سید علی حسینی بالاجاده

Independence and impartiality are essential indicators for qualified arbitrators. However, the criteria for assessing these indicators differ among competent authorities when addressing challenges to arbitrators. One contentious aspect is the nationality of the arbitrators. By examining arbitration rules and issued decisions, a distinction was made between commercial arbitration and investment arbitration. The ICSID rules of arbitration explicitly mention common nationality with the parties as a criterion for challenging an arbitrator. The ICSID practice has also influenced investment arbitration outside of ICSID, given the significant role of nationality throughout investment law. Conversely, in commercial arbitration, the role of nationality is less pronounced, to the extent that the international character of arbitration in various legal systems is determined by the differences in the parties' places of business rather than their nationalities. Consequently, the nationality of arbitrators in commercial arbitration cannot solely serve as a basis for challenging an arbitrator without other supporting factors.

The conflict between sovereignty over parts of the sea and the necessity of "innocent passage" concept has been the most contentious field in the law of the sea." Two hypotheses in this field have collided in the history of international law of the sea. The first hypothesis is that every human possesses the seas together. "Navigation" and other operations are also allowed for all. Under the excuse of owning the sea, no state has the right to restrict other people's use. However, the second theory says that the sea is owned by someone who controls part of it, and its use can be limited. In international law, the "innocent passage" by foreign vessels from the territorial sea of a country is widely recognized. However, in some territories, the requirements for the "innocent passage" of military vessels include the need for prior notice or the coastal state's permission. Most forces, led by the US, believe in absolute freedom of the military vessel's "innocent passage." However, most Asian countries, including Iran, assume that they can prior notification or approval for a foreign military vessel passage. This activity was often resisted in operational as well as diplomatic phases by naval forces such as the United States.