Introduction: Arbitration has a contractual nature and is subject to the sovereignty of the will of the parties, but in some cases, the legislator imposed the referral of claims to arbitration on the will of the parties and caused the contractual nature of the arbitration clause to disappear or be limited. By doing this, he has placed the arbitration outside the will of the parties. This issue causes some moral conflicts in the discussion of compulsory arbitration. Therefore, this research has been done with the purpose of examining the position of compulsory arbitration in Iran's legal system and the ethical challenges in it with a descriptive-analytical approach. Material and Methods: The research was a review method, in order to achieve the goal of the research, in addition to electronic education books and virtual education in this field, articles related to the research keywords from 2004 to 2022 from the databases of Civilica, Magiran, Sid, Researchgate, Science direct, was reviewed Conclusion: Based on the findings of the research, it can be concluded that compulsory arbitration in Iran has ethical challenges in the field of implementation and interpretation, the most important of which is the issue of the right to action and judicial justice. In the context of ambiguities in mandatory arbitration, even if the method of arbitration becomes ambiguous, the arbitrator has the duty to find out the will of the legislator with the principles and rules of interpretation, which creates a moral conflict for the arbitrator.

Article 79 of the rules of Procedure of the International Court of justice deals with the subject of preliminary objections. Preliminary objections refer to two types of objections related to competence and audibility. Articles 34 and 36 of the Statute deal with the jurisdiction of the Court, but there are ambiguities regarding the hearing, the Statute and the rules of Procedure of the Court, in the sense that its instances have not been specified. In this descriptive-analytical study, we seek to determine the cases of inability to hear the petition in the court proceedings. . In cases where the lawsuit is filed through a lawsuit, it is very common for the defendant government to raise preliminary objections. Such objections are designed to prevent the court from issuing a ruling on the nature of the dispute According to the Court's case, cases of inadmissibility include abuse of rights, lack of dispute, lack of interest, political disputes, diplomatic protection, other dispute resolution methods, fictitious disputes, the need for judicial observance, and abuse of court. Cases such as lack of legal capacity to file a lawsuit and the unreality of the dispute have sometimes been cited in the lawsuit, as well as the unscrupulousness of the plaintiff, whose examples (not the principle) have not been accepted by the court in any case.

A double ambiguity has been charged against Rawls’s difference principle (DP). Is it Maximin, Leximin, or something else? Usually, following A. Sen, scholars identify DP with the so-called Leximin. One argues here that one has to distinguish 1° the Leximin, 2° the Maximin (as rule of justice formally analogous to the maximin rule of decision), represented by the figure in L of the perfectly substitutable goods, and 3° the genuine DP. When the augmentation of inequality benefits the worse off, only Pareto-strong improvements are permitted. Leximin would also permit Pareto-weak improvements too (after the first maximum D), where only the richest improves: from (2, 3) to (2, 5), say. This is forbidden by DP. With two classes, unlike Maximin, DP has no curve of indifference and is always decisive, as Leximin is. For undecisive rules of justice, which admit indifferent curves, I propose to add a lexically secondary rule, to break ties. That move is able to clarify the links and the differences between on the one hand Maximin alone, with its typical indifference curves in L, and on the other hand, the DP properly understood and the Leximin, which both have no indifferent curves. With two classes of persons (best off/worse off), DP appears more egalitarian than Leximin, because it's secondary rule is MinIn (Minimization of Inequality). But the intuition behind the distinction is that it cannot possible “fair” that only the best off improves in a productive social cooperation.

Economic justice has been attended by so many thinkers. Among whom, John Rawls does have a seminal place. He can be counted in equalitarian tradition; however at the same time he is loyal to liberalism. The newness of his idea is in his intermingling individualism and equalitarianism. This paper is responsible to analyze and criticize the foundation of economic justice theory of John Rawls. In developing this paper, it is used of analytical descriptive method along with justice theories as well as public sector economic theories.

Though substantial research has been carried out on employees’ reactions to organizational justice rules, far less research has examined the ethical and ethical causes of managers to adhere to the rules of justice. Taking a proactive approach to organizational justice, the present study the causes of managers’ adherence to distributive, procedural, informational, and interpersonal rules of justice. The statistical population of this research was the managers at the different levels of employed management practices selected from 34 government organizations. The sample under study included 356 people selected through cluster sampling. The data collection was conducted using standardized questionnaires. Data analysis was performed through confirmatory factor analysis and parametric statistics using Smart PLS and SPSS software. The results of the research revealed that both cognitive (i. e. effective compliance with subordinates, desirable social identity maintenance, and justice) and affective (i. e. high positive affect and low negative affect) motives were associated with managerial adherence to justice rules. Moreover, cognitive motives were more strongly associated with justice rules adherence for justice dimensions over which managers perceived less discretion, while affective motives were more strongly associated with justice rule adherence for justice dimensions over which managers perceived much more discretion.

Enaction of rules of international carriage of goods by sea have special importance due to its affects to owner of good and ship owner, due to countries pay major attention to this rules. competency of endorsee countries originated Hague rules in 1924 that its base of origin of internal law in abundant of countries. this rules modified in 1968that renowned Brussels rules. this rules is fair for shipowner countries. therefore United nations commission of international trade law enacted new rules in 1978 in Hamburg that renawnad Hamburg rules. codification of Hamburg rules was not satisfy needs of maritime transport in practice. on this reason United nations on December 11, 2008 adopted rules in Rotterdam. translation of articles of Rotterdam rules in this paper will be expressed.