The law of the seas is of vital importance mainly due to the special privileges of the seas. Seas have been accorded great importance as routes of maritime transportation in all eras. Thanks to increasing technological advances and huge maritime natural resources, today marine resources have received more attention than ever before, and the need to exploit maritime benefits accounts for the present study. The natural resources of the North Sea of Iran (Caspian) that are shared with regional neighbors and the trawl fishery license granted to china in the southern waters of the country serve as the premises of the present study. Taking into account the official announcement made by authorities regarding their decision to transfer a maritime prowling license (or rent national maritime zones) to china which, according to the reports on the technologies which are to be used for this purpose, could lead to degradation and extinction of living resources, the present study seeks to find out whether the sea prowling licenses are transferable to a third party and whether or not the sovereignty actions within the framework of maritime laws and the act of transferring maritime prowling licenses (with consideration of the need to maintain territorial integrity) to foreigners is legally and jurisprudentially valid.

In the past, private ownership of land was honorable and sacred, and the principle of domination (Article 30 of the Civil Code) was rarely discounted and limited, but today, in order to protect the interests of the community and protect the weak classes, private property, in particular ownership of land It is limited in many ways, and even the expropriation of the public interest is legal in various countries. This trend has been observed in all countries of the world, including Iran, and reflected in the codified laws. With increasing population and rising public needs, there is a need for the existence of rules for the expropriation of urban construction and housing, and the provision of housing as well as Planning for this affair is felt more.

This article aims to explore the relationship between trade law and environmental policy, delving into the conflicts and synergies that arise at this intersection. Through a comprehensive literature review, this study illuminates the challenges and opportunities presented by the integration of trade regulations and environmental protections, with the aim of contributing to the ongoing dialogue on sustainable development. The analysis is structured around key themes, including trade barriers posed by environmental regulations, disputes within the World Trade Organization (WTO) and other forums, and the tension between economic growth and environmental sustainability. Additionally, the article highlights the potential for trade to serve as a vehicle for environmental goods and services, the role of environmental exceptions in trade agreements, and the importance of collaborative frameworks in reconciling trade and environmental objectives. Drawing on a range of case studies, the review provides insights into specific instances where trade law and environmental policy have intersected, revealing both challenges and pathways to synergy. Based on the findings, a set of policy recommendations is proposed, aimed at enhancing policy coherence, promoting international cooperation, and supporting the transition to a green economy. The conclusion underscores the importance of a multifaceted approach that balances economic, environmental, and social objectives, advocating for a global trading system that supports environmental protection and promotes long-term sustainable development. This article contributes to the broader understanding of how trade law can be aligned with environmental policy to achieve common goals, highlighting the critical need for innovation, collaboration, and commitment to sustainable development principles in the face of global environmental challenges.

At various stages of the arbitration process of a dispute, obstacles and objections may arise, particularly from the loser party. Defenses such as encounte an agreement or arbitration clause with public order or basically not being arbiratable under the governing laws are used as the ways to escape being defeated. Given the ambiguity of the concepts of public order and arbitrability, especially in intellectual property law, and the differing views of different countries on these issues, we sought to examine what is the relationship between the concept of public order and arbitrability in the intellectual property disputes referred to arbitration. The result was that there was a split. Some have supported the theory of conformity of public order and inarbitrability. In contrast, other writers have arguments about the fundamental difference between the two. Keywords: Arbitrability, Exclusive Jurisdiction, Intellectual property Disputes, New York Convention, public Policy. Keywords: Arbitrability, Exclusive Jurisdiction, Intellectual property Disputes, New York Convention, public Policy.

Limiting the ownership of individuals in the implementation of approved urban plans is one of the challenging cases in urban planning law. It is obvious that when there is a conflict between two interests, you should choose an interest that includes a larger number of people in the society. Therefore, in the confrontation between private and public interests, priority is given to the public interest, which can be easily justified using general legal rules and principles. In the current research, the author has investigated the legal rules and regulations and judicial procedure in this field and the challenges in the two legal systems of Iran and France using the library method. What can be inferred from the comparison of the two legal systems and legislative developments in the field of urban planning rights and the institution of expropriation due to public interest is that the said institution has a long history in French law and has gone through many ups and downs, and the judicial procedure in This field has worked much more dynamically and effectively, but Iran's law in this field is younger and does not have the necessary efficiency. Therefore, it is suggested to the legislator, in order to protect the private property of individuals, by taking advantage of the successful experiences of other legal systems, including French law, to enact clear and transparent laws and to consider the guarantee of effective implementation for them, so as to avoid ambiguity and summaries of the law, so as not to witness the mismanagement of some offending institutions.

Intellectual property plays an increasingly vital role in global trade and economic development. Globalization of intellectual property rights means that intangible informational resources are now produced, exchanged and consumed anywhere and everywhere defying jurisdictional borders. Intellectual property has moved into the mainstream of national economic and developmental planning; in the recent past it has also emerged as a central element of multilateral trade relations. In the early twenty-first century, the concept of intellectual property is beginning to encounter insistently the concept of development. These recent interactions, occurring within the context of accelerating globalization, have renewed questions about the fundamental purpose of intellectual property. Moreover, the crisis over access to patented antiretroviral drugs has recently injected human rights and social justice debate into a field dominated by commercial instrumentalism and economic rationales and given intellectual property a reason to reconsider its welfare generating justification. This Article attempts to map the challenges raised by these encounters between intellectual property and development.

Embezzlement and misappropriation ofpublic property are amollg crimes against public order. Both of which have certaill charaCteristicsin common, while they are different in other aspects. What relates these two crimes toghether is the characteristics of the offender, becouse in both cases the offender must be a "public employee or in a position to act as a public employee" and the essential difference between them would be the type and means of "criminal behavior". Consequently, the criminal behavior ill embezzlement is "withdrawal and appropriation", while ill misappropriation of public property is litheemployment, usage or illegal application" of public property. The subject of both crimes concerns with property essentially the goverment property or the property of the public domain. However, embezzlement concerns with personal property, while the misappropriation of public property concerns with both personal property and immovable property. Funds are not considered among misappropriation of public property, since if funds are appropriated the crime of embezzlement is committed. With respect to other properties, one must analyze the situation while considering the manner of interference and other aspects relating to the crime. In instances that the crime committed cannot be fully assessed or determined, and considering that embezzlement in its moral and materrial context requires conditions and elements which exceed misappropriation, and relying on the principle of ruling on behalf of the defendant, this criminal act will be regardedas misappropriation of public property rather than embezzlement.