1. فارسی

الف) کتاب‌ها

1. امیدی، هوشنگ (1353). حقوق دریایی. تهران: مدرسۀ عالی بیمه.
2. چرچیل، رابین و لو، آلن (1385). حقوق بین‌الملل دریاها. ترجمۀ بهمن آقایی، چ چهارم. تهران: گنج دانش.
3. رستمی، محمود (1386). فرهنگ واژه‌های نظامی. تهران: ایران سبز.
4. سادات میدانی، سیدحسین و خلیلی طرقبه، مهدی (1397). بایسته‌های حقوقی نظام تحریم‌های ایالات متحده. تهران: شهر دانش.
5. عبداللهی، محسن و شافعی، میرشهبیز (1386). مصونیت قضایی دولت در حقوق بین‌الملل. تهران: معاونت تدوین، تنقیح و انتشار قوانین و مقررات ریاست جمهوری.

ب) مقالات

6. سیاری، حبیب‌الله و خانزادی، حسین (1396). الگوی توسعة نقش‌های نیروی دریایی ارتش ج.ا.ایران. فصلنامة مطالعات دفاعی استراتژیک، 15(428)، 275-306.
7. سیفی، بهزاد (1402). تحلیلی بر عملکرد جمهوری اسلامی ایران در تأمین امنیت دریایی با تأکیدی بر مبارزه با دزدی دریایی در چارچوب حقوق بین‌الملل با ارائۀ رویکردهای آموزشی. فصلنامة آموزش علوم دریایی، 10 (1)، 219-238.
8. کاظمی، علی‌اصغر (1365). وضعیت ناوهای جنگی در کنوانسیون حقوق دریاها. مجلة سیاست خارجی، 1 (1)، 163-186.

ج) منابع اینترنتی

9. فتاحی، فرهاد (1402). «سه عامل کلیدی در مأموریت ناوگروه 86 چه بود؟»، گزارش خبرگزاری فارس، [سخنرانی در یازدهمین جشنوارۀ جایزۀ ملی مدیریت پروژة ایران]. https://www.farsnews.ir/news/14020422000591

2. انگلیسی
3. A) Books
4. Ashley Roach, J., & Smith, W. (2012). Excessive Maritime Claims. Leiden/Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
5. Allen, C. D. (1980). Uses of Navies in Peacetime. Washington DC/London: American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research. AEI Press.
6. Garner, B. A (2009). Black's Law Dictionary (9^th). West-Thomson Reuters.
7. Knight, G., & Chiu, H. (1991). The International Law of the Sea: Cases, Documents, and Readings, Essex/New York: Elsevier.
8. McDougal, M. S., & Burke, W. T. (1987) The Public Order of the Oceans. A Contemporary International Law of the Sea. New Haven/Dordrecht: New Press/Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
9. O'Connell, D.P. (1982). The International Law of the Sea. (2nd ed., Vol. I). edited by I.A. Shearer, Oxford: The Clarendon Press.
10. Saunders, S. (2015). IHS Jane's Fighting Ships 2015-2016. (116th ed.). s.l. IHS Jane's.
11. Tanaka, Y. (2019). The International Law of the Sea. (3rd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
12. Thomas, A. R. & Duncan C. (1997). Annotated Supplement to the Commander’s Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations. International Law Studies 73, Newport, Rhode Island: US Naval War College.

1. B) Articles
2. Barnes, R. A. (2017). Commentary on Article 29 in United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea: A Commentary, edited by Alexander Proelss, Munich/Oxford/Baden-Baden: C.H. Beck; Hart, 241-244.
3. Bhala, R. (2014). Fighting Iran with Trade Sanctions. Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law, 31 (2), 251-356.
4. Beaucillon, C. (2016). Practice Makes Perfect Eventually? Unilateral State Sanctions and the Extraterritorial Effects of National Legislation. In Coercive Diplomacy, Sanctions and International Law, edited by Natalino Ronzitti, Leiden/Boston: Brill Nijhoff, 103-126.
5. Delupis, I. (1984). Foreign Warships and Immunity for Espionage, American Journal of International Law. 78 (1), 53-75.
6. Gauci, G. M. (2021). The Ship as an Extension of Flag State Territory and an Entity with Human Attributes – Is it time to jettison these Legal Fictions? International and Comparative Law Review, 21 (2), 7–28.
7. Georgantas, C. (2021). Implications of Secondary Sanctions on the Shipping Industry: The Extraterritorial Crunch Reshaping International Trade. Houston Journal of International Law, 44(1), 105-134.
8. Guilfoyle, D. (2013). Commentary on Article 16. In The United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property: A Commentary, edited by Roger O'Keefe and Christian J. Tams Antonios Tzanakopoulos, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 259-276.
9. Guilfoyle, D. (2017). Commentary on Article 95. In United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea: A Commentary, edited by Alexander Proelss, Munich/ Oxford/Baden-Baden: C.H. Beck; Hart, 714-717.
10. Goldman, Z., & Lindblom, A. (2021). The US Position and Practice With Regards To Unilateral and Extraterritorial Sanctions: Reimagining the US Sanctions Regime in a World of Advanced Technology. In Research Handbook on Unilateral and Extraterritorial Sanctions, edited by Charlotte Beaucillon, Edward Elgar Publishing, 130-147.
11. Helal, M.S. (2019). On coercion in international law. New York University Journal of International Law and Politics, 52 (1), 1-122.
12. La Fayette, L. (1996). Access to Ports in International Law. International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law 11 (1), 1-22.
13. Luke, Ivan T. (2013). Naval Operations in Peacetime: Not Just Warfare Lite. Naval War College Review, 66 (2), 11-26.
14. Lowe, A.V. (1977). The Right of Entry into International Maritime Ports in International Law. San Diego Law Review, 14 (3), 597-622.
15. McDorman, T. L. (2015). Sovereign Immune Vessels: Immunities, Responsibilities and Exemptions. In Jurisdiction over Ships; Post-UNCLOS Developments in the Law of the Sea, edited by Henrik Ringbom, Leiden/Boston: Brill Nijhoff, 82-102.
16. Oxman, B. H. (1984). The Regime of Warships under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Virginia Journal of International Law, 24 (4), 809-863.
17. Ronzitti, N. (2016). Sanctions as Instruments of Coercive Diplomacy: An International Law Perspective. In, Coercive Diplomacy, Sanctions and International Law, edited by Natalino Ronzitti, Leiden/Boston: Brill Nijhoff, 1-32.
18. Ruys, T. & Ryngaert, C. (2020). Secondary Sanctions: A Weapon out of Control? The International Legality of, and European Responses to, US Secondary Sanctions. British Yearbook of International Law, (89), 1–116.
19. Stewart, D. P. (2011). The Immunity of State Officials under the UN Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property. Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, 44 (4), 1046-1071.
20. Venturini, G. (1988). Commentary on the 1907 Hague Convention VII relating to the Conversion of Merchant Ships into War-Ships. In The Law of Naval Warfare. A Collection of Agreements and Documents with Commentaries, edited by Natalino Ronzitti, Dordrecht/ London/Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 120-128.
21. Vego, M. (2008). On Naval Power. Joint Force Quarterly, 50 (3), 8–17.
22. Vitányi, B. (1963). L'immunité des navires d'état-I, Netherlands International Law Review, 10 (2), 33 – 61.

1. C) Cases
2. Allianz Via Insurance v. United States of America (1999). Judgment of 3 September 1999, [France] Cour d’appel, Aix-en-Provence, 2nd Chamber, International Law Reports, 127, 148 – 153.
3. Argentina v. Ghana (2012). [ARA Libertad Case], Provisional Measures, Order of 15 December 2012, ITLOS Reports 2012, 332-351.
4. Germany v. Italy: Greece intervening (2012) [Jurisdictional Immunities of the State], Judgment of 3 February 2012, ICJ Reports 2012, 99-156.
5. Nicaragua v. United States (1986). [Case Concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities in and Against Nicaragua], Merits, Judgment of 27 June1986, ICJ Reports 1986, 392-443.
6. Saint Vincent and the Grenadines v. Guinea (1999). [MV Saiga Case (No. 2)], Judgment of 1 July 1999, ITLOS Reports 1999, 10-76.
7. Saudi Arabia v. Arabian American Oil Company (1958) [Aramco Case], Award of 23 August 1958, 27 International Law Reports, 117-223.
8. Schooner Exchange v. McFaddon (1812). Opinion of the United States Supreme Court delivered by Chief Justice Marshall. 11 U.S. (7 Cranch) 116. Reprinted in Sohn, Louis B., John E. Noyes, Erik Franckx, and Kristen G. Juras Cases and Materials on the Law of the Sea (2nd ed.). Leiden/Boston: Brill Nijhoff, 362-364
9. Ukraine v. Russian Federation (2019). [Case Concerning the Detention of Three Ukrainian Naval Vessels], Provisional Measures, Order of 25 May 2019, ITLOS Reports 2019, 283-313.
10. Ukraine v. the Russian Federation (2022). [Dispute Concerning the Detention of Ukrainian Naval Vessels and Servicemen], Preliminary Objections, Award of 27 June 2022 available at https://pcacases.com/web/sendAttach/38096
11. United States of America v. Oil Tanker - Grace 1 [A/K/A “Adrian Darya 1,” F/K/A “Grace 1”] et al. (2020). United States District Court for the District of Columbia, Case No.19-1989 (JEB), Memorandum Opinion of 7 August 2020 re Order on Motion for Default Judgment available at https://storage.courtlistener.com/pdf/2020/08/07/united_states_v._oil_tanker_-_grace_1.pdf
12. United States of America v. The Bulk Cargo Carrier Known as the Wise Honest (2019). United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, Case No.1:19-cv-04210 (PKC), Judgment of 21 October 2019 [Judgment of Forfeiture] avilable at https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.515241/gov.uscourts.nysd.515241.22.0.pdf
13. United States of America V. All Petroleum-Product Cargo Aboard the Bella et al. (2021). United States District Court for the District of Columbia, Case No. 20-1791 (JEB), Judgment of 1 October 2021 [Order on Motion for Default Judgment] available at https://storage.courtlistener.com/pdf/2021/10/01/united_states_v._all_petroleum-product_cargo_aboard_the_bella_with.pdf
14. United States of America V. All Petroleum-Product Cargo Aboard the Suez Rajan (2023). United States District Court for the District of Columbia, Case No. 23-882 (CJN), Judgment of 18 December 2023 [Default Judgent and Order of Forfeiture] available at https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.dcd.253707/gov.uscourts.dcd.253707.14.2_1.pdf

1. D) Documents
2. Convention VII relating to the Conversion of Merchant Ships into War-Ships, signed at The Hague, 18 October 1907. Reprinted In The Law of Naval Warfare. A Collection of Agreements and Documents with Commentaries, edited by Natalino Ronzitti, Dordrecht, London and Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 111-119.
3. Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone, signed at Geneva, 29 April 1958, UNTS, 516 (No. 7477), 205-224.
4. Convention on the High Seas, signed at Geneva, 29 April 1958, UNTS, 450 (No. 6465), 82-102
5. Despacho Decisório MB nº 5 de 13 de janeiro de 2023, in Diário Oficial da União (Official Gazette of Brazil), Edition 14, Section 1, p.6 available at https://www.in.gov.br/web/dou/-/despacho-decisorio-mb-n-5-de-13-de-janeiro-de-2023-458733048
6. Despacho Decisório MB nº 12 de 23 de fevereiro de 2023, in Diário Oficial da União (Official Gazette of Brazil), Edition 38, Section 1, p. 9 available at https://www.in.gov.br/web/dou/-/despacho-decisorio-mb-n-5-de-13-de-janeiro-de-2023-458733048
7. Executive Order 13599 of February 5, 2012 [issued by the US President] - Blocking Property of the Government of Iran and Iranian Financial Institutions, Title 3 Code of Federal Regulations, Federal Register, 77 (No. 26), 6659-6662.
8. Executive Order 13846 of August 6, 2018 [issued by the US President] - Reimposing Certain Sanctions With Respect to Iran, Title 3 Code of Federal Regulations, Federal Register, 83 (No. 152), 38939- 38949.
9. International Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules relating to the Immunity of State-owned Vessels, signed at Brussels, April 10th 1926, and Additional Protocol, signed at Brussels, 24 May 1934, LNTS, 176 (CLXXVI), 199-220.
10. Institut de Droit International (1928) Règlement sur le régime des navires de mer et de leurs équipages dans les ports étrangers en temps de paix, Résolutions votées par l’Institut au cours de sa Session de Stockholm, 28 août 1928, Annuaire, 34 (1928), 736-753.
11. Iran Freedom and Counter-Proliferation Act (2012) [enacted by the US Congress as Public Law 112–239] Subtitle D-Iran Sanctions (Secs.1241–1255) of the National Defense Authorization Act for the Fiscal Year 2013, adopted 2 January 2014 [22 USC Ch. 95 : Iran Freedom And Counterproliferation, Secs. 8801-8811] available at chroment extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://ofac.treasury.gov/media/30671/download?inline
12. Iranian Transactions and Sanctions Regulations [issued by the US Department of the Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control], 22 October 2012, Title 31 Code of Federal Regulations, Part 560 and Appendix A to Chapter V, Federal Register, 77 (No. 204), 64664-64692.
13. Notice on Changes to Sanctions Lists Administered by the Office of Foreign Assets Control on Implementation Day under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action [issued by US Department of the Treasury, Office of Foreign Assets Control], 16 January 2016, Federal Register, 81 (No. 49), 13562-13606.
14. San Remo Manual [on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea] (1995), Prepared by International Lawyers and Naval Experts Convened by the International Institute of Humanitarian Law, edited by Louise Doswald-Beck, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
15. United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, signed at Montego Bay, 10 December 1982, UNTS, 1833 (I-31363), 396-581.
16. United Nations Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property, adopted 3 June 2004, signed in New York on 17 January 2005, International Legal Materials, 44(4), 803-814.
17. United States Code (n.d.). Title 18, Chapter 46, Sec. 981 - Civil forfeiture. Available at https://home.treasury.gov/system/files/246/18usc981.pdf

1. E) Internet Sources
2. Associated Press (2023, March 3). “Iranian warships in Rio de Janeiro stirring concerns abroad” https://apnews.com/article/iran-ships-brazil-us-navy-rio-de-janeiro-2b6d98aca758c040e5e75293a05d9db9
3. DA News (2023, April 3). “Iranian war ships – ANC government puts South Africa at significant risk of sanctions” https://www.da.org.za/2023/04/iranian-war-ships-anc-government-puts-south-africa-at-significant-risk-of-sanctions
4. Government of Gibraltar (2019, August 18), “Further Mutual Legal Assistance Requests from the United States of America”. https://www.gibraltar.gov.gi/press-releases/further-mutual-legal-assistance-requests-from-the-united-states-of-america-6042019-5198
5. Maritime Executive (2021, January 14). “Iran Unveils its Largest Naval Vessel Yet - A Converted Tanker”. https://www.maritime-executive.com/article/iran-unveils-its-largest-naval-vessel-yet-a-converted-tanker
6. Reuters (2023, February 27). “Brazil allows two Iranian warships to dock in Rio despite US pressure” https://www.reuters.com/world/brazil-allows-two-iranian-warships-dock-rio-despite-us-pressure-2023-02-27/
7. S. Department of the Treasury (2023, February 3). “Treasury Sanctions Board of Directors of Iranian UAV Manufacturer and Warships” [Press Release] https://home.treasury.gov/news/press-releases/jy1246