فصلنامه پژوهش حقوق خصوصی
پیاپی 36 (پاییز 1400)

The applicable law in intellectual property lawsuits is one of the new topics in the field of conflict of laws and has recently attracted the attention of legal scholars. actually, many of the questions in this field are still vague and controversial, and no precise answer can be found. One of the most challenging issues related to the applicable law in these lawsuits are the conflict of law rules and in particular “the Lex Loci Protectionis” which is based on the principle of territoriality as the most important feature. Moreover some new questions as to whether the territoriality principle is appropriate for transnational infringment of intellectual property rights were raised.Given the short history of this issue in international legal documents, the lack of relevant legal rules in Iranian law is no surprise .In this article, we seek to answer two main questions. in general, and in accordance with international regulations, is the Lex Loci Protectionis recognized as a general conflict of law rule for intellectual property lawsuits? If so, is such a conflict of law rule appropriate for Iran's legal system as a developing country

Passenger transportation by sea is more than other modes by considering of safety and cost. Due to this large volume, the codification of international rules and conventions were required. In this regard, the first convention was drafted in 1961 under the Brussels Rules. This convention was not welcomed by the states and therefore the 1974 Athens Convention was envisaged. In order to increase the carrier's liability and to provide more protection to the passenger, this convention completely changed the basis and extent of liability contained in the Brussels Convention. However, the evolution of regulations of air transportation has led governments to change the rules governing to passenger transportation by sea. After several unsuccessful attempts, the 2002 London Amendment Protocol was finally incorporated into the Athens Convention. This protocol intensified the carrier's liability. This article examines the changes made to the Athens Convention and the London Amendment Protocol and reasons of these changes. Finally, it will be seen that the basis of liability has been changed to absolute and the reason of these changes is unification with the rules governing to air transportation of passenger. According to these developments, the changing of the internal regulations governing maritime passenger transport is necessary.

One of the most important issues in the field of exporting gas to the European union through the pipelines is understanding the market and the laws and regulations in the EU as well as the requirements of other countries in the face of these regulations. Analyzing the EU laws and then the laws and regulations in Iran regarding the gas export and legal requirements for entering to the EU gas market are the main aims of this article.The results show that the EU Third Gas Directive 2009 forms the basis of the legal and contractual issues of the EU gas market which provide various legal guidelines, including ownership separation, third party access to the gas storage facilities, and Regulatory Bodies. Iran gas export laws are listed in the upper hand documents including General Policies of Iran in Energy sector, Iran Vision (2025), General Policies of the resistance economy and sixth five-year plan for Economics, Social and Cultural Development. Laws on Third Gas Directive regarding third Party Access to the Network, Tariff Regulation, Ownership and Transparency Completely applies on existing and future gas pipelines to EU Borders including Territorial Waters and Exclusive Economic zone between EU and third Countries including Iran.

Determining the grounds of exclusive jurisdiction in private international disputes is extremely important. However, there is no international uniform criterion for determining the grounds of exclusive jurisdiction. Thus, different legal systems have adopted various approaches to determine their courts' exclusive jurisdiction. While a few legal systems have explicitly specified the subject matters falling within their courts' exclusive jurisdiction, the other legal systems such as the Iranian legal system have not determined the grounds of exclusive jurisdiction. So an important question arises about the approach of the last legal systems; in such legal systems, what criteria can be used to guide the judges to determine the grounds of exclusive jurisdiction? This article examines the approach of some legal systems and evaluates some suggested criteria. Finally, the article demonstrates that in the absence of the international uniform concept of exclusive jurisdiction, the judges have to determine the exclusive jurisdiction on a case-by-case basis. They also have to consider the state sovereignty, the subject matter of the dispute, the disputing parties, and the purpose of the lawmaker in providing a particular jurisdiction rule.

Article 489 of the Iranian Civil Procedure (ICP) provides that an arbitration award in conflict with constitutive laws will be null and void and unenforceable; however, neither the ICP nor any other act established the concept and the instances of such laws and the scope of judicial review or supervision over their enforcement. Under these circumstances, the best approach to identify constitutive laws is through a case-by-case approach. A justice should examine what law has been violated by an arbitrator and whether or not this law, based on the governing situations, directly or indirectly results in limiting or extinguishing a right. A court’s review of this matter may take place upon service or enforcement of or appeal to an arbitration award. The review is only a brief one over the first two stages but takes a more complete form over the third stage. However, even in this third stage, the court may not intervene into questions of fact addressed by the arbitrator, except for special cases.

"Third Party Ownership" is one of the restraint of Trade Law in Sport, whereby a third party acquires all or part of the player's economic rights for financing the player or injecting cash into the club. Contrary to  the common perception in the field, this mechanism does not grant the decision-making power of the contract to a third party, and therefore, this will not lead to a type of slavery or curtail a player’s freedom. As the result, it will not result in the third party’s interference in implementation of the contract which is in breach of Article 960 of the Civil Code and Article 18 of the FIFA Regulations on the Status and Transfer of Players. In practice, various countries adopted different approached to the validity of this mechanism. The present study shows that by relying on economic efficiency and justice this mechanism merely entitles a third party to the player’s incomes in his future transfers without any unfair wealth transfer to third parties. FIFA regulations do not prohibit any investment by a third party, but they have banned him from influencing over club’s decisions. The mechanism could be introduced as a business model for football.