Abstract: A judgment issued by a Foreign country has been recognized and enforced if originating court has jurisdiction for hear the matter. This jurisdiction has been evaluated on the base of rules of addressed country. The key question is what are the criteria for accepting the jurisdiction of a Foreign court at the voting stage? Some countries have jurisdiction over a Foreign court, such as a domestic court. Others, by limiting the scope of jurisdiction of a Foreign court, accept the jurisdiction of a Foreign court only on the basis of strict criteria.. In Iranian law, only the exclusive jurisdiction of the Iranian court is considered as an impediment for Recognition of Foreign Judgments. The need to meet the legitimate expectations of private individuals and to provide predictability in cross-border relations requires that the jurisdiction of a Foreign court be defined as in the 2019 Hague Convention and that litigants be assured of the condition of Recognition in other countries before the trial begins. The lack of uniform jurisdiction rules among countries to recognize Foreign court Judgments undermines the efficiency and usefulness of international litigation and makes it impossible for free movement of Judgments between countries. The need to meet the legitimate expectations of private individuals and to create predictability in cross-border relations requires that cases of jurisdiction of a Foreign court be specified and that litigants ensure that this condition is met in other countries before a trial can begin.

One of the topics of private international law, which is constantly increasing in importance due to the development of political and economic relations between countries at the international level, is the need to identify and enforce Judgments issued by Foreign courts. The Hague Conference on Private International Law has adopted The Hague Convention 2019 to standardize the rules governing the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments. In Iranian law, the conditions for Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments are stated in the Civil Judgments Execution Law. However, harmonizing the rules on the issue with international standards can promote effective access to justice, trade facilitation, and cross-border investment. Therefore, the present study aims to investigate the possibility, necessity, and effects of the adoption of the 2019 Hague Convention Judgments in Iranian law, considering the similarities and differences between the two in terms of territory, conditions, and obstacles to identifying and enforcing Foreign Judgments. By combining the two, take a step towards the legal development of the country. Studies have shown that the flexibility of the rules and regulations of the Convention has facilitated Iran's accession to the Convention, and the political and economic effects of accession to the Convention have necessitated its ratification in Iran. There are many similarities between the two in terms of conditions and aspects of refusing to recognize and enforce Foreign Judgments.

Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign court Judgments is a matter of conflict of courts in legal traditions and due to its political dimension, it is a controversial legal issue. Because, the Recognition and Enforcement of a Foreign Judgments means the use of force of sovereignty to enforce the judgment, the national sovereignty have a serious question that how can use the national power to enforce the judgment that had no role in its creation. Especially, it is possible that the laws and regulations relate to this cases is contrary to legal principles, common assumptions or general understandings of justice in a country where it has been requested to recognize or enforce the Foreign judgment. With regard to this topic, it could be understood that the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in insolvency and bankruptcy how much can be problematic and controversial. This article is not included in the theories of Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments, but it is included in the regimes governing the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign insolvency Judgments. In this context, the discussion about the theories of jurisdiction in international insolvency will be necessary.

With the transformation of political and economic systems, the world is becoming a global village, and the need to harmonize laws and regulations and globalization of rights is more and more concrete. In this study, the conditions and barriers to the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Iranian law have been compared to EU rules, and the implementation and differences of Judgments in both systems have been investigated. The results showed that the commonality of both systems is that only civil and commercial sentences can be identified and enforced, and criminal, administrative and tax decisions are excepted. The study found that EU regulations could be shared between countries with regional and religious communities, such as the Member States of the Islamic Conference, the ECO organization and the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM).

Abstract:The interference of the interests of private individuals and the sovereignty of states in the field of international relations has led to the Recognition of Foreign court Judgments relying on various doctrines on international relations, such as comity and reciprocity. The application of these doctrines makes the rights of private individuals dependent on the conduct and interaction of conflicting governments. Alternative theories have also failed to provide an accurate and unambiguous criterion for Recognition of Foreign Judgments and persuading governments to amend their regulations. Conclusion of international treaties, albeit regional and bilateral, as the superior way to Recognition of Foreign Judgments is the only way to establish legal stability, avoid double litigation, and prevent the issuance of conflicting Judgments in today's divided world. In a world with a high level of cross-border communication, it is necessary that the Judgments of the courts can be cross-border. But achieving this goal is possible only with the cooperation of governments, flexibility to Foreign Judgments and acceptance of commitment within certain frameworks.

The Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign intellectual property Judgments as the result of other substantive issues in conflict of law (jurisdiction and governing law) are in these cases. Due to the increasing international trade relations, especially with respect to intellectual property rights, the number of such claims has increased, and the need to internationally recognize and enforce the Judgments issued in this area is felt in different ways. Given the background of the issue in international documents, this issue is not examined long ago, and recently some non-binding legal principles have been adopted by some Foreign law institutes. Iranian law is silent in this regard and only the general provisions of Iran’ s civil law and the law on the Enforcement of civil Judgments can be invoked. The main issue of this article is that given the specific nature of intellectual property rights, it is necessary to address is the existing system sufficient to recognize and enforce the Judgments of Foreign intellectual property, or does it require the formulation of specific rules in this regard?

Recognition and Enforcement of annulled Foreign arbitral awards has always been one of the most controversial issues in arbitration law in which courts and arbitral experts have expressed different views in this regard. According to the article 5 (1) (e) of the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards 1958 (Iran is a party), annulling the award by a competent authority prevents its Recognition and Enforcement. However, according to some views, the Foreign arbitral award shall be recognized and enforced although it is annulled. Nevertheless, the arbitral experts opinions show the possibility of Recognition and Enforcement of annulled Foreign arbitral awards in two cases that are examined in this article: (first) in special cases, by applying the "residual discretionary power" under the top of article 5 (1) of the convention; and (second) if there are more favorable law and by applying "More favorable-right provision" under article 7 (1) of the convention.

If an agreement of the choice of court or choice of forum clause in international private law has legal effect, it may grant exclusive jurisdiction to the chosen court, and disqualified from the courts of other countries, unless agreed to be the chosen court is non-exclusive. Judgment of chosen court in another country shall be recognized or enforced if such agreement is valid under the law of the court that hearing the request of Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign judgment. The method of this article is analytical-descriptive and its result shows that such an agreement is generally neither contrary to public judicial policy nor contrary to the rules of internal civil procedure in determining the jurisdiction of courts, unless the agreement is not valid in terms of law (unlawful), such as the choice of court agreement is the case in the exclusive jurisdiction of another courts of country. Also if this agreement has been concluded by fraud or fraudulently or unfairly is not valid. Plus, if the chosen court of the two parties is not related to the elements of the dispute, the court can, due to the lack of a reasonable and legitimate interest and to avoid imposing court costs on its respective country, does not consider such jurisdiction valid and refuses to hear the case; But if the judgment is issued, Recognition and Enforcement it in abroad, it depends on the court's opinion of the legitimacy of this type of agreement.

The New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (1958) is the most successful multilateral document in the field of international trade law, designed to increase the efficiency of the arbitral institution. This document, as one of the most important transnational documents on which the main framework of the international arbitration regime is based, has been created with the aim of facilitating the implementation and effectiveness of arbitration as much as possible. However, Article 5 of the New York Convention has been provided for a condition that, if fulfilled, the non-Enforcement of the judgment would be arbitrated. Some of these cases, according to Article (1) 5, require citation and proof by the defendant of the arbitral award in the country where the request is made and are limited to the territory of the court that recognizes or enforces the award. Others, according to Article (2) 5, prevent the implementation of the needs required by the court of the country of identification and implementation, and cases such as public order, and the applicability of the dispute. This article examines the reasons for refusing to recognize and enforce arbitral awards to address the principle of narrow interpretation in favor of Enforcement and the exclusion of the grounds for non-Recognition and Enforcement set forth in Article 5 of the Convention. The New York Convention and International Commercial Arbitration Act of Iran are reviewed in comparison to each other.

In this research, we have tried to answer the question in a descriptive-analytic method that, considering the principle of territory competency principle of penal rules as well as protection of national governance, whether Recognition and execution of Foreign penal decisions in the governance territory of an Islamic country, specially Iran, is possible or not? The writers believe that to reply to such questions in view of Islamic law and considering Qur’ anic verses and narrations, we could say that considering the principle of interaction and permission for execution of rules of other Revealed Religions in the governance territory of Islamic government and ward off rule could be a justification for execution of Foreign penal decisions. In Iran too, review of related rules and judiciary cooperation agreements indicate that Recognition and execution of Foreign penal decisions has been accepted limitedly and conditionally for cases such as transfer of the condemned, determination of losses caused by the crime.