---

The end of Cold War created a unique opportunity for both the Arabs and Israelis to end their animosity and for the United States to play an important role to bring them to peace negotiations. Therefore, during the 1990s, the U.S. facilitated several rounds of talks between Syria and Israel, but the negotiations complicated gradually. The talks were stalled over the fact that Israel did not want to withdraw from the Golan Heights prior to concluding security arrangements and normalization of relations with Syria. There were variety of reasons that prevented Syria and Israel from reaching a peace agreement. Besides, unresolved issues such as the Golan Heights, the biased role of the United States in the Syrian-Israeli talks left the process at an intractable impasse. The fact that the U.S. had strategic relations with Israel and due to the increasing power of the Zionist lobby in the U.S. Congress, Washington failed to be an honest broker. Both Syrian and Israeli inflexibility, mutual mistrust and suspicious along with tentative and conditional nature of talks were proved hindrances. The U.S. could play an active role through urging both Damascus and Tel Aviv to comply with the basic and logical needs of peace, pushing the Israelis to withdraw from the Syrian territory, urging the Syrians to moderate their positions-allowing new demarcation of border-strengthening confidence-building measures between the parties and assuring them that peace will provide their basic needs, and in no way will the conflict be settled at the expense of either’s interests.

---

Constitutional justice, in its general sense, means the set of methods and legal institutions that control law and other regulations by the constitution. Based on the type of look at the relationship between statutory law-constitution, parliament-justice, and private interest-public interest, and also based on the type of definition of the philosophy and function of separation of powers, we can observe two principals models of constitutional justice: 1) The American model in which the control over law is posterior, objective, decentralized and res judicata is relative, and 2) The European model in which the control of law is priori, abstract, centralized, and res judicata is absolute. In this paper, while addressing the general principles of constitutional justice, we study special patterns of each of the above models, especially in the two most important countries (i.e. The United States of America and France).

---

Abstract The present article will discuss the issue of compensation in cases of expropriation and nationalization in the light of the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal. It is a well recognized rule in international law that the property of alien cannot be taken without appropriate compensation. But, the standard of compensation for expropriated private property has been the subject of controversy between Western and developing countries since the end of World War II. In alters woads, the standard to be applied in determining compensation remained a controversial issue at a theoretical level. The main argument has been whether the traditional standard of full compensation is a general rule of law applicable in all cases. In this article, awards of the Iran-US Claims Tribunal have been wseof in an attempt to show that the prevailed rules defy any conclusion that full compensation must be paid in all cases when foreign property is taken by the State.

---

     House of the Representatives in the U.S., as the National Assembly of this state and one of the two pillars of the Congress, is headed by Speaker and, Chairman of the Majlis is the head of the Islamic Consultative Assembly of Iran. Although the constitutional texts and fundamental laws do not provide a special place for these two authorities, however, they have an undeniable role in the structure of government and in the courtyard of their houses. A comparative study of the two shows that parliamentary traditions and historical practices have made a range of qualifications and powers for the Speaker of the House of the Representatives that are hard to see in the Iranian Majlis. The chairman of Majlis has been limited by the internal regulations statute, and it has explicitly resolved these issues. It is should is to be noted that the President of the Majlis, compared to their counterparts in the United States, has a greater administrative powers.     * Corresponding author’s E-mail: gorji110@yahoo.fr

---