درخت حوزه‌های تخصصی

The 21st century is commonly referred to as the century of technological upgradation and digitalisation. A large section of the developmental activities that are taking place in our daily lives are due to the invention and exploration based activities that are being conducted by  researchers, scientists and scholars from different nations. One of the most significant activities that have helped in shaping the country's future is the ability to forecast weather conditions, disaster situations, natural calamities and atmospheric health of a country and also of the world at large. This becomes possible because of the imagery and the information which are generated with the help of the satellites. Furthermore different categories of satellite also help in broadcasting such information and sending information to the masses through various modes of communication including the television and the wireless network mediums. The term invention is heavily dependent and interconnected with a particular discipline of law- the intellectual property right. The information which is generated by the satellites is considered as important creations. The main question that arises in this sector is whether such information is subject to protection under any scheme and specifically copyright regime of the intellectual property right domain. This paper focuses on the intersection between the copyright regime and the creations in relation to the outer space and what are the possible areas which are required to be focused on in order to establish a sound system of protection for such creations.

Notwithstanding the explicit provision for interpretive awards under Article 32 of Iran’s Law on International Commercial Arbitration, their application in domestic arbitration remains contentious. However, their existence may be inferred from instruments such as Article 9 of the 2022 Arbitration Fee Regulations. The absence of a comprehensive definition for interpretive awards has perpetuated conceptual confusion and facilitated their misuse as substitutes for revision procedures—a problematic tendency that, when considered alongside the significant benefits of properly utilized interpretive awards, underscores the critical importance of precisely understanding this legal mechanism. Interpretive awards must be conceptualized within established legal frameworks including res judicata and functus officio. Crucially, such awards address only those ambiguities arising from either drafting deficiencies or divergent party interpretations, rendering them fundamentally distinct from supplementary or corrective awards. In international law, interpretive awards appear in various instruments including the 1976 UNCITRAL Rules (which govern the Iran-U.S. arbitration agreement). International practice demonstrates that valid interpretation requests must satisfy specific criteria: (1) demonstration of genuine ambiguity; (2) pursuit of clarification rather than substantive modification; (3) direct relevance to the award’s scope; and (4) grounding in established factual circumstances. Proper requests should additionally include: (a) the ambiguous text; (b) explanation of the ambiguity; and (c) the parties’ conflicting interpretations. The jurisprudence of the Iran-U.S. Claims Tribunal confirms that failure to meet these requirements has resulted in uniform rejection of interpretation requests.