Nowadays, particular importance attaches to the choice of court agreement as a common clause in international commercial contracts. Nevertheless, for not taking point regarding the validity of such clauses in some legal systems, there are some challenges and ambiguities about it. One of most important problems is the conflict such agreements with sovereignty of state principle and concept of public policy. This essay with surveying the concept of choice of court agreement and also studying some related conventions and regulations shows this agreement is acceptable based on the party autonomy principle. Also by changing the philosophic basis of extra territorial jurisdiction’ s rules, jurisdiction agreement doesn’ t hurt sovereignty of states. The extra territorial jurisdiction rules is not related to public policy in all cases to say the jurisdiction agreement against them is invalid. The approach of some legal systems such as European Union and international instruments support the view of essay.

The seabed chamber of the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea is an authority for dispute settlement in seabed area cases. This chamber, in nature, is a specific judiciary for dispute resolution of this marine area in the tribunal. First, the governments must settle their disputes based on one of the peaceful resolution methods, and then should refer to the tribunal in case of agreement. Compared to the International Court of Justice in referring to dispute settlement, the most important feature of the tribunal and its chamber is the creation of a specific chamber and dispute settlement through arbitration and the presence of a special judge for dispute parties. Moreover, the seabed chamber can issue an advisory opinion, if required. Therefore, the jurisdiction of the chamber depends on two kinds of optional and compulsory jurisdictions of the tribunal, so that contractors and their guaranteeing states have joint liability for international seabed authority. It should be noted that states are responsible for an action and omission of the act causing harm in the seabed and under the seabed only in case of failure to apply their regulatory advice for contractors. The first and most important compensation for harm to the seabed is prevention from more hazards against seabed and under the seabed. Furthermore, immediate notification to coastal authorities and states, postliminium (restoration of the status formerly possessed), and complete compensation are forms of respective actions.

In the current era, and especially in the context of developing countries, despite the uncertainties, unknowns and complexities that are mostly exposed by external environments and outside the control of the planning system as well as national and transnational spaces, traditional methods of spatial development management and planning have lost their effectiveness in the face of unforeseen and nonlinear conditions. A review of the methodology of the plans prepared in Iran in dealing with the future shows that most of them, from a positivist point of view, consider the future in the form of quantitative models in the continuation of past trends and present simple scenarios in the most optimistic case. The inefficiency of conventional approaches has turned the agenda of the article to the thought and application of new and flexible methods of future research and its integration into the study of extraterritorial jurisdiction; the area of about 6000 square kilometers which is approved by the High Council of Urban Planning and Architecture, which due to the presence of various actors, has become one of the main complexities and uncertainties of this metropolis. In this regard, foresighting methodology has been used in a scenario-based method based on the approach of participatory future workshops. The result is the introduction of three scenarios; pessimistic and chaotic scenario (Extra-Territory as the backyard of Tehran and the metropolitan area as multi-core region and the multiple island community), the scenario of opportunity and gradual improvement (Extra-Territory as a green belt) and the optimistic, progressive and active scenario of the integrated metropolitan government; With the idea that by visualizing these scenarios, a suitable platform for future sustainable decisions, plans and planning will be provided.

After 27 years of diplomatic efforts by the five Caspian coastal States to determine the legal regime of this Sea, it resulted in the signing of the "Convention on the Legal Status of the Caspian Sea" in Aktau, Kazakhstan on August 12, 2018. Although this Convention has taken steps to determine the jurisdiction of coastal States by dividing the Caspian Sea into different maritime zones, including territorial waters, contemplation on the provisions of this Convention shows that there are no rules in many jurisdictional matters in the territorial waters of this Sea. Furthermore, the absence of such a treaty can cause serious problems for the Caspian coastal States, especially the Islamic Republic of Iran. Under international law of the sea, coastal States have legislative, judicial and enforcement jurisdictions on a wide range of issues in the territorial waters area. It is concluded in this study that extending these regulations by the five coastal States to the Caspian Sea is the best way to resolve future jurisdictional challenges.

Jurisdiction as a feature of sovereignty is prevailing in both Public and Private International Law debates. Treaties, international precedents and international customs are sources of each of the two branches, and domestic courts are bound to follow every binding rule in jurisdictional subjects. Public International Law though, has no binding rule encompassing the scope of states’ civil jurisdiction. Some prominent rules in Public International Law sources are so extensive that they can justify any jurisdictional claims by the states.

IntroductionOn 5 February 2021, the Pre-Trial Chamber of the International Criminal Court issued a decision on the Prosecution's request pursuant to Article 19 (3) for a ruling on the Court’s territorial jurisdiction in Palestine. Accordingly, the Chamber declared by a two-on-one majority that Palestine, in the sense of a State party to the Statute of the Court, has the status of a Member State and hence the territorial jurisdiction to exercise through the court is available. This decision is very significant previously, in 2009, the Palestinian Minister of Justice had submitted a declaration of acceptance of the jurisdiction of the Court based on Article 12, paragraph 3, of the Statute of the International Criminal Court. But unfortunately According to the Argentine prosecutor, Mr. José Moreno-Ocampo, being a state as a prerequisite for joining the Rome Statute is a matter that is primarily the responsibility of the Secretary-General of the United Nations as the depositary of the Rome Statute. But since he considered examining this issue outside his jurisdiction, the matter remained virtually silent. In light of this precedent, the Palestinian government did not shy away from examining the issue of crimes committed in the occupied Palestinian territory and in January 2015 referred the matter to the Court once again in the same form as in January 2009. The new prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, Ms. Bensouda, had a different view on the matter. Based on the research she has conducted on the situation in Palestine, the Prosecutor of the Court believes that Palestine is a state, but to be sure of this, she has asked the Pre-Trial Chamber this question so that she can act with complete certainty regarding the subject matter she is investigating. first requested the Pre-Trial Chamber was requested to announce a decision on the territorial jurisdiction that the Court will have over the situation of Palestine, to pave the way for the situation of Palestine. Despite Palestine's concerns about the Court examining the issue of its statehood and the opinions of opponents, including several States, including Germany, Austria, Australia, and Brazil, submitted their opinions on this issue, it ended with the recognition of Palestine. The importance of the decision lies in the fact that since 2015, when Palestine first issued a declaration to exercise the jurisdiction of the Court in the occupied territories, based on Article 12 (3) of the Statute. One of the most important effects of this decision was the significant role of the President of the International Criminal Court in recognizing Palestine as a state. While Mr. Ocampo, while receiving the opinions of lawyers and various academic circles on the issue of whether or not Palestine is a state, ultimately considered this issue outside her jurisdiction, Ms. Bensouda, while conducting initial research to ascertain the possible future of the Palestinian situation, requested the Pre-Trial Chamber to issue a ruling in this regard.Materials and Methods It is a type of basic research that is descriptive-analytical and using library resources as well as using electronic resources including books, articles, dissertations, official conferences related to the subject in Persian and English languages and after raising the issue and clarifying the hypotheses, the data by the research questions in national and international judicial documents and procedures have been searched, collected, summarized and analyzed.Results and Discussion This article seeks to examine this important decision and address its important aspects, including what impact the decision has on the further recognition of Palestine as a state in the international community. The questions that we will address in the following are whether the Court, as a court with criminal expertise, is allowed to enter the field of statehood as a subject of general international law, and what criteria have been taken into account in the Court's approach to this issue. There has been much debate in academia and among jurists. The present article seeks to examine this important decision and addresses its significant aspects, among them, what is the effect of the aforementioned decision on the recognition of Palestine as a state in the international community. In this article, we will first describe the Pre-Trial Chamber’s decision and then analyze the various aspects of this ruling to explain the foundations of the Court’s position based on factors such as examining the comparative approach of the Court’s two prosecutors, the Court’s jurisdiction to deal with issues of general international law, and the practical effect of this ruling on establishing the statehood of Palestine. It seems that the Court’s finding in this case is another proof of the statehood of Palestine and paves the way for prosecuting crimes committed in occupied Palestine.Conclusion The Court's decision to admit Palestine to the Statute is very significant and precise. The admission of Palestine to the Court is important in two ways: on the one hand, Palestine's membership in the Court is an important step for this country to prove its standing among other states. On the other hand, the Court's action to admit Palestine has enhanced the institution's standing as an independent judicial institution in the international community. It remains to be seen what approach the Court will take in the remaining stages of the proceedings.

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.

The China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission-CIETAC is an important arbitration organization that many businessmen and investors from all over the world refer to annually to resolve international commercial disputes. This article tries to answer these questions: how and under what conditions does CIETAC have the jurisdiction to settle disputes, what is its scope of jurisdiction, and how does it increase the scope of its jurisdiction. The results show that by concluding a valid arbitration agreement within the personal and material scope determined by Chinese laws and the regulations of CIETAC, this organization acquires the jurisdiction to settle international commercial disputes. By recognising the possibility of a supplementary agreement between the parties, clarifying the ambiguity of the arbitration agreement and increasing its competencies by repeatedly amending its regulations, CIETAC has expanded its jurisdiction.

The “ doctrine of effects” is one of the new representations of extraterritorial jurisdiction in the field of prescriptive or legislative jurisdiction. This doctrine can be briefly defined as the concept of “ the ability and authority of a State in exercising jurisdiction against the foreigners‟ conduct committed outside the country which produces effects within the territory of the State exercising jurisdiction. Some have recognized this theory as a branch of the territorial jurisdiction and, an expansion of territorial jurisdiction principle. However, others have justified it within the frame of other jurisdictional principles such as real or universal jurisdiction. In this article, the definition, concept, and trend of historical change of this doctrine are initially presented. Subsequently, the essence, status, bases, and conditions of exercising jurisdiction based on the doctrine of effects in international law are investigated. The findings of the researchers indicated that first; with respect to the fundamental difference between the doctrine of effects and other jurisdictional bases of the international law, it seems logical to take this doctrine, despite its closeness to principles of objective territorial jurisdiction and the real jurisdiction, into account as one of the new and independent jurisdictional bases of international law in exercising the extraterritorial jurisdiction of the states, second; exercising jurisdiction according to this doctrine depends on the realization of effect, and acquisition of particular bases and conditions such as “ independent” , “ fundamental” , “ predictability” , and “ effect” .