There seem to be conflict of interests between protecting environment and supporting foreign investment. On one hand, expropriation is mentioned in investment agreements and arbitration practice. On the other hand, host states emphasize on states sovereignty and expropriate foreign investor by claiming environmental and natural resources protection. To solve the conflicts between foreign investment law and international environmental law, some international agreements, instruments and awards mentioned the priority of environmental protection. Foreign investment arbitration practice has a considerable approach in this regard. Arbitral tribunals assessed the claim of environmental risk as a cause of legitimate expropriation. Since compensation is a result of legitimate expropriation, arbitral tribunals mentioned it in their awards. In some cases, according to international practice or findings of the tribunal, as occurrence of environmental risks seems to be serious, the tribunal assessed the host state approach as a legal act and the compensation is excluded.

Although the general rules of civil rights, it is believed that property, the principle of the inviolable and inalienable rights, Therefore, according to different directions, restrictions on imports and sometimes, this principle is generally deny the fact that the legislator. The rules and principles of cultural heritage, is one of the causes restrictions, and stripping of property. This study seeks to Using a library and a descriptive analysis and rational argument citing sources not answer the question that Restriction and expropriation, in terms of the legal and jurisprudence in the field of cultural heritage and how it is?The results suggest that ownership restrictions - ie create some restrictions for the owner to use the property without leaving the status of private property. Based on jurisprudence and legislation, As 44th Principle of Iranian constitution, Basic rights in order to favor economic growth and development on private property, acknowledged concerning and emphasized. Which in some circumstances can be made restriction of some property, including cultural heritage is placed in this application.

Indirect interference of the host State with the investor's right to property has made it very difficult to decide whether the usual restrictions resulting from government intervention are considered expropriation or not. On the one hand, the exceptions to the right of the State to exercise public interest are expanding and on the other hand, the investor seeks economic benefits and stability. The question is what is the most achievable criterion for establishing a balance between the right of the State and the interests of the investor? The present study, after reviewing and analyzing existing theories and justifying the need to amend investment treaties and then review the domestic legal systems, concluded that, in the perspective of international investment, this is slow but decisively rotating towards a new generation of treaties, with emphasis on the right of States to regulate as an inherent right in the State sovereignty, it also creates an attractive space for investment. Therefore, recognizing the right of regulation as a starting point in any treaty can be a framework for creating bilateral or multilateral investment treaties that has not been very successful so far.

Extensive research has been conducted on expropriation of foreign investment. However, different methods of expropriating intellectual property of foreign investors have yet to be shed light on by legal scholars. Considering that issuance of compulsory licenses is one of the most important measures in this respect, this article shall focus on compulsory licensing through critical analysis of different approaches in this regard, and an attempt will be made to provide a proper response to the question whether compulsory licenses are regulatory measures or expropriation ending in compensation. The piece will make an effort to achieve this through illustration of current stance of the Iranian legal system, domestic and international regulations and pertinent legal cases. It seems that despite the initial regulatory nature of such licenses, one cannot exclude all instances of granting compulsory licenses from the expropriation provisions. Instead, adoption of a case by case approach along with due consideration of the literature of the treaty and domestic regulations in order to determine whether the measure of government in regard to issuance of such licenses is expropriation or not is recommended.

Protection of the foreign investment in a host state is one of the main concerns of international law in today’s business and economics world. However, the question of which investors’ conducts should be protected is subject to controversy. Since the occurrence of indirect expropriation depends on the understanding of the concept of indirect expropriation, we will explore the elements and components of this concept. In spite of numerous conflicting international tribunal awards on settlement of disputes arising from expropriation and its various forms, it seems that a solution should be sought by looking at the circumstances of individual case. This article aims to provide criteria for determining indirect expropriation by focusing on the attitude of the domestic legislator as well as the international guidelines and doctrines. In doing so, the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) and Iran- United States Tribunal cases are considered.

Abstract: Cities are complex space systems that are directly related to economics, politics, and power. In the process of understanding the urban world, exploring the mechanisms governing cities through the lens of political economy to read the relationships and mechanisms governing cities is of particular importance. Whereas cities can be a center of spatial inequality and deprivation of the right to citizens as well as a center of development. The present study was conducted to identify the mechanisms governing the city of Sanandaj and its citizens. The study field is the city of Sanandaj. This research has used a qualitative method and specifically grounded theory for data analysis and in-depth theoretical sampling with 32 citizens was conducted in-depth interviews. Based on the data collected from the research field, four main deducted, including: The mechanism of malfunctioning of institutions, market policies and capital accumulation, widespread expropriation and deprivation of the right of citizens to the city were established. These categories indicate that in the study area (Sanandaj city) the mechanism of institutional policies and market forces through the expropriation of large property and deprivation of rights to the city from citizens, produces and reproduces a kind of inferiority. Thus, "subordination through expropriation" was concluded as the core of study.

expropriation (compulsory purchase) can be operated if there is public benefit and compensation is paid. In this essay, first we inquired about kinds of compensation must be paid to whom affected of compulsory purchase in Iranian and English law. in spite of common imagination in Iran compensation is not only the price of land which owner deserved, but includes all direct damages of all beneficiary e. g damages of whom their land or rights was acquired not whom their land only affected of plan without any entry, in Iran and all damages (not only direct damages) of all beneficiary in England. Then we infer rules which govern assessing and recognizing of compensation from Iranian statute. In contrast to English law, in our judicial precedent and doctrine this rules have been neglected and use of them will create a great change in our law and in defensing of private rights against public policies.

Goal: To explore the development of landownership by women as the result of the 1962 Land Reform. We want to show why and how expropriation of possession from women happened and what the consequences were.Method/Research Design: Data is gathered from library and archival resources. An analysis was carried out according to grounded procedure.Findings: Over the process of land reform women were denied ownership on a large scale. The reasons for expropriation from women were the Law of Land reform, the absence of female owners in the region, quota and quota-setting which was considered a masculine right by tradition in rural communities, and the collapse of the lord-servant system. Expropriation from women had implications, including the loss of social status, growing inequality between rural and urban women, some cases of suicide, and expansion of legal possession.

The protection of ownership is rooted in the foundations of the legal system, and its foundations are completely dependent on the ruling view of the ownership theory. At the same time, in any legal system, the individuals’,ownership may be invaded due to public needs. The problem is, what are the foundations of ownership protection? With what justification and basis can such protection be violated and denied? In Iran's jurisprudence, the protection of ownership is based on jurisprudential rules such as “, Domination”,and “, Prohibition of the Detriment”,or as a fundamental right. Expropriation was also justified in two western-jurisprudential schools of thought. On the one hand, the theories of public interest and necessity, which have a jurisprudential background, were raised, and on the other hand, the theory of public interest entered the legal discourse. In English law, the protection of ownership as a fundamental right is done through the rule of law and the principle of parliamentary sovereignty and the compliance of all actions with the law, and judicial supervision is its guarantee. Expropriation is also permissible if there is public interest, but the attitude towards public interest has different interpretations due to conceptual ambiguity. Nevertheless, the authors believe that the basis of expropriation is rooted in the legitimacy of the state. Such legitimacy at a minimal level is associated with the right to life of the government, so that expropriation is one of the basic tools of the government to continue its existence and provide public service. At the same time, the maximum level of legitimacy is rooted in the legitimacy of the political system from the people's point of view. From this point of view, in Iran, the divine-popular basis of sovereignty, which is the birth of the constitution, considers the basis of expropriation to be granted to the government through the people.

In modern legal systems, the state has the power to own land in order to achieve part of the public purpose, and laws determine the scope of authority of government authorities to secure property rights. In this regard, the main question of the present article is what are the competent authorities in the process of expropriation in the law of Iran and France and what is the process of expropriation in these two countries in terms of public interest? The results of the present study indicate that in France, expropriation operations are carried out by dual administrative and judicial institutions in two stages: administrative and judicial. The administrative authorities begin it, and the judges and the special judge of judicial possessions end it by issuing a transfer of ownership and an order to pay compensation. But in the Iranian legal system, the powers of the executive branch are vast and the role of the judiciary is limited, and the expropriation judge in the Iranian judicial system is unknown. However, the intervention of the prosecutor as the guardian of the public interest in the stage of transfer of property is mandatory. In addition, in the process of acquiring property in Iran, unlike in France, right holders do not have the opportunity to object or request an appeal regarding the method of approving the plan and its content.