Habitual residence as an alternative to DOMICILE AND NATIONALITY has become a prevailing connecting factor in conflict of law system. The purpose of this paper is to examine the potential benefits AND risks about to replacement of DOMICILE concept with habitual residence. The concept of habitual residence through international conventions which is the product of Hague Conference on Private International Law is imported in the United States Law. One of the reasons for accepting this new concept in Common Law AND in particular in the United States law is avoidance of inflexible AND arbitrary rules which exist in the concept of residence. While DOMICILE refers to intention for living in a place for future, habitual residence refers to the objective AND current situation AND intention element in the latter is weaker than the former. Habitual residence is based on an objective AND actual relationship between a person AND a State. However, due to the lack of a universal definition of habitual residence, there is always a concern that domestic courts, by distorting AND false interpretation of this expression, apply the traditional meaning of DOMICILE with an appearance of a new phrase.

Multinational Corporations (MNCs) establish subsidiary companies in various countries to expAND their operation all over the world, AND to invest in industrial areas of developing countries. MNCs have gained increasing importance AND expansion after the Second World War. The most common structural model for a multinational enterprise is the pyramid one. In this model, a parent company is placed at the head of pyramid, AND subsidiaries are owned AND controlled by the parent company. In MNCs the Parent company AND also each subsidiary has the NATIONALITY of its registrar country. MNCs have civil AND criminal responsibility for damages to third parties. The interconnected management of subsidiaries AND the parent company, AND the fact that subsidiaries are controlled by parent company determine the responsibility of the parent company for subsidiary companies' operations.

In systems of the resolution of conflict of laws, divorce, as an example of personal status typically follows one of the factors of a certain relashionship such as NATIONALITY or DOMICILE. The basic question is whether couples, as two legal parties, can choose the governing law of divorce? Basically, the interest of states AND the third parties, leave no room for private agreement between couples in this area; in Iranian law, as well, following of the conflicting law resolution, divorce is considered to be mANDatory AND non-infringing. Nevertheless, the developments of private international law have lead to the expansion of the sphere of the rule of will in the category of personal status AND in many countries give couples permission to select their own favored law from devorce laws. A review of the law in European countries, particularly in light of the Europe Union’s Rights -Act of 2010, as well as the common practice in the courts of the United States, represents a weakening of traditional system AND the promotion of rule of will in determining the present devorce law. These developments will have an affect on Iranian law. Such that the Iranian court can, i.e., in the case of foreign nationals, by execution of Direct Renovi regulation first, the Iranian law selected by the couples, can be executed accordingly.

It may happen that due to the conflict between the citizenship laws of the countries, a person has dual citizenship. In order to distinguish practical or effective citizenship, pieces of evidences AND circumstances should be considered AND it should be considered which government a person belongs to AND is more dependent on in practice. In this sense, the place of residence, the citizenship of the person's spouse AND even the passport that has been used, AND finally the choice of the person himself, which is also very decisive, are taken into consideration. Slow the importance of citizenship comes from the fact that since an individual does not have an unquestionable position in international law, the government is a means of providing this position for him, so the support that the government can give to an individual depends on the works AND role of the individual citizenship relationship. This research with a descriptive-analytical method states that in Iranian laws, the original citizenship through the blood system AND paternal relationship AND the Jus Soli system has been accepted with completely exceptional conditions AND in a partial way, AND while it has given more priority to the blood principle, In English law, which is subject to the common law legal system, it has accepted the system of lAND AND residence AND modified it with the principle of blood.

NATIONALITY could be defined as one’s legal, political AND moral belonging to a certain state. It comes into existance in two ways: Either the state imposes it on the individual at birth, or he is naturalized in the state at his own request. In this article, different viewpoints about NATIONALITY are provided, its different kinds (such as original, acquired/derivative AND territorial nationalities) AND their characteristics are discussed, the conditions under which it is acquired are mentioned, AND the principles which govern it (including blood AND territory ones), along with the reasons why they should be followed, are taken into consideration with special regards to Iranian laws.

In EU Law، habitual residence is an important connecting factor in relation to conflict of forums AND conflict of laws، particularly in personal matters. EU rules AND regulation، which are enforceable directly AND without a need for approval of domestic bodies، regularly consider this connecting factor AND replace traditional connecting factors such as DOMICILE in Common Law AND NATIONALITY in Civil Law countries. The recognition of the objective factor of residence، the DOMICILE، increases predictability in international relationship. At same time، a close relationship between persons AND applicable law provides flexibility regarding conflict of law rules، AND unlike the criterion of NATIONALITY، it prevents absolute application of rules of a specific country. Moreover، by applying the habitual residence factor، courts are often referred to material rules of Lex Fori AND therefore، they are not concerned with problems of proving foreign law.

Hossein Kazemzadeh Iranshahr is one of the nationalist thinkers of Reza Shah Period. In his works, he ret1ected on AND compared the concepts of NATIONALITY, progress, modernism, AND religion. He considers NATIONALITY as the foundation of Iranian identity AND as the only means of progress AND development. He believes that politics, religion, language, AND ethics are the bases of NATIONALITY AND by stressing the apparent similarities between Shi ism AND Zoroastrianism tries to put a NATIONALITY garment on religion. Through this, he attempts to introduce Shi ism as Iranian Islam In his effort to constitute an Iranian identity based on nationalism he ignores the tremendous impact of Islam AND the west on Iranian identity. The present work tries to examine Iranshal1r s thoughts on Iranian identity. It also tries to criticize the fundamental concepts of his thoughts.      

In Iran’, s foreign investment law the term of “, foreign investor”,included real AND judicial persons such as Iranian companies controlled by foreign shareholders. On the other hAND, possibility of claim against Iran by “, foreign investors”,in international forum including ICSID, in case of Iran accession to Washington convention, has been recognized. It raises the question of impact of dual NATIONALITY of individuals AND NATIONALITY of Iranian companies as a foreign investor on ICSID jurisdiction. This paper seeks to find the answer to the question by analyzing awards issued by ICSID. The analysis shows that jurisdiction of ICSID cannot be established mere reliance on the dual NATIONALITY by respondent AND foreign control by claimant. Instead the process of establishment of the jurisdiction is subject to subtle legal considerations.

Investigating the criminal laws of different countries show that NATIONALITY principle is one of the most important principles of extra-territorial criminal jurisdiction. For the first time in the history of Criminal law in Iran, the principle of NATIONALITY-based jurisdiction was accepted. The rule of No Double Jeopardy which had been rejected in the wake of Islamic Revolution (1979) came into existence once again. However, some other evolutions could also come to view in the same line with the consideration of jurisdiction based on the NATIONALITY of victim such as the application of jurisdiction is subjected to the claim of plaintiff AND also the opinion of public prosecutor’s office; these two conditions were not in contrast to Shaira stANDard at least in the field of Tazirat.

Altering NATIONALITY is a right for persons. According to rule 588 of commercial law, legal persons can have the complete right AND duties of persons, except rights AND duets that only human can have due to his nature such as rights AND duties of fatherhood, sonny etc. In Persian law, unlike persons, there is not any rule about altering NATIONALITY for legal persons especially companies AND there are some texts only about ltd AND stock company altering NATIONALITY. Regarding reference of right AND duty of legal persons to natural persons in addition to especial characteristic AND mANDatory nature of NATIONALITY, limited texts exist on whether altering NATIONALITY in Persian law with respect to absence of special law on form of NATIONALITY altering, is permitted or not. The way of doing that is vague in Persian law, an issue which is addressed in the current article. In comparative law, this issue is addressed as border mobility of companies AND accepted as a principle in Treaty establishing the European Economic Community; moreover, prohibition of altering NATIONALITY or acceptance of new NATIONALITY cited in some internal laws is modified, but in Persian law, altering NATIONALITY is a mANDatory rule AND altering that is not permitted.