The Encyclopedia of Comparative Jurisprudence and Law

Although various scholarly works have addressed the concept of the purchase price and methods of payment, there has been no effective analysis from a damage-assessment perspective regarding the obstacles to payment. Therefore, the central focus of this article is to examine the obstacles to the payment of the purchase price under Iranian law and in international sales contracts. Additionally, it seeks to answer the fundamental question: What effect does the identification of these obstacles have on the conduct of contracting parties with regard to the principles of binding force and validity of the contract? According to Paragraph 1 of Article 362 of the Iranian Civil Code, "upon the conclusion of a sale, the buyer becomes the owner of the sold property and the seller becomes the owner of the purchase price." This rule is one of the legal effects of a valid contract of sale, and the establishment of ownership over both the subject matter and the price must be continuous and permanent for both contracting parties (in both domestic and international sales). Therefore, the “purchase price” is exchanged with the “sold item,” and the buyer is obligated to pay and fulfill their commitment. Consequently, the purchase price constitutes one of the two fundamental pillars of a sales contract, which may, at times, encounter barriers that alter the execution process of the contract. Such disruptions may lead to termination, annulment, or even the formation of a new contract. These barriers can be voluntary and based on mutual agreement, compulsory or coercive, statutory, or even unforeseeable.

Upstream service contracts in Iran’s oil and gas industry have been designed as instruments to attract investment and technology without compromising the state’s sovereignty and ownership over natural resources. This article aims to analyze the legal principles governing such contracts by examining key dimensions including state ownership preservation, cost recovery mechanisms, reservoir conservation, project-specific return rates, procurement transparency, domestic capacity utilization, and environmental obligations. The findings indicate that the success and legitimacy of these contracts depend on structural designs that align with national interests, constitutional provisions, macro policies, and principles of international law. Accordingly, reforming the current contractual frameworks with a focus on transparency, contractual justice, environmental responsibility, and domestic participation is a vital necessity for sustainable development in Iran’s oil sector.

One of the most fundamental topics in constitutional law is "sovereignty." In this descriptive-analytical study, "national sovereignty" has been selected as one of the subcategories of the broader concept of sovereignty, and its position in the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran has been examined and analyzed. The aim of this research is to answer the following questions: What are the foundations of sovereignty in the legal system of pure Islam? What type of sovereignty has been accepted by the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran? How are popular sovereignty and religious sovereignty compatible with each other? Do the people confer legitimacy upon sovereignty in the Islamic Republic, or not? What effect does the principle of elections, as an immutable principle, have on sovereignty? Is sovereignty attributed to God? Is sovereignty attributed to the people? Is sovereignty attributed to the Supreme Jurist (Vali-e-Faqih)? How are the majority vote and the opinion of the Supreme Jurist reconciled in a theocratic government? The findings of the research show that referenda and plebiscites (Article 59), the election of the Leader and the Supreme Jurist through a two-tiered process (Article 107), the election of the President (Articles 114 and 117), the election of the members of the Islamic Consultative Assembly (Articles 58 and 62), the election of local council members (Articles 7 and 100), the election of the members of the Assembly of Experts (Article 108), and the approval or rejection of the Constitutional Revision Council’s decisions (Article 177), are all manifestations of national sovereignty as enshrined in the Constitution.

Cyberspace, as one of the most significant phenomena of the digital era, plays a pivotal role in facilitating communication, expanding businesses, and providing access to information. Simultaneously, filtering policies and internet restrictions have introduced serious challenges to user privacy and fundamental rights. The purpose of this study is to examine the impacts of internet filtering on users' privacy and to analyze the associated legal, social, and jurisprudential dimensions. This research adopts a descriptive-analytical approach, utilizing analysis of national and international laws, jurisprudential principles such as the "no-harm" rule (La Darar), and a comparative study of filtering policies in China, Singapore, and Iran. The findings revealed that non-transparent and broad filtering policies can lead to significant violations of privacy, reduced access to reliable information, severe restrictions on freedom of expression, and disruption of the digital economy. Moreover, these policies diminish public trust and increase reliance on illegal tools such as VPNs. In contrast, the use of intelligent technologies, the development of transparent legislation, and the implementation of targeted content management tools can establish an effective balance between security and privacy, thereby restoring user trust in cyberspace governance policies.

Citizenship rights constitute one of the fundamental pillars of any civil society, providing the necessary conditions for a dignified and humane life as a set of rights and freedoms. These rights are shaped by cultural, social, and religious factors in different societies and are interpreted and implemented within diverse legal systems. Among these, Islamic jurisprudence, as a comprehensive and authoritative legal framework, plays a significant role in defining and elucidating citizenship rights. On the other hand, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), as an international document, outlines universal principles and standards for human rights. This declaration particularly emphasizes individual, social, and political freedoms, aiming to promote human dignity on a global scale. The analysis of citizenship rights from the perspectives of Islamic jurisprudence and the UDHR, with a focus on legitimate freedoms, explores the strengths and existing challenges in both frameworks. Islamic jurisprudence, on the one hand, emphasizes ethical and religious values, acknowledges citizenship rights, and upholds principles such as justice, equality, and respect for human dignity. On the other hand, the UDHR adopts a secular and universal approach, seeking to safeguard human rights for all individuals regardless of religion, race, or nationality. The concept of freedom as understood in Islamic legal sources is general in nature and fundamentally differs from the concept of freedom as envisioned by Western thinkers and articulated in the UDHR. While there may be similarities in meaning and scope, the foundational perspectives diverge significantly. According to the Iranian legal system, which is derived from Islamic jurisprudence, absolute freedom is not recognized. Instead, freedom must be accompanied by human dignity, an Islamic worldview, consideration of the afterlife, and the avoidance of promoting immorality and vice in society. Conversely, the notion of freedom in the UDHR is restricted by only one condition: non-infringement upon the rights and freedoms of others. It appears that the constraints on legitimate freedoms in Islamic jurisprudence and the UDHR are not identical. In Islamic jurisprudence, the concept of citizenship is formally recognized. Citizens possess various rights and responsibilities, and the government is obligated to uphold these rights and require citizens to fulfill their responsibilities.

Judicial security, as one of the fundamental pillars of the rule of law, ensures both criminal and civil justice and is considered essential for safeguarding individual rights and personal security. The realization of this principle requires the structural and functional independence of the judiciary, transparency in the adjudication process, effective oversight of judges' performance, and a systematic fight against corruption within the judicial system. This study, through examining the challenges to judicial security in Iran, reveals that organizational and financial dependence of the judiciary on the executive branch, political and security interferences in legal proceedings, delays in case processing, a weak transparency framework, and ineffective judicial oversight are among the most significant barriers to achieving judicial security in Iran. A comparative analysis with the legal systems of the United States and France indicates that the establishment of independent bodies for appointing and overseeing judges, the reinforcement of jury authority, public disclosure of court decisions, enhancement of financial transparency among judicial officials, and the reduction of political influence in legal proceedings are among the most critical factors contributing to judicial security. In contrast, an examination of the legal systems of Turkey and Afghanistan demonstrates that the erosion of judicial independence, the spread of corruption, and the absence of effective oversight have led to the weakening of the legitimacy of judicial rulings and a decline in public trust in the judiciary. This research, by proposing solutions such as reforming the judge appointment and promotion process, establishing independent supervisory commissions, structurally combating judicial corruption, developing electronic adjudication systems, and strengthening the role of juries, emphasizes the necessity of implementing fundamental reforms within Iran’s judicial system. The study’s findings indicate that achieving justice and restoring public trust in the judiciary will not be possible without ensuring independence, transparency, and efficiency in the structure and functioning of the judicial apparatus.

The labor procedural system, as one of the vital pillars of labor law, plays a crucial role in ensuring the rights of both workers and employers and in realizing justice and fairness within labor relations. The aim of this study is to examine and critique Iran’s labor justice system from the perspectives of justice and fairness through a comparative analysis with the labor justice system in England. The findings of this research revealed that Iran's labor justice system, in comparison to the English system, suffers from deficiencies and shortcomings. Although efforts have been made in Iran’s Labor Law and the procedural rules of labor dispute resolution authorities to limit the dismissal of workers and ensure job security, in many cases, due to the general nature of the legal provisions, it has not been possible to distinguish between unlawful dismissal and unjustified termination. Moreover, the practice of the Administrative Justice Court, as the judicial authority overseeing this institution, does not align with the conventions and recommendations of the International Labour Organization (ILO) that have been ratified and implemented in Iran. On the other hand, in England, where such conventions and recommendations have been adopted and are binding, workers' rights are better protected.

The liability of physicians for medical errors is one of the oldest topics in medical law, which, as an accepted principle, grants the patient the right to seek compensation from the physician for damages resulting from a contract or criminal act. The medical system boards serve as venues for addressing patient complaints regarding damages caused by medical services. This review process generally involves receiving the complaint, examining documents, creating a case file, holding review sessions, and ultimately issuing a final ruling. The present study, conducted using a descriptive-analytical method through library research and note-taking, explores the procedures for handling claims and the basis for compensating damages according to medical system laws and regulations, as well as the specific conditions of each case. This process may include medical, legal, and social assessments of the damage to the patient, reviewing medical care standards, and comparing them to the actions taken. The outcome of this review may result in the approval or rejection of the patient's claim, as well as the obligation of the physician to provide compensation. However, the performance of these boards and the success rate of patients in obtaining compensation is an issue that requires further examination and evaluation.