The distinction between Procedural legal Principles and Procedural rules and techniques is one of the famous arguments in Iranian law. The argument may be astonishing for lawyers of different background. It comes from some statutory provisions authorizing the court to ignore the Procedural rules in reviewing the case but at the same time to comply strictly with the Procedural Principles. In this essay, after introducing of the concepts of both rules and Principles of Procedural law, the idea of distinction between them is examined in terms of possibility or otherwise feasibility of simultaneous withdrawal of rules and compliance with Principles.

Procedural Principles Ruling the Utilization of Tigris-Euphrates River Basin. Procedural Principles represent a normative framework and play a notable role in regulating water law. In addition, Procedural Principles could help in preventing the occurrence of disputes. Cooperation, evaluation of environmental impacts and the principle of information and consultation with related countries are the most important Procedural Principles. These obligations reflect customary rules of law and also are specified in many bilateral, multilateral and international documents. Considering Procedural Principles together with the practice of Tigris-Euphrates basin countries illustrates that although the neighbouring countries are members of multiple international and bilateral agreements and organs, but in practice the region lacks an effective and sustainable approach in implementing the Procedural obligations, which has been leaded to negative impacts on substantial obligations such as no harm and equitable and reasonable utilization.Tigris and Euphrates basin, Procedural Principles, Obligation to Cooperation, Obligation to Evaluate Environmental Impacts, Obligation to Information and Consultation

Procedural Principles and rules of procedure along with formalities of procedure are contents of Civil procedure. Procedural Principles which create the rules cause the basis of just proceeding. These rules provide preparations of observing Principles. Neutrality of judge is one of the explained Principles of public aspect of civil procedure and has a different meaning from principle of independence of judge, and causes some rules toward making the proceeding justly. The aim of this research is to get an understanding of neutrality of judge and monopolizing the rules resulted from it. The question is that what rules this principle causes in civil procedure. For answering this question, we should, at first, come to a proper understanding of the meaning and base of neutrality. In this regard, attempts have been done to restrain the rules issued from this principle through analyzing regulations and can be said as a result that neutrality of judge causes equal treatment with parties, public proceeding, justification of judgment and prevents judges from taking evidence. These rules guarantee the neutrality of judge during the trial and are course of the judge's actions during proceeding. Due to the necessity of efficiency of proceeding instead of fact-finding and termination of quarrel, judge actively cooperates with the parties with respect to a certain outline during the process of trial, but he is prevented from taking evidence to be neutral. In the same vein, legislatore has predicted requirements of equal treatment with parties in regulations. The basis of public proceeding is preservation of impatiality of judge by means of supervising the treatment and decisions of the judge. To cause the neutrality of judge be seen in his decision, his decision must be justified by means of documentation and reasoning, to be accepted as a judiciary decision of judge not a private decision.

Payment systems are the most essential part of any country's economic and monetary infrastructure, and their performance is vital to the rapid and effective settlement of transactions as well as the safe transfer of funds across the economy. This system also improves efficiency and economic system stability in the national and international levels. The report of the core Principles of systemically important payment systems of the International Committee on Payment and Settlement Systems (CPSS) of the Bank for International Settlements (BIS), known as the "CPSS" document includes ten legal and economic Principles governing the processes of payment systems.This document is now strongly reflected in international law and economic systems, and it has been used and developed in a wide range of fields, including payment systems, central bank strategies, and supervisory policies in various countries around the world. This research, for the first time, provides the necessary foundation for applying, adapting, and evaluating all types of payment systems in Iran within the framework of these Principles by introducing and briefly explaining these Principles, as well as their legal and economic aspects. In this way, we can see the advancement and development of internal payment systems following the most recent international payment law standards and norms.

Background: The relationship between ethics and law is certain and confirmed and emphasized by philosophers, moral thinkers and lawyers. Among the topics that can be specifically explored and investigated, the relationship between the two is ethics in the judicial process. Whenever it is possible to provide objective criteria to measure the observance of justice in a proceeding, it is possible to make a more precise statement about the implementation of justice in the proceeding stage. As a result, fair trial standards should be defined and used to measure the fairness of the standards. The purpose of this research is to investigate the Principles of ensuring fair and ethical proceedings in civil lawsuits and the obstacles to its implementation. Conclusion: The right to a fair trial is recognized as an international norm of human rights to protect people from illegally and arbitrarily restricting or restricting people from their freedom and basic rights. The Principles that guarantee a fair and ethical trial in civil lawsuits are: acquittal, compliance with correspondence, public proceedings, equality of evidence, obligation of the judge to express arguments, impartiality, effective proceedings, and the conclusion of the lawsuit based on the compromise of the parties. The Principles of proceedings in civil lawsuits can be moral defenders and guarantors of transparent and fair proceedings if they are properly implemented in practice, and disregarding these Principles deprives the litigants of their inalienable rights towards the judicial system

According to the provisions of Civil Proceedings Code, courts Procedural Principles and formalities are not required to be respected in arbitration. Such provisions are differently interpreted by lawyers. Some lawyers believe that since arbitration is a kind of personal judgment, it should not be subject to the civil procedure and therefore arbitrators directly or with the request of the parties may refrain from applying the courts Procedural Principles and formalities in conducting arbitration. In contrast, some other lawyers argue that since such Principles and formalities are compulsory, permanent and general, therefore it is binding for both court judges and private arbitrators. In this paper, this issue will be considered and discussed.

The purpose of this study was to contently analyze the training textbooks used in teacher training centers based on declarative and Procedural knowledge. This research was of a content analysis type and quantitative content analysis method was used, here. All training courses used in teacher training centers were chosen as the statistical population. The sample and the population were equal in terms of the number. Data, then, was analyzed by means of descriptive statistics as percentage, frequency, and chi- square. The findings showed that general psychology book has the highest level of declarative knowledge and the least amount of Procedural knowledge; whereas, mathematics teaching book has the highest level of Procedural knowledge and the least amount of declarative knowledge.

Witness testimony is a key tool in criminal systems to uncover the truth and achieve justice. In the Iranian criminal system, testimony is based on religious requirements such as justice, reason, maturity and a certain number of witnesses and is rooted in Islamic jurisprudence. This system, by emphasizing honesty and transparency, seeks to reduce false testimony. Strict religious requirements increase the accuracy of the trial process, but may sometimes slow down the proceedings or create administrative complications. In contrast, the French criminal system has adopted a pragmatic approach that is based on the judge's free assessment and does not consider strict religious or moral requirements mandatory. This flexibility can speed up the proceedings, but it carries the risk of accepting unreliable testimony or the influence of external factors such as human error. Comparative analysis shows that the Iranian system, by focusing on religious requirements, reduces the possibility of errors in testimony, but may affect the efficiency of the process due to complex requirements. In contrast, the French system, by facilitating the acceptance of testimony, enhances efficiency, but carries the risk of reducing accuracy. This research suggests that a balanced combination of the Islamic rigor of the Iranian system and the flexibility of the French system can help improve the trial process. Such a combination can increase the efficiency and speed of proceedings while maintaining honesty and transparency and help achieve criminal justice.