After two decades of practice, the relationship between the International Criminal Court (ICC) and domestic jurisdictions is still a matter for debate. Under the complementarity principle, states’ action prevents the ICC to step in. However, such an action should be qualified. According to the ICC’ s jurisprudence, states should prosecute the same case before the Court if they intent to disactivate the ICC’ s jurisdiction. The ‘ same case’ standard requires sameness in ‘ person’ and ‘ conduct’ as constitutive elements of a case. The same person test requires states to prosecute exactly the same suspect wanted by the Court. As to the same conduct test, the Appeals Chamber stipulates that the conduct could be substantially the same. This article seeks to find out the meaning of the ‘ substantially same conduct’ . According to the Appeals Chamber, the substantial sameness means that in prosecuting a case the legal characteristic of the conduct does not need to be the same. However, the Pre-Trial Chamber in the Libya situation goes further, and states that ‘ the substantial sameness’ allows states to choose incidents different from those selected by the Court. The lower-level Chamber’ s opinion seems to be more consistent with the complementarity principle. The ICC should refrain from competing with states in selecting cases. This approach requires a broad interpretation of the same conduct test.

The purpose of adopting rules and regulation for the determination of courts’ jurisdiction is to categorize duties of courts on the basis of subject-matter of disputes, crime and so on. In civil procedure rules, jurisdiction is normally divided into subjective-matter, territorial and value jurisdictions. There are situations in which courts are given competence, for specific purposes, to deal with a dispute, even though they do not have the above-mentioned jurisdictions. This is called prorogation jurisdiction. This article aims to examine jurisdictional rules and prorogation jurisdiction cases.

This Article examines several competing systems proposed for international cooperation in insolvency cases. The rapid growth of international economic activity in the recent decades has brought forth a unique and formidable policy challenge. On one hand, considerations of efficiency call for three things: ex-ante predictability, elimination of wasteful duplication of work by the courts, and incentives for optimal ex-ante allocation of resources. On the other hand, any proposed regime must be sufficiently attractive to sovereign actors. To that end, it must allow sovereign actors to satisfy the needs of their own domestic public policy if they are to cooperate. This paper discusses the advantages and disadvantages of each regime and offers thoughts on how each may be improved or tailored to suit various economic needs.

For the first time in the history of Iranian law, the Family Court in Wright as a special court was created by virtue of Family Protection Act of 19/02/2013. It should be noted that the drafting and approval of clear and unambiguous rules are necessary as much as the creation of such a court. One of the most important issues in this regard is the inherent jurisdiction of the Family Court as an exclusive court, and hence the legislator has a duty to set up clear and effective rules accordingly. However, the legislator has not taken an appropriate approach in this regard, since on the one hand, the scope of the jurisdiction of this court contains a number of issues not relating to family affairs, and on the other, important family issues have not been considered within the jurisdiction of the Court. This article has found that the method of verbal interpretation does not propose a solution to this problem. Therefore, by considering that the process of law reform is time-consuming and could lead to uncertainties, this article seeks a solution for the interpretation of hermeneutics in order to clarify the suitability of family law.

The right to exercise jurisdiction in civil matters lies with the court to which a case is referred. However, the findings of courts vary and one court's ruling could contradict another court's ruling on the same matter, in a way that a court declines jurisdiction and refers the case to another court but the latter court could refuse to accept jurisdiction too. In such a case there is a conflict of jurisdictions. Law (legislation) offers various solutions depending on the nature of the jurisdictional conflict. There exist various forms of jurisdictions such functional and local jurisdictions. However, functional jurisdiction is a corollary of the classification of the courts jurisdiction according to their nature, kind and rank. The classification of the courts jurisdiction on the basis of geography is called local jurisdiction. In this research, I have strived to explain the concept of jurisdiction and conflict of jurisdictions by highlighting the advantages and disadvantage of Civil Procedure act of 1379 (2000).  

It has been clarified and emphasized the leadership of jurists and religious authorities by Farabi in the assertion of utopia theory. His method in the description and justification of jurisdiction is called representation. Representation famous for imagination, occasion, comparison, analogy and correspondence in Farabi's work is of fundamental position in the understanding the intellects and making them understood. Farabi believes that knowledge of the essence of intellects except the superior intellects common in all humans is considered as an impossible and complex issue and the illustrations of intellects should be drawn by the examples and their representations in the imagination power of Jomhoor. He represents the principle of jurisdiction as part of virtuous leadership with three allegories of the orders of existence, powers of soul, and all healthy physique. He does not consider the problem on proof's side and does not mention any deduction, but he generally adverts to the description and presentation of true imagination out of jurisdiction.

This paper examined the charge of circulating assets in common law jurisdiction. The aim was to know the way and basis that it is constituted and to find out its profits for creditors and also to find out its meaning and its impacts in market. The conclusion was that floating charge provides an appropriate security and benefits for the chargee and chargor, where chargee can achieve his benefits and chargor can carry on his ordinary course of business. In this kind of charges third parties’ rights have been supporting as well. In addition the assets in the ordinary course of business are the main part of the company’s assets and depositing them as a floating charge will increase the capital of the company, will improve the efficiency of economy and will give creditable security to banks and financial institutions and it will have benefits for economy.