It is not mentioned to the necessity of “, inducement”,between “, non-disclosure and representation of circumstances”,and concluding the contract in Insurance Law of Iran and Marine Insurance Law of England. If the insured had the right to contract voidance merely because of non-disclosure and representation of circumstances, the economic result of this would be so heavy. In this article, the legal provisions of Iran and England are analyzed. One approach to adjustment of the heavy remedy of non-disclosure and representation of circumstances is the necessity of inducement between non-disclosure and representation of circumstances and concluding the contract that the insurer after proving the materiality of circumstances according to the “, objective test”,must prove according to the “, subjective test”,because of non-disclosure and representation of circumstances has concluded the contract.

The interpretation of treaties is one of the very important and practical topics in international law, and the rules regarding treaty interpretation are provided in Articles 31 to 33 of the 1969 Vienna Convention. Article 31 addresses the general rule of interpretation, while Article 32 outlines supplementary means of interpretation. Sometimes, the general rule of interpretation may not be sufficient for interpreting a treaty or may yield an uncertain result; therefore, it is necessary for the interpreter to refer to supplementary means of interpretation. Many questions still arise regarding these supplementary means; thus, this research aims to examine and analyze the role of supplementary means of interpretation in the process of treaty interpretation based on the rules of the 1969 Vienna Convention and international judicial practice. The research concludes that international judicial practice regarding the use of supplementary means of interpretation to confirm the meaning derived from the application of the general rule of interpretation has not been uniform. On the other hand, it can be said that the majority of the interpretative provisions of the Vienna Convention essentially codify the practice of the International Court of Justice.

A number of different elements can affect the calculation of compensation arising out of the breach of Investment Treaty standards. A series of these elements addresses conditions and circumstances of the Host State. This article examines the economic crisis of the government, level of economic and political development of the investor Host State, and obligations other than those of Investment Treaties, as well as the influence of these factors on the calculation of damages quantum phase of Investment Claims. If the government’s economic crisis prompts the Host State to take certain measures breaching Investment Treaties' obligations, necessity defense could be raised as one of the circumstances precluding wrongfulness of the act of the State. Many Investment Treaties include provisions on non-precluded measures, which raise a debate as to the interaction of these measures and the circumstances precluding wrongfulness in Customary International Law. Investment Arbitration Tribunals have not yet reached a clear solution to reconcile these different sets of provisions. Furthermore, attention has been paid to the effect of various factors such as general economic situation of the Host State as well as non-Investment Treaty obligations of the Host State on the calculation of compensation in recent years. It seems that in the future perspective of the subject matter of this article, some developments may come through due to possible future cases.

International treaties are recognized as important elements in establishing connections between different legal systems, and they have also been endorsed by the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran and Article 9 of the Civil Code. The fundamental issue related to the position of international treaties within the Iranian legal system requires the recognition of the various classifications of international treaties based on criteria such as form, substance, and the formalities of their conclusion. This is necessary to determine how the institutions and authorities involved in the treaty-making process, under the provisions of the Constitution. This research examines the concept of a treaty from various perspectives, as well as the definition provided by Article 77 of the Constitution, and the treaty-making process outlined in the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, concerning the Iranian Constitution. It identifies the duties and responsibilities of each of the relevant branches of power and authorities to prevent any potential liabilities for Iran. While Article 125 of the Constitution outlines the process for approving treaties and the roles of the Parliament and the President, the significant involvement of other institutions necessitates a precise determination of the position and responsibilities of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches based on the principles of the Constitution and its authoritative interpretations. Additionally, the scope of authority of other entities, such as the Guardian Council, the Expediency Discernment Council, and the Supreme National Security Council, which may have an impact on this process depending on the subject matter, should be clearly defined. Despite the clarity of some of the duties and responsibilities of the branches of power and sovereign institutions, there is still ambiguity and inconsistency in certain areas. This underscores the need for a comprehensive law regarding the conclusion and implementation of treaties, and even the potential necessity of amending the Constitution.

Salman Farsi Treaty is in fact a "letter for protection" said to have Been issued in 9th century A.H. by the holy prophet (p.b.u.h) in favor of Salman"s childern and all his relatives in order to except them from Paying taxes and jeziye (religious taxes), should receive a share from the treasury and be respected by all Muslems. The treaty has been written by Imam Ali and signed by some of the great companions of Mohammad (p.b.u.h).

As specified in Islam, fixed and variable provisions determined based on individual needs, there is also the sphere of ruling in the area of a government decree and powers to govern the community administration, based on the provisions of time and place. In this regard, the status of "expediency" as the solvent of crises in situations where we confront in the event of a conflict of interests is one of the most important issues in religious government, especially in the concluding treaties where the government based on material and the spiritual matter should sacrifice less beneficial one. It seems that the practical manner of the Prophet (PBUH) in the concluding of the treaties at the beginning of Islam presents a sound answer to this issue. Therefore, in a strategic approach in the peace of Hudaybiyyah, there are some questions similar to these two questions: what is the practical interest in negotiating the treaty of Hudaybiyyah and what criteria did the Prophet (PBUH) apply in this treaty? The study and analysis of the Hudaybiyyah Peace Treaty as the most significant treaty of prophetic government with the hermeneutic method of Schleiermacher, which is historical analysis method, shows "expediency" in this treaty was based on the socio-political situation has been temporarily adopted in the conditions of Hudaybiyyah; therefore, according to circumstances the negotiation with the pagans is more strategic than to fight. The rules governing this treaty are: 1. Be at the suggestion of the enemy and from the position of authority. 2. Stop the war and slaughter. 3. To lift sanctions and ensure the security and freedom of Muslims. 4-Earn the highest concession at the lowest cost to Muslims. 5-Block he way of any excuse for the enemy. 6-Provide the way back in case of the enemy's breach.

The present essay deals with investigation of circumstances of Imam Ali’s rulership and their influence upon actualization of Imam’s plans. Changes in insight and method of Muslims, disturbed social circumstances caused by general rebel rebellion against the third caliph and his killing, weakening of institution of caliphate after two successive killings of two caliphs, disputes caused by vengeance for Uthman’s bloodshed, radical enmity among tribes of Quraish, disobedience of major cities and districts, and lack of adequate obedient companions and officials are among most significant factors which made circumstances of Imam’s rulership and of proceeding his plans difficult and associated them with failure.

At double insurance, same risk is covered by some policy by insured. principle of full compensation in negative aspect, is barred about double compensation at liability and estate policy. it is necessary to point that double insurance is bound to some terms such as same subject, same risk, same insurer, validity of policy at time of loss, legal of policy and not exclude of right of contribution at paying. principle of full good faith require that policy should be void due to in insured fraud. At assumption of insured good faith, insured is free to refer to all insurer. clause of maximum liability level(insurers contribution with referring to policy cost), independent liability(independent liability of each insure) is accepted due to insurers share. in order of avoiding problems, clauses of sharing assessment (assessment of each insurer sharing at assumption of double insurance) and discharged from responsibility( discharge of insurer liability due to existing of double insurance) and inform is cooperated(insured duty about inform other policy) at policy by insurers.

During the preliminary negotiations for concluding commercial contracts, it is possible that one of the parties does not content to the negotiations with the other party and at the same time, discuss the desired commercial contract with other persons; because parallel negotiations make it possible to obtain goods and services with more desirability. Acceptance and application of the principle of freedom of contract in the legal system of different countries requires that, in principle, a person who has conducted parallel negotiations not be held responsible. However, in some cases, the parallel negotiator may be held liable under the rules of the contractual or non-contractual liability. If in the preliminary negotiations, one or both parties have undertaken not to negotiate in parallel with the third party for a certain period of time, the non-fulfillment of this obligation will result a contractual liability. In the absence of such an obligation, fault in parallel negotiations can result non-contractual liability. Both types of liability, which are explicitly accepted in the law of some countries, such as France and Britain, are, as the case may be, compatible with the rules and principles governing contractual and non-contractual liability in Iranian law.