The development of international transactions and the commercial exploitation of intellectual property has increased the necessity of creating dispute resolution methods in the field of intellectual property in accordance with international requirements. The parties to the dispute are looking for efficient, flexible, and low-cost dispute resolution mechanisms that will not disrupt their business relations. This is despite the fact that intellectual property DISPUTES often lead to long and expensive lawsuits due to the territorial nature, diversity of rights, and technical complexities that result from the integration of different fields such as artificial intelligence with other fields, which is not favorable for the courts and litigants. Therefore, intellectual property rights holders have turned to methods that are more under the control and management of the disputing parties to resolve DISPUTES. The special features of intellectual property rights and its lawsuits, such as territoriality, the specialization of intellectual property issues, conflicts in the jurisdiction of courts, widespread violations in different jurisdictions, the importance of confidentiality, the length of the process, and the huge costs of international proceedings. The lack of an international convention on the enforcement of intellectual property judgments is one of the most important reasons that has affected the efficiency of judicial proceedings in these cases. Non-judicial dispute resolution methods, which mainly have fewer formalities and costs and are faster, reduce many of these problems. Among the non-judicial methods, mediation has the advantage of considering the characteristics of intellectual property, and compared to other methods, it is more successful in RESOLVING these DISPUTES. The interdisciplinary nature of most intellectual property claims and the need for various expertise to resolve DISPUTES and the possibility of examining complex intellectual property cases, especially patent claims, by technical experts in the shortest time compared to other methods and often at a much lower cost, territorial nature of intellectual property rights and solving the problem of conflict in the jurisdiction of national and international courts and reducing the risk of issuing conflicting opinions, reducing the damage of the owner of the intellectual work due to the urgency and speed of mediation in RESOLVING the dispute, focusing on the mutual interests of the parties and RESOLVING the dispute amicably and, as a result, maintaining the commercial relations of the parties in long-term contracts that sometimes cover the entire period of protection of intellectual property, the suitability of the rapid development of technology, and the rapid diffusion of intellectual properties due to their intangible nature with the speed of dispute resolution in mediation compared to the slowness of judicial proceedings, extraordinary flexibility in the dispute resolution process and the possibility of adopting creative solutions such as concluding a license agreement, technology transfer, integration, cooperation in research and development, and agreement on the division of patent within a specific territorial area instead of being limited to the specific Judicial decisions such as revocation, financial damage, and etc. are the advantages of this method in solving intellectual property DISPUTES compared to other alternative methods. Also, privacy and confidentiality and maintaining the technical and commercial secrets of the parties, avoiding the reinterpretation of the claim in court and the risk of narrowing the claims, reducing the risk of patent invalidation, avoiding the research process, and obtaining the opinions of multiple experts due to the complexities of intellectual property claims, especially patent lawsuits and its costs, complete control of the parties on the determination of proceedings and the absence of legal dates and deadlines, being held in a single stage and with quick results, lack of legal obligation of the parties to accept the mediator's recommendations and suggestions, and the optionality of the procedure that leads to the parties not resorting to useless tricks or objections to slow down or create obstacles in the mediation process. Another reason is the effectiveness of mediation in RESOLVING intellectual property DISPUTES. A field research has been prepared to answer the question of what functions the mediation institution has to resolve intellectual property DISPUTES and it comes to the conclusion that mediation is effective in all aspects of the conflict, including judicial and non-judicial elements such as commercial interests, feelings, and other conditions of companions. Considering the dispute and empowering the parties, it allows them to find the right solution based on their special interests and needs. Therefore, it can be said that although dispute resolution through mediation is not considered the only appropriate method for RESOLVING intellectual property DISPUTES, it has desirable functions and is efficient in most of these DISPUTES.

The increase in construction contracts in recent decades has increased the necessity of creating dispute resolution methods in this field that are appropriate to the requirements of this type of contract. Different methods for RESOLVING DISPUTES are considered in construction contracts. The use of dispute resolution methods due to its non-judicial approach can help to resolve DISPUTES quickly and reduce costs. The nature of construction contracts requires that DISPUTES be resolved quickly and sometimes at the site of the project. In this research, while examining the terms of dispute resolution in Article 53 of the general terms of the contract and comparing it with the terms of dispute resolution in the FIDIC contract, the shortcomings and loopholes in Article 53 of the general terms of the contract will be presented, and suggestions will be made to amend this article.

Although going to court is one of the most common methods of RESOLVING DISPUTES, it is not necessarily the best method, and in some cases, although the case is assigned to a lawsuit, it does not resolve the dispute. Hence, alternative dispute resolution methods have become more common today, including mediation. Accordingly, in the amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure of Iran, we see the possibility of RESOLVING some criminal DISPUTES with conditions through mediation. Based on this, we examine the place of RESOLVING criminal DISPUTES in the Iranian legal system? And does the Code of Criminal Procedure have the necessary capacity to resolve criminal DISPUTES? On this basis, it can be said that although Iranian law has accepted criminal mediation, its scope is limited to 6th to 8th degree criminal offenses, provided that their punishment can be suspended, and there are some restrictions in the referral and enforcement process. In addition, according to the goals of mediation, in the amendments to the law, it is possible to resolve DISPUTES through mediation in all stages of criminal proceedings and even after the trial and during the execution of the sentence.

Exhibitions are still the best way to exchange the latest technological and commercial developments, especially innovations in intellectual property and identifying competitors. They have long been a platform for DISPUTES related to intellectual property rights, including the claims of competitors against each other. Experience has shown that in DISPUTES related to intellectual property rights in expositions, both dispute sides are at risk of hasty judgments. On one side, due to the short duration of the exposition, the owners of intellectual property do not have enough time to collect documents and take action against the infringer. On the other side, due to the large audience in the exposition, any action or temporary order against the possible defendant will damage his reputation and deprive him of the marketing opportunity. So, it is necessary to adopt an appropriate approach to resolve DISPUTES to protect intellectual property rights by maintaining a balance between the conflicting interests of the parties to the dispute. With an analytical approach, this article has examined three dispute resolution mechanisms, i.e. judicial method, alternative dispute resolution methods (ADR), and administrative proceedings to protect intellectual property rights in expositions. In the end, it seems that alternative dispute resolution methods and the formation of fast-specialized investigation boards have priority over other available methods. Establishing a specialized board in the field of exhibition activity or permanently in the relevant trade unions, according to a specific statute or the arbitration clause in the contracts of participating in the exhibitions, can be a strategy for different methods of RESOLVING intellectual property rights DISPUTES in exhibitions, for Iranian law. Keywords: Administrative Proceeding, Exhibition, Intellectual Property Rights, Alternative Dispute Resolution Methods (ADR), Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) 1. IntroductionExhibitions are one of the best situations to introduce and present goods and services where designers and manufacturers present their latest products and ideas. This is where DISPUTES regarding intellectual property rights (patent, industrial design, trademark, etc.) arise. Due to the limited duration of the exhibition, the claimant of violation of intellectual property rights expects that his claim proceeds and be held in this short period so that he can prevent the violator from presenting products and taking actions that violate his rights. This quick procedure can expose both dispute parties to hasty judgments. Due to the quickness of processing and decision-making, the plaintiff may receive less support in the exhibition. Any temporary decision and order to collect the defendant's products or stop his activity in the exhibition, if it does not lead to the Issuance of a final verdict in favor of the plaintiff, can cause significant credit losses to the defendant. In the short period of the exhibition, the usual judicial approach is not enforceable due to its time-consuming nature. In addition, participants in international exhibitions, in many cases, are not aware of the laws and regulations of the host country and even face challenges in accessing a lawyer and legal advice during the short period of the exhibition. Therefore, it is necessary to adopt approaches that, by creating a balance, not only provide sufficient protection to the claimant of violation of rights but also preserve the rights of the possible defendant of the lawsuit. 2. MethodologyThe research method in this article is the descriptive-analytical method. Firstly, it studies the existing challenges in RESOLVING DISPUTES and enforcing intellectual property rights in exhibitions. Then, to solve these challenges, the existing mechanisms in exhibitions are analyzed and evaluated. There are three mechanisms for RESOLVING intellectual property DISPUTES in legal systems and various exhibitions: judicial method, alternative dispute resolution methods (ADR), and administrative proceedings. Each method has been explained in this article, and its effectiveness is evaluated based on three legal criteria, including the composition of the members handling the dispute, the issues that can be handled, and the handling procedures. Finally, according to the results obtained from this analysis, the most efficient method of dispute resolution in exhibitions is determined and suggested. 3. Results and DiscussionAccording to the findings of this article, in the judicial way of dealing with intellectual property DISPUTES in exhibitions, considering the short time of holding the exhibition and the time-consuming nature of the judicial proceedings, issuing a temporary restraining order is the most efficient tool to confront the violation of intellectual property rights. Issuance of this order makes the main request of the plaintiff, which is the banning of the defendant's presence in the exhibition, to be realized. And since the temporary restraining order (TRO) is issued without hearing the defendant's statements, it can irreparably damage his rights. Therefore, nowadays, the courts are stricter in meeting the condition of "immediate and irreparable damage to the claimant". To be successful in requesting the issuance of a temporary restraining order, the plaintiff must have previously collected sufficient reasons against the offender. The difficulties and inefficiency of the judicial system have made it ordinary to use alternative methods of RESOLVING DISPUTES in exhibitions. Providing legal advice and information, as well as including the condition of observing intellectual property rights and determining executive guarantees for it, such as fines, dismissal, or exclusion from attending the exhibition, are some alternative methods of dispute resolution. The application of these sanctions depends on the will of the exhibition organizers. The use of ADR mechanisms to resolve DISPUTES is ordinary in many exhibitions. Methods such as initial unbiased evaluation of the result of the lawsuit, formation of a council or a case panel to deal with DISPUTES in the exhibition or the method of quick settlement of DISPUTES of the World Intellectual Property Organization are some other alternative methods. Although the method of initial unbiased evaluation of the result of the lawsuit seems favorable by speed and result, the use of this method requires evaluators who have sufficient knowledge, expertise, and experience in the field of intellectual property claims, who act impartially and based on justice and fairness and be able to gain the trust of the parties to the dispute. Many exhibitions have case committees to deal with DISPUTES, which, due to being active at the time of the exhibition and by conducting quick and specialized proceedings, provide the best way to resolve DISPUTES arising from intellectual property in exhibitions. The jurisdiction of some of these boards is optional and limited to the cases where the defendant accepts the board's jurisdiction. However, it seems possible to enforce the arbitrating of this board by establishing a binding regulation or including an arbitration clause in the contracts of participating in the exhibition. The solution of the Chinese legal system to protect intellectual property rights is a combination of judicial and administrative methods. In this country, in addition to judicial procedures, according to the PMEX document, which is binding for all exhibitions in China, DISPUTES regarding intellectual property in exhibitions are submitted to the complaint handling office consisting of representatives of the exhibition union and the property rights department, and resolved by the experts of this office. In case of violation, the Department of Intellectual Property Rights can order to collect the products from the booths, remove related advertisements in the exhibition, confiscate the proceeds of the violation, fine the violator, or even ban them from attending exhibitions in the coming periods. The authority of this handling board can be included in all contracts of participation in exhibitions by special legislation or, in the absence of law, according to an arbitration clause, which covers all DISPUTES arising from intellectual property rights among all participants in the exhibition. This handling board requires a particular procedure, particularly to deal with urgent requests for a temporary restraining, as well as special mechanisms to implement the arbitration award. 4. Conclusions and Future ResearchThe best approach to protect intellectual property works and resolve related DISPUTES is the one that ends the dispute in the shortest possible time by creating a balance between the parties' rights and without disturbing the exhibition. The most important advantage of the ADR mechanism is the speed of the settlement through the reduction of formalities. In this method, all aspects of the procedure are flexible. The composition of members is not necessarily fixed and can change for each case. Judges act independently in the proceedings and are not dependent on the government authorities of the exhibition venue. To maintain impartiality in proceedings, especially in international exhibitions, judges are usually chosen from different nationalities. However, in the administrative dispute resolution mechanism, the arbitrators are all government administrative officials, and this issue can hurt the trust of the foreign parties in the dispute. In general, it seems that the best way to resolve DISPUTES and enforce intellectual property rights in exhibitions is the establishment of a specialized board during the activity period of each exhibition or permanently in the relevant trade organizations. This can deal with and make decisions regarding intellectual property DISPUTES in the exhibition in a specialized manner, quickly and without formalities. It should also be noted that the limits of competence and authority of the handling authorities should be limited to decisions and urgent matters, and in general, it should not harm the possibility of the defendant's defense and subsequent actions to achieve the right through public judicial authorities.

In the legal- political system of Iran, RESOLVING dispute and regulation of the powers relations, especially on thirty five years of the Islamic Republic history that led into the revision and modification of the Constitution, is special and unique issue that derived from the power distribution type in governance system of this country. DISPUTES and conflict jurisdictions problems sometimes results in unprecedented disputations that indicates different explanations from law. In recent years, this problem, despite some apparently regards again brought back into the political arena, thus it seriously required to be redesigned and fixed. The Leader created “Supreme institution of RESOLVING dispute and regulation of the threefold powers relation” in the political arena of country based on paragraph 7 of Article 110 of the Constitution, in culmination of DISPUTES between the threefold powers. Research in this newly established institution and review of paragraph 7 of article 110 of the Constitution as basic system of the RESOLVING dispute and regulation of the powers relations in Iran make the main subject in this essay.

Time is as a fundamental element in contracting agreements, particularly given the complexity and technical nature of such contracts. Consequently, dispute resolution methods in this field must be both expeditious and highly specialized. Additionally, since unresolved DISPUTES can lead to contract termination or compromise project quality, maintaining both parties' willingness to continue the contract is paramount. It is essential to adopt dispute resolution mechanisms that protect the interests of both parties, fostering win-win outcomes.The International Federation of Consulting Engineers (FIDIC), drawing on its extensive experience, has incorporated the Dispute Adjudication Board (DAB) alongside preventive dispute resolution measures into its standard contract templates. The DAB, a hybrid mechanism combining elements of mediation and expert determination, offers a unique approach to dispute resolution. While this model is widely implemented in international contracts, its application in Iran remains limited. The Contractual Dispute Board of the Ministry of Petroleum represents the closest equivalent within the Iranian legal framework.This article explores the structure and functioning of the FIDIC Dispute Adjudication Board, compares it with existing dispute resolution mechanisms in Iran, and examines its potential for broader application in the Iranian contracting sector.

Following the uniform expansion of trade oversight in recent years by the United States and the European Union; Private settlement of cross-border trade DISPUTES faces new challenges and challenges. One of these measures is the imposition of international sanctions, which have been used repeatedly, including in our country. Due to the occurrence of these sanctions, the contracts and agreements between the sanctioned parties and other people are definitely overshadowed and in many cases make their implementation difficult or even impossible. In the present article, we will answer the question of the effect of sanctions on the rules of arbitration of international commercial arbitration tribunals, including the International Chamber of Commerce, the Court of Arbitration in London, as well as related international conventions, especially the Convention on the International Sale of Goods. Does it have international commercial arbitration? The result of the present study is that sanctions affect international commercial arbitration in five ways: effects on arbitrators, effects on international arbitral tribunals, effects on the enforcement of international arbitral awards, effects on contract law, and finally effects on contracting parties. . Sanctioning states have also generally invoked sanctions as a rule of "public policy" in international commercial arbitration.

Maritime delimitation DISPUTES arise when conflicts of jurisdiction between two or more coastal states interfere. Thus, given the importance of marine areas mentioned various aspects of strategic, political, social, cultural and especially economic as well as bond issues of maritime delimitation with national interests and security of the states, have made the coastal state to claim a greater share of marine areas. but the main challenges are not only about international rules about maritime delimitation also about the nature and characteristics of these DISPUTES. The diversity, the magnitude of the characteristics and the multiplicity of maritime delimitation issues, especially regarding the geographic features of the coasts, require a special need for the resolution of such DISPUTES. In this research, it is attempted to educate the definition of international arbitration tribunals regarding DISPUTES relating to the delimitation of maritime boundaries and the characteristics of these tribunals, as well as the training of concepts related to the delimitation of maritime boundaries, describing how they function in these cases and how developments are taking place in this field.

Nuclear DISPUTES are a type of international dispute that arises from the non-fulfillment of the obligations of states under nuclear rights treaties. In accordance with the legal-political nature of nuclear DISPUTES, as well as the need for the peaceful settlement of international DISPUTES, this form of dispute can also be resolved with the help of the methods set forth in Article 33 of the Charter. Based on this, the main objectives of this study are to explain the role, importance and efficiency of negotiation in RESOLVING such DISPUTES. Also, while studying the negotiating capacity in RESOLVING the nuclear dispute between Iran and the 5 + 1, we will also address the issue of whether the negotiation was a useful mechanism in securing Iran's interests resulting from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action agreement. Obviously, negotiations will be useful in RESOLVING nuclear DISPUTES when, while observing the principles governing it, the level of power of the parties is such that the interests of the parties can be served in the negotiations. And secondly, in addition to the negotiators' level of strength and weakness of each side, they also have a correct understanding of the other side's goals in the negotiation.

The Settlement of DISPUTES in securities and exchange market of Iran is based on legal compulsory and follow two stage models. It means that obey both Conciliation Committees or Board of Associations and then, Arbitration Board of Securities and Exchange Organization. In this regard, the current system of dispute resolution in the stock market is not completely synchronized with the general principles governing the capital market. It is necessary that along with transparency and speed in securities transactions, settlement of DISPUTES between market activists to be faster and fairer in terms of structure. This article with considering Conciliation Committees or Board in Associations of securities and exchange Market of Iran, civil procedure cod (Act), peace contract in civil law, and in line with updating commercial activities and also to give importance to private players’ will, emphasize that the arbitration, compromise and mediation concepts in Iran’s Securities and Exchange Market should be reviewed. In this regard, the shortages of current structure (RESOLVING professional DISPUTES in Iran’s Securities and Exchange Market) to be determined and relation between methods and legal requirement to be clarified. In conclusion each of methods such as arbitration, mediation and Conciliation can be solved DISPUTES. Utilizing aforesaid methods is more accordance with competitive structure of stock market and finally helps our country capital market to be consonant with international standards and principle while it is more suitable with Good Judicial Administration