The Encyclopedia of Comparative Jurisprudence and Law

Robotics technology is constantly evolving and promises numerous benefits for the future of humanity. All these advancements are defined through interaction with human society. However, this interaction can be a source of both benefit and harm, which underscores the necessity of legal frameworks to regulate the relationships between robots and society. Civil liability is one of the most significant topics in civil law, particularly due to the conflict of individual rights in industrial societies. Robots are capable of interacting with humans across various domains, and such interactions create a context in which harm and benefit may arise. The discussion on civil liability stemming from robotic surgeries in medicine directs us toward a re-evaluation of traditional legal doctrines and invites a detailed analysis of the distinct and specialized elements of robotic and remote surgeries in medical contexts. This paper employs a descriptive-analytical method, and the author seeks to, alongside explaining the theoretical foundations governing the civil liability of surgical teams in robotic surgeries, distinguish between software and hardware malfunctions that disrupt surgical procedures and may result in harm to patients, potentially leading to their death. The paper further aims to delineate differentiated civil liability rules for surgical teams based on the consequences of each type of malfunction. It will be argued that the commission or omission of a harmful act by a robot entails liability, and depending on the case, the human agent shall be held accountable based on the “theory of respect” and obliged to compensate for the damage, as the robot lacks legal or natural personhood and cannot bear liability.

The aim of this study is to examine the impact and role of signs in polarizing the relationship among citizens, the media, and politicians within the triangle of political communication. This research addresses both the theoretical dimension of semiotics in political communication and its practical application in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. The victory of Donald Trump in 2016 has been interpreted as a “failure of the print media.” Out of 260 high-circulation newspapers, only 10 local papers supported him. Chantal Mouffe views politics as the “arena of contestation over meaning” and interprets political semiotics through the lens of attaining power, defining it as follows: the display of power relations within sign systems where social identities are constructed can be considered political semiotics. The condition of signs may change based on their degree of deprivation and distance from centers of power. Since these conditions express specific structures of power, they can thus be referred to as “political semiotics.” Elections represent the most prominent form of political participation by the people. In today’s electoral campaigns, citizens and voters encounter a complex system of signs composed of symbols, icons, and indices. The diversity in sign production and the transmission of meaning within the latent codes of political communication among citizens, media, and politicians has led to a polarized environment and an imbalance of power among these three key actors. For this reason, in the 2016 U.S. election, the most reputable polling institutions, the largest news networks, the most widely circulated newspapers and magazines, and political think tanks all predicted Hillary Clinton’s victory and publicly endorsed her. However, to the astonishment of the global community, it was faced with the phenomenon known as “Donald Trump,” who became the 45th President of the United States. Donald Trump emerged as a composite figure—symbolic, indexical, and iconic—that materialized in the semiotic system of the 2016 election, whereas Hillary Clinton (a member of the elite academic class) was portrayed merely as a feminist symbol.

Islamic jurisprudence, relying on traditional sources, has established protective frameworks for children in armed conflicts. However, modern warfare—with characteristics such as advanced technologies, asymmetric tactics, and indirect forms of harm—has introduced instances of harm to children for which no explicit textual references exist in classical jurisprudential literature. This absence of specific textual provisions has limited the jurisprudential system’s ability to offer practical solutions for child protection and has posed fundamental challenges to aligning traditional legal rules with contemporary realities. Using a descriptive-analytical method, this study demonstrates that concepts such as "direct participation" or "military necessity" in classical Islamic jurisprudence are insufficient to address the indirect roles of children (such as cyber espionage) or widespread consequences like economic blockades and psychological trauma. Consequently, the necessity of developing a dynamic jurisprudence grounded in the maqāṣid al-sharīʿah (objectives of Islamic law), such as the preservation of life and justice, is emphasized. This requires a redefinition of key concepts and constructive engagement with international legal instruments in order to fill interpretive gaps and ensure tangible protection for children.

The Guardian Council—without which the Islamic Consultative Assembly (Parliament) lacks legal validity—was established to safeguard the provisions of Islam and the Constitution. Since this safeguarding includes various stages and even extends to executive matters and practical supervision, the Constitution limits this function solely to verifying the conformity of parliamentary enactments with Islamic rulings or the Constitution, and not to nullifying them. The present article, adopting a descriptive-analytical approach and utilizing a library-based research method, aims to examine the supervisory function of the Guardian Council by addressing the question: What is the legal basis for the Guardian Council's supervisory duties in assessing the conformity of prior and subsequent laws with Sharia and the Constitution, and for their annulment? Given that the annulment of laws without defining a replacement leads to societal disorder and confusion, this study proposes the reinstatement of Article 1309 of the Civil Code as a legal innovation. Such reinstatement may contribute to promoting the rule of law, reducing governmental costs, and preventing disruptions in public order.

In recent decades, economic and financial crimes have become one of the most critical challenges in both domestic and international criminal law. While these two types of crimes are often used interchangeably in legal texts, a more precise examination of their concepts and instances within the Iranian legal system reveals fundamental distinctions between them. This article adopts an analytical-descriptive method and is based on library sources to conduct a detailed comparison and analysis of the legal and criminological concepts, elements, consequences, and characteristics of economic and financial crimes. The article first defines each of these crimes conceptually and then, by examining differentiation criteria such as the subject matter of the crime, the breadth of victim impact, the mental element, the possibility of pardon, prosecution methods, and their socio-economic consequences, elucidates the points of divergence and convergence. Subsequently, through the analysis of relevant legal provisions—especially in the Islamic Penal Code of 2013 and other specific laws—the article highlights the ineffectiveness of current definitions and the lack of clear articulation in Iran’s legislative criminal policy. Ultimately, it offers suggestions for conceptual clarification, the establishment of a comprehensive classification system, and the reinforcement of differentiated criminal policy. This study demonstrates that a clear distinction between economic and financial crimes is a necessary step toward enhancing the efficiency of the criminal justice system and promoting economic integrity in the country.

With the emergence of new technologies at the dawn of the 21st century, a novel form of electronic contracts known as “smart contracts” has entered the realm of digital interactions. These contracts, which are designed based on distributed ledger technology (blockchain), programming code, and in some cases the Internet of Things (IoT), enable automatic execution without the need for human intervention, thus creating a fundamental transformation in the traditional structure of contractual obligations. Despite their unique technical features, smart contracts pose serious challenges in the realm of determining the applicable law and resolving disputes arising from them, particularly in cross-border contexts. The fundamental question is whether classical rules of private international law—especially conflict of laws rules—are capable of addressing the complexities inherent in smart contracts. This study, adopting an analytical–comparative approach, examines the foundations and criteria for determining the governing law applicable to smart contracts within the Iranian legal system and compares them with the Rome I Regulation in the European Union. The findings indicate that if the governing law is explicitly determined at the stage of coding the contract by the parties, the conflict of laws can be effectively managed. However, in the absence of such an agreement, dispute resolution bodies are compelled to resort to general rules of determining the applicable law, which, in Iranian law, still face significant gaps in this regard. The Rome I Regulation, particularly Articles 3 and 4, offers more precise solutions for determining the applicable law in the absence of an agreement and can be considered a suitable model for the development of Iran’s domestic legal framework concerning digital contracts.

Absolute criminal liability refers to the conviction and punishment of an offender without the necessity of fully establishing the mental element or the customary and required fault in the criminal process, whether the absence of such requirement is due to its elimination, presumption, or reduction. Based on this principle, the present study aims to examine purely material offenses in the legal systems of Iran and England. This research is of a descriptive–analytical and comparative nature. Accordingly, the study employed a library-based and documentary research method. The analysis of information was conducted through deductive reasoning and in a comparative framework. Iranian legal scholars, although familiar with and connected to Western legal systems, have occasionally addressed this subject in a limited and marginal manner in their writings and publications. However, judicial authorities have not shown significant sensitivity toward this matter. In contrast to the judicial institutions in England, it can be claimed that within the scope of Iran's criminal justice system, the mentioned rule is rather unfamiliar and has not been institutionalized. At most, what can be inferred from the interpretations of legal scholars and the few judicial decisions available is that criminal liability without fault has been considered on a case-by-case basis, with vague content and scope. Nevertheless, similar to the English criminal system, where the domain of such offenses is broad and can be legally and practically observed across various areas, in Iranian criminal law as well, there are numerous codified laws aligned with the philosophical foundation of offenses without fault.

In the contemporary era, the concept of "good governance" has replaced the traditional notion of absolute sovereignty by emphasizing responsibility, transparency, and accountability in relation to human rights. This article, using a descriptive-analytical approach, examines the characteristics of good governance from the perspective of international law and human rights. Findings indicate that states must uphold their international human rights obligations by adhering to the principles of good governance, including the rule of law, citizen participation, and social justice. This shift in perspective has led to a transformation in the concept of sovereignty and strengthened international oversight mechanisms. In the field of international law, as in other areas, good governance is not considered an independent or self-sufficient principle but is instead founded upon other values and principles. Within this field, good governance is based on four key pillars: the rule of law, accountability, participation, and transparency. Although other components of good governance have also been identified in the context of international law, it is in the light of the existence and realization of these four primary components that additional aspects of good governance—such as anti-corruption and effectiveness—can manifest and evolve. This study, written with a descriptive and analytical method, aims to explore the role of good governance in realizing human rights. The results demonstrate that the four components—rule of law, accountability, participation, and transparency—are all intrinsically related to human rights and are universally recognized within the international human rights system. Therefore, the concept of good governance in the realm of international law has been effectively integrated under the umbrella of human rights. Human rights provide a strong legal basis for good governance in international law and have rendered it binding upon the subjects of this legal system. With respect to the possibility of realizing good governance in international law, there is little doubt concerning the feasibility of achieving participation, accountability, and transparency. However, since international law is not entirely independent from politics, the potential for fully establishing the rule of law within this legal system warrants further contemplation. The notion of good governance brings together the values of rule of law, accountability, participation, and transparency under a unified concept, allowing each to contribute its capacities to overcoming the barriers faced by the others.