1. فارسی

الف) کتاب‌ها

1. شمس، عبدالله (۱۳۹۶)، آیین دادرسی مدنی دورة پیشرفته، چ چهلم، تهران: دراک.
2. مرادی برلیان، مهدی (۱۳۹۲)، اصل تناسب در نظام حقوقی اتحادیة اروپایی با نگاهی به آرای دیوان عدالت اداری ایران، تهران: خرسندی.
3. مرکز مطبوعات و انتشارات قوة قضاییه (۱۳۹۶)، مجموعه تنقیح‌شده قوانین و مقررات حقوقی کاربردی، ج 5، چ دوم، تهران.

ب) مقالات

4. رجب، محمدعلی (۱۳۹۶)، «اصل تناسب تأمین و جایگاه آن در نظام دادرسی کیفری ایران»، مجلة حقوقی دادگستری، ش ۹۸.
5. رستمی، ولی (۱۳۹۵)، «نقد و بررسی دیدگاه‌های کاربرد اصل تناسب در نظارت قضایی ایران»، فصلنامة تخصصی دین و قانون، ش ۱۲.
6. زارعی، محمدحسین (۱۳۹۳)، «مفهوم و جایگاه اصل تناسب در حقوق اداری با نگاه ویژه به نظام حقوقی اتحادیة اروپایی»، مجلة تحقیقات حقوقی، ش ۶۶.
7. سبزواری‌نژاد، حجت (۱۳۹۶)، «جایگاه اصل تناسب جرم و مجازات در حقوق کیفری ایران و انگلستان»، دوفصلنامة علمی-پژوهشی دیدگاه‌های حقوق قضایی، ش ۷۷ و ۷۸.

2. انگلیسی
3. A) Books
4. Bucheler, Gebhard (2015), Proportionality in Investor-state Arbitration, London, Oxford University Press.
5. Brady, Alan D.P., (2012), Proportionality and Deference under the UK Human Rights, London, Cambridge University Press.
6. Burke -White, William; Staden, Andereas Von, (2010), “The Need for Public Law Standards of Review in Investor-State Arbitration”, in International Investment Law and Comparative Public Law, Edited by: Stephan W. Schill, London, Oxford University Press.
7. Henckels, Caroline, (2015), Proportionality and Deference in Investor-State Arbitration, London, Cambridge University Press.
8. Kingsbury, Benedict & Schill, W. Stephan (2010), “Public Law Concepts to Balance Investors' Rights with State Regulatory Actions in the Public Interest - The Concept of Proportionality”, in S Schill (ed), International Investment Law and ComparativePublic Law, London, Oxford University Press.
9. Knahr, Christina & Koller, Christian (2010), Investment and Commercial Arbitration- Similarities and Divergences, Eleven International Pubishing.
10. Kotuby Jr, Charles T., Sobota, Luke A., (2017), General Principles of Law and International Due Process, Oxford University Press.
11. Reinisch, August (2010), Netherlands Yearbook of International Law, Vol.41.
12. Shaw QC, Malcolm N., (2006), International Law, Cambrdge University Press, Sixth Edition.
13. Urbina, Francisco J., (2017), Critique of Proportionality and Balancing, Cambridge Uneversity Press.
14. Vadi, Valentina (2018), Proportionality, Reasonableness and Standard of Review in International Investment Law and Arbitration, Edward Elgar Publishing.

1. B) Articles
2. Bruke-White, William W., and A. von, Staden (2010), “Private Litigation in Public Law Sphere: The Standard of Review in Investor-State rbitration”, Yale Journal of International Law, Vol. 35.
3. Calamita, N.Jansen; (2013-2014),“The Principal of Proportionality and the Problem of Indeterminacy in International Investment Treaties”, in Yearbook on International Investment Law and Policy.
4. Carter, Anne, (2016) “Proportionality in Australian Constitutional Law: Towards Transnationalism?”, ZaöRV, Vol.76, pp. 951-966.
5. Cottier, Thomas and others, (2012), “The Principle of Proportionality in International Law”, nccr trade regulation, Swiss National Center of Competence Research, Working paper No. 2012/38. pp. 1-34.
6. Fish, Morris J., (2008), “An Eye for an Eye: Proportionality as a Moral Principle of Punishment”, Oxford Journal of Leal Studies,Vol. 28.
7. Frank, Thomas M., (2008), “On Proportionality of Countermeasure in International Law”, The American Journal of International Law, Vol. 102, No. 4, pp. 715-767.
8. Gazzini, Tarcisio, “General Principles of Law in the Field of Foreign Investment” (2009), The Journal of World Investment & Trade, Vol. 10, No.1.
9. Hilf, Meinhard, (2001), “Power, Rules and Principle- Which Orientation for WTO/GATT Law?” Journal of International Economic Law, 111-130.
10. Hirsch, Moshe, (2011), “Sorces of International Investment Law”, Interational Law Association Study Group in the Role of Soft Law Instruments in Investment Law, Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1892564.
11. Jackson, Viki. C, (2015), “Constitutional Law in an Age of Proportionality”, Yale Law Journal, Vol. 124, Issue 8.
12. Kolb, Robert,(2006), “Principles as Sources Of International Law (With Special Reference To Good Faith), Netherlands International Law Review, LIII: 1-36.
13. Mitchell, Andrew D., (2007), “Proportionality and Remedies in WTO Disputes”, European Journal on International Law, Vol. 17, No. 5.
14. Ranjan, Prabhash (2014), “Using the public Law Concept of Proportionality to Balance Investment Protection with Regulation in International Investment Law: A Critical Appraisal”, Cambridge Journal of International and Comparative Law, Vol.3, Issue 3.
15. Rivers, Julian, “Proportionality and Variable Intensity of Review” (2006) 65, Cambridge LJ 174-207.
16. Schill, Stephan.W, (2011), “Enhancing International Investment Law’s Legitimacy: Conceptual and Methodological Foundations of a New Public Law Approach”, Virginia Jornal of International Law, Vol.52.
17. Schlesinger, Rudolf, “Reasearch on the General Principles of Law Recognized by Civilized Nations”, (1957), Vol.51, American Journal of International Law.
18. Vadi, Valentina, (2015), “the migration of constitutional ideas to regional and international economic law: the case of proportionality”, Northwestern Journal of International Law and Busines, Vol.24.

1. C) Votes
2. Brazil-Measures Affecting Imports of Retreeated Tyres’, AB-2007-4, Report of the Appellate Body, WT/DS332/AB/R, 3 December 2007.
3. European Communities- Measures Affecting Asbestos and Asbestos Containing Products, Appellate Body Report, WT/DS135/AB/R, 12 March 2001.
4. Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Judgment, Merits, 27 June 1986, ICJ Reports 1986.
5. CMS Gas Transmission Company v. The Republic of Argentina, ICSID Case No. ARB/01/8, 2005.
6. Coleman v Power, High Court of Australia, HCA 39, Judgment, 1 September 2004.
7. Delimitation of the Maritime Boundary between Bangladesh and Myanmar in the Bay of Bengal, International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea, Judgement, Case No.16, 2012.
8. Handyside v. The United Kingdom, ECHR, 7 December 1976.
9. Ahmed and Others v. the United Kingdom – 22954/93, ECHR, 2 September 1998.
10. Huang v Secretary of State for the Home Department, UK House of Lords 11. 21 March 2007.
11. Hermann Schräder HS Kraftfutter GmbH & Co. KG v Hauptzollamt Gronau, Case C-265/87, Judgment of the Court (Fifth Chamber), 11 July 1989.
12. Lange v Australian Broadcasting Corporation, High Court of Australia, 1997.
13. Korea-Measures Affecting Imports of Fresh Chilled and Frozen Beef, , Appellate Body Report WT/DS161/AB/R,11 December 2000;
14. LG&E Energy Corp. v. Agrentine Republic, Decision on Liability, ICSID Case No ARB/02/1, 3 October 2006.
15. Maritime Delimitation in The Black Sea (Romania V. Ukraine), Judgment, ICJ reports, 3 February 2009.
16. McCloy v New South Wales, Australian High Court’s Judgement, 7 October 2015.
17. North Sea Continental Shelf (Germany v. Denmark, Germany v. Netherlands), Judgment, ICJ, 20 February 1969.
18. Omega Spielhallen- und Automatenaufstellungs-GmbH v Oberbürgermeisterin der Bundesstadt Bonn, ECR Judgement, Case C-36/02, 2004.
19. PL Holdings S.à.r.l. v. Republic of Poland, SCC Case No. V 2014/163, 2017.
20. R (F) (Respondents) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department (Appellant), UK Supreme Court 17, Judgment, 21 April 2010.
21. R. v. Oakes v David Edwin Oakes, Supreme Court of Canada, 1 S.C.R. 103, 28 Februrary 1986.
22. The Queen v. Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food ex Parte Fedesa, ECJ, Case C-331/88, 1990.
23. Thailand - Restrictions on Importation of and Internal Taxes on Cigarettes, (DS10/R - 37S/200), Report of the Panel dated 5 October 1990.
24. United States – Import Prohibition of Certain Shrimp and Shrimp Products (US – Shrimp), ‌Appellate Body Report, WT/DS58/AB/R, 6 November 1998.