran's commercial arbitration law is the first experience of a modern law in line with internationally accepted standards. With the approval of the law, the freedom and discretion of the parties and arbitrators have increased considerably and judicial intervention has decreased.

Bankruptcy judgment has the greatest effect on the trader's transactions before and after the date of stop of payment, Article 423 of the Commercial Code adopted in 1311 has annulled the legal actions of the trader in case of reduction or restriction of his property. The basis for the invalidity of these legal acts after the date of cessation is the prohibition of the trader from making a transaction with the intention of evading the payment of creditors' debts, which is rooted in public order. According to the provisions of the Bankruptcy Law in Articles 418, 423, and 557 of the Commercial Code and the legal doctrine and jurisprudence, it can be found that some transactions of the trader after the date of cessation are relatively void; That is, the transaction between the two parties is valid; But it cannot be relied on against creditors and can be revoked. Others, as mentioned in Article 557 of the Commercial Code, are absolutely invalid. In this article, while explaining the rules for recognizing relative and absolute invalidity in the transactions of a bankrupt trader and the different dimensions of these rules, the consequences of each of these institutions in relation to the trader with the parties to the transaction and their relationship with creditors are tried. In particular, third parties should be investigated during and after the liquidation, and the effect of the invalidity of the transactions of the bankrupt trader shall be considered limited to both parties to the contract and the third party shall be protected from the adverse effects of these transactions in good faith.

In spite of similarities between franchise as a contract and agency, there are differences between them which have theoretical and practical aspects. In this paper we are discussing this similarities and differences from a comparative perspective. In many of countries, the commercial agency has regulated but the franchise contract has not this base. Because of this, using statutes about agency for resolving or analyze of problems arising from or for franchise is inevitable. This practice could endanger the rights of the parties of franchise contract. Among other things, the relationship between the franchisee and the original is not a fiduciary relationship. The franchisee does not act on behalf of the franchisor and has the right to exercise any proprietary possessions. In addition, the subject matter, obligations, degree of independence and responsibility towards third parties are different in these two contracts. In fact, the franchise contract is not compatible with the commercial agency contract and has its own nature and effects.

Deepfake means creating animated content (video) by mimicking, simulating, or replacing a pre-existing face. In the way that the viewer imagines, the produced video is real but it is not real. Deep learning technology, which is based on artificial intelligence, has made it possible to produce such content. This article focuses on the legal aspects of deepfaking and, in particular, the possible abuses of deepfake content. Fake content may be produced and/or distributed with the intent to defraud abuse, deceive the public, or defame a celebrity. The main question is, what legal challenges does deepfake entail, and are the existing Criminal Acts and civil liability regulations responsive to the new situation that has arisen with the spread of deepfake or not? To answer such questions, in this article, the characteristics and practical challenges of deepfake, the use of the provisions of intellectual property agreements to manage deepfake, and legal solutions to reduce and manage deepfake are examined.

Despite the extensive use of automated message systems, domestic and international laws are silent about explaining their legal situation, transactinal status and the way of compensation etc. there are different views and procedures among lawyers and courts which sometimes have made dilemmas. From the authors' point of view, the main reason for this conflict is the lack of accurate classification of automated message systems. To properly understand the nature and legal status of these systems, they must first be divided into four types in terms of performance. The first and second types are Reactive & limited memory systems, which have little degree of independence. The user of these systems plays a major role in concluding contracts, and he is responsible for the compensation of the system. The third type is Theory of Mind system that while perceiving benefit and loss and feeling emotions, acting like a real agent on behalf of original party at cyberspace. they must be held responsible for acting beyond the scope of their authority as a real defaulting agent. The systems of self-awareness, are a complete example of a system with the power to understand logic, emotions, needs, aspirations, and self-interest. Assets, legal personality, responsibility and basic rights for these systems are meaningful. Lawyers have suggested the insurance theory for compensating the responsibilities of these two systems. Despite the conflicting legal practices of the legal community, recognizing the legal dimensions of systems and responding to problems in the e-commerce world requires a distinction between their issues.

According to Article 226 of the Criminal Procedure Act, "The accused in whose case a surety order or bail is issued will be introduced to the detention center until the guarantor is introduced or the bail is deposited; However, in case of arrest, the accused can protest against the principle of arrest or non-acceptance of guarantor or bail within ten days from the date of notification of the investigator's decision". Although this article can be interpreted in favor of the accused, But in that part that deals with the possibility of protesting the principle of the order leading to arrest, it has ambiguity and in many ways, compared to Article 242 of Criminal Procedure Act, it has a different ruling. Therefore, by comparing articles 226 and 242 of the Criminal Procedure Act, several questions are raised: First of all, does the court, in the process of hearing the objection, only have the authority to examine the "the order leading to arrest itself" or can it also enter into the amount of security issued? Secondly, in the process of handling the objection, the criminal court also enters into the nature of the lawsuit - to the extent that it is necessary to examine the objection - or does it only review the issued order? This paper is considering practical facts and judicial procedure in criticism and analysis of an award issued by Branch 1030 of Criminal Court, Shahid Qudosi Judicial Complex in Tehran and provide applicable answers and practical solutions to the above questions.

Procedure alone, despite its principles, will not achieve its goal of a fair trial unless the proceedings are an integral part of the proceedings. The Code of Civil Procedure, as a formal and authoritative law, oversees the realization of rights, that is, it monitors the form and form of justice. The basic principles of litigation in the arbitration process seek to establish a kind of fair system based on equality and justice. Despite the fact that doctrine and some jurisprudence believe that the proceedings in arbitration are non-formal, in this study it has been concluded that formalities are an integral part of arbitration proceedings and it is a misconception that the observance of formalities in arbitration will not be necessary. Regarding the guarantee of execution resulting from the violation of the basic principles of the trial, the guarantee of performances such as injury, dismissal, annulment and invalidity has been stated. One of the guarantees of executions that can be considered for violating the basic principles of arbitration is civil liability resulting from the annulment or invalidity of arbitral awards, which has occurred from the performance of arbitrators.

Detention of a convicted person in a civil case is considered as exceptional subject. In Iranian legal system it is applied as the last resort for a situation where the convict is not willing to execute the convictions in any way and no property is found from him. The jurists - and following them Iranian legal system - have always been cautious in this regard and the legislator is under different assumptions such as filing a petition for insolvency or finding property of the convict, denies her detention. In this paper, we examine the conditions and challenges to the detention of a convicted person in civil matters and we will discuss the legal and practical problems of the issue. Rare cases in which the possibility of detaining a convicted person is not explicitly stated by law, including arbitral awards, foreign awards, restoration of executive operations and the impossibility of enforcing an objective awards, are examined in this article, relying on judicial procedure and practical problems.

In Iranian Procedural Law, the security for costs order of frivolous claim is a solution that is provided to recover the potential costs of the defendant. However, due to the lack of criterion for identifying frivolous claim in Article 109 of the Civil Procedure Code and its hint to the words "type and circumstances of claim", the application of this solution has faced a serious challenge in the judicial precedent. Indeed, although the security for costs of frivolous claim order requires identifying the frivolous claim, no criterion is provided in this matter in Article 109. In contrast, in English Procedural Law, if the claim has no legal effect or is obviously ill-founded or vexatious (which are all frivolous), the court may strike it out and order the plaintiff to pay costs to the defendant. According to prior contents, this article intends to fill the gap in Iranian legal literature. For this purpose, while studying the criterion for identifying frivolous claim in English law, this hypothesis is reached in Iranian Law: If the facts of the claim are not able to occur or assuming the ability to occur, there is a potent possibility of its non-fulfillment, the claim is frivolous. Further, if the claim is not based on any evidence or if it is based on evidence, there is a potent possibility of failing to prove the facts of the claim, the claim is frivolous. In addition to these, if the claim has no legal effect even if its facts are true, the claim is frivolous.

The abuse of the rights in Iran - like other countries - is prohibited and unpleasant, as Principle 40 of the Constitution addresses, but several factors such as gaps in Acts and regulations, the strict formalities of Islamic banking in Interest-Free banking operations Act and related directives and instructions, an important issue called "money", weakness of official documents- In the light of judicial procedure and regulations contrary to Article 22 of the Act on Registration of Deeds and Property- and the challenge of always being accompanied by so-called "inflation" has paved the ground for the misuse of banking contracts. Different types of abuse, depending on the case, can be committed by the customer (depositor or recipient of bank facilities) or by the bank. Abuse can also be at the time of concluding a bank contract or at the implementation stage and even years after the termination of the contract. In this article, various related hypotheses are examined based on the doctrine and jurisprudence.

Contrary to popular belief, "central bank independence" is a legal issue that has economic implications. Because the determination of the powers, duties and responsibilities of the central bank is done by law and the government can not impose anything other than what is provided in the law to the central bank. Therefore, most studies on the independence of the central bank, from an economic point of view, deal with issues such as measuring the degree of independence, the effects of this independence on macroeconomic variables, etc. and examine the issue from a legal perspective and pathology of existing laws or the legal vacuum has not been addressed. Therefore, if the independence of the central bank is considered desirable, the best possible tool to achieve this is to provide for it in the law, which is examined in this study. This study is applied in terms of purpose and descriptive-analytical in terms of method and nature.He results of this study show that despite a law that gives the government broad powers over how the central bank is run and interferes in its decisions, in the current situation, talking about the independence of the bank can only be a political slogan. Hence, however, the mere existence of a law that emphasizes the independence of the central bank is not sufficient for its independence; but it can be seen that the existence of such a law is a precondition for the practical independence of the central bank. As a result, the independence of the central bank is related to various issues and has several criteria; Meanwhile, the interventionist role of the government (whether directly or by submitting a bill to parliament or enacting executive approvals) has the greatest impact on undermining the independence of the central bank.

Fictitious litigation that is often biased by the plaintiff (whether principal, counterpart, entry or third party, or in the form of objections and complaints), includes any claim at the initial stage or even at the stages of the appeal (retrial, third party appeal and appeal), the purpose of which is to harass the other party, delay the process of processing the main lawsuit, delay the execution of the final verdict, obtain a deadline for the plaintiff in the lawsuit and take the opportunity from the other party. In the jurisprudence of Common Law, which pays more attention to fictitious lawsuits and seeks to reduce these types of lawsuits, fictitious lawsuits are defined as not being caused by any judicial or substantive reason. The main question is whether studying the Federal Law of the United States can provide solutions to reduce litigation and defenses by litigants and their attorneys. This article tries to explain the management of fraudulent lawsuits in legal courts based on the jurisprudence of Iran and the United States and to provide the necessary solutions to the judicial system of our country.Although the US Law has a broad view of fictitious litigation and defense, the Iranian Law lacks sufficient tools to reduce fiction. For example, in the Iranian Law, a lawsuit that qualifies as a counterclaim after the issuance of a final judgment in favor of the plaintiff is not excluded by the defendant (the convict against the first lawsuit). It is also not prohibited in Iran for the defendant to express her defense during the proceedings and later to file the same defenses as an independent lawsuit and disrupt the execution of the final judgment issued in favor of the plaintiff. However, measures to reduce litigation and litigation costs and prevent the abuse of litigation must be carefully considered. The result will be an increase in the quality of the proceedings and a reduction in the density of cases in the judiciary.

Objection to the plaintiff's representative at the time of filing the petition is one of the objections that cause a dismissal order according to Articles 84 and 89 of Iranian Civil Procedure Act. This objection does not apply if the petition is filed by the principal, because the authority is a matter for the representative only. In addition, the effects of missing or losing a position during the trial are different from the absence of a position for the plaintiff's representative at the time of the lawsuit.In this article, while dealing with the concept of representation and some of its examples in the judicial procedure, the issue of lack of position and its effects in the Iranian civil proceedings are examined. The main question is what the objection of not holding the authority means and if this objection is found in the proceedings, what decision should the court make about it? There are several possible reasons for the illegality of the person claiming representation; In any case, the court must prevent the intervention of the person without representative in the proceedings by asserting this during the trial.

Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code of USA is recognized as a model for other legal systems by anticipating developed regulations on the security interest in movable property. One of the essential features of this article is the rules on the enforcement of the security interest and the priority of the holders of rights in a same collateral. On this basis, if debtor defaulted, the beneficiary of the collateral may personally, without interference by the court or other official body, enforce the security interest and repossess collateral to foreclosure or sell it as consideration of the debt or part of it. Performance of the conditions, such as non breach of peace, the reasonable conditions of transfer and foreclosure, is mandatory and the violation is warrantable. In relation to the priority of holders of security interest, a creditor who has perfected and registered his right prior to others, regardless date of conclusion of the security agreement. In Iranian law, action to official authorities is only way of enforcing security interest in movable property. Priority exercise on the basis of the precedence or delay of the date of conclusion of the security agreement. due to the lack of a filling system, the establishment of unified systems for registration of security interest in movable property, priority over time and granting of the right of self enforcement the security interest to the beneficiaries by considering the responsibility is offered, in order to develop the security in the movable property and financing.

The purpose of this article is to review the judicial procedures related to public order as one of the obstacles to the implementation of external arbitration. This article seeks to answer the question through analytical-descriptive method that the role and position of judicial procedure in the face of order. According to the findings of this study, regarding the application of Article 971 of the Civil Code, the majority of judges believe that the agreement of the Iranian parties on the foreign arbitration body, although unusual, but it causes the Iranian court to have no jurisdiction to hear the dispute under the arbitration agreement. Some judges disagree with this view. Regarding the application of Article 968 of the Civil Code, most judges accept the choice of law other than the law of the place of contract where they are around the Iranian arbitration agreement.

Transportation of dangerous goods is considered by legal systems and international conventions such as the Convention on the Transport of Dangerous Goods. Hazardous goods are substances that are inherently hazardous to the health or health of humans, animals and the environment. The purpose of this study, which has been done by library and documentary methods, is a comparative study of the transport of dangerous goods from the perspective of Iran and the Convention on the Transport of Dangerous Goods. Studies show that the Iranian legal system has not yet prepared specific rules and regulations in this regard, and only with the help of relevant laws can we understand the approach of the Iranian legal system to this issue. The convention addresses the issue more comprehensively and bases the responsibility of the transport operator on "safety theory". Therefore, it is necessary to formulate comprehensive regulations with legal leverage and guarantee effective implementation, using the rules and regulations contained in the Convention by the legislator of Iran.