The Encyclopedia of Comparative Jurisprudence and Law

One of the most essential human needs in life is his financial needs. Without paying attention to such needs, life will not last. This is the reason that throughout human history, he puts his best effort into economic activities. The religion of Islam beautifully approves such activities and refers to it as holy jihad. In the Mobin religion of Islam, the purpose of economic activity is to get close to God and get His pleasure. In this regard, the health of the family, the individual and the society is in the direction of social justice and true justice. This essay seeks to examine the foundations of disruption in the economic system from the perspective of jurisprudence with a descriptive analytical method and citing sources of Islamic jurisprudence.

In the Holy Qur'an, Karrat is mentioned as a corruptor on earth, but it is not explicitly included as a punishment. In this essay, with analytical and descriptive method, we investigate corruption on earth as a punishment for the crime of disrupting the economic system in the sources of Islamic jurisprudence, because the law of Iran is derived from jurisprudence and its root and foundation is based on the religion of Islam. It is revealed in the legislation, and the purpose of this research is to discuss whether, according to jurisprudence, there is a proportionality between the crime committed and the criminal title and its punishment or not? Criminalization of corruption in the land as a crime independent of muharibeh. And considering the death penalty for it seems somewhat illogical in criminal laws; First of all, the title of corruption in the land is not mentioned independently in any of the jurisprudence books, and the jurists have brought it under the title of moharebeh, and the argument that there is no connection between the proof of Sharia rulings and their meaning is not in the words of the jurists.

The purpose of this research is to examine the concept of the necessity of transformation of the action and the conditions for its realization in order to permit third-party impleader at the appellate stage, with a comparative study of French law. One of the incidental actions involving a third party is the action for third-party impleader. In a third-party impleader action, one of the litigants, based on certain reasons and interests, determines that a third person must be summoned into the case. The plaintiff or defendant who summons the third party is called the “impleading party,” and the third person is called the “impleaded party.” By bringing an impleader action at the appellate stage, the impleaded third party does not have the opportunity to lodge an objection or file an appeal of their own, and the judgment rendered at the appellate stage becomes final. In comparing this subject with third-party intervention at the appellate stage, it should be noted that an intervening third party voluntarily joins the action and, in effect, accepts that the adjudication of their claim will proceed in only one instance at the appellate level, and that the judgment becomes final thereafter. However, no such voluntary intent exists in the case of the impleaded party, and this constitutes one of the deficiencies of allowing impleader at the appellate stage. Moreover, this practice contradicts the principle of adversarial procedure and the equality of the parties’ right of defense. In addition, given the compelled presence of the third party during appellate proceedings, the impleaded party has no right to object to the judgment after it is issued. This legal possibility may be abused, as the impleading party might intentionally submit a third-party impleader petition at the appellate stage in order to deprive the third party of their appellate and defensive rights. One measure to prevent such misuse is to restrict the possibility of impleader by creating specific conditions, such as the emergence of a new element stemming from the trial court’s judgment or arising after its issuance. For this reason, French law has restricted this possibility, and third-party impleader cannot be raised absolutely at the appellate level. According to Article 555 of the French Code of Civil Procedure, “these persons (third parties) may be summoned before the court of appeal when the transformation of the action entails that they be made a party, even for the purpose of securing a judgment against them” (Code de procédure civile, 1975). Thus, there must be an intention to transform the action, and such transformation must necessitate the impleader of the third party. Transformation of the action occurs when circumstances arise in which new facts regarding a right or an act are discovered. Nevertheless, the French Court of Cassation, based on the principle of two degrees of jurisdiction, has limited the initiation of third-party impleader at the appellate stage.

Civil liability is the responsibility that arises when damage is inflicted, requiring the party causing the harm to compensate for it. Civil liability signifies the obligation to pay compensation for losses. Based on the principle of civil liability, a specific relationship is formed between the injurer and the injured party, namely the obligation to compensate for the damage. Therefore, civil liability in its broad and general sense encompasses both contractual and non-contractual liability, since in both cases the central issue concerns compensation for losses. The objective of the present study is to examine the methods of compensating damages in force majeure events, considering the role of the state in Iranian and American law. Providing a precise definition of natural disasters is difficult due to the numerous examples, each with different characteristics. It appears that for an event to be classified as a natural disaster, it must be unforeseeable, unavoidable, and not attributable to any party. The findings of this study indicate that the civil liability of the state in natural disasters constitutes a collective responsibility; it is the responsibility of human beings toward one another, with the state acting as an intermediary in this regard. In the occurrence of force majeure events and natural disasters, negligence and failure in preventive measures, as well as deficiencies in the enforcement of laws, in some cases impose civil liability on public officials and service institutions, obligating them to compensate for resulting losses. In the American legal system, the principle of full compensation for damages is recognized.

This article examines Iran’s criminal policy regarding customs crimes and offenses. The country’s criminal policies in this area have undergone significant transformations over the years, influenced by economic, social, and international developments. One of the main objectives of this study is to analyze the existing laws in this field, including the Law on Combating Smuggling of Goods and Foreign Exchange (2013) and the Customs Affairs Law (2011), as well as to identify their implementation challenges and obstacles. Using a library-based and descriptive–analytical method, this study analyzes the relevant laws and policies aimed at combating goods smuggling and customs violations, and ultimately assesses the performance of the institutions involved in this domain. The findings indicate that, despite the enactment of multiple laws and legal reforms intended to counter smuggling and customs offenses, significant challenges persist in enforcement and supervision. These challenges primarily arise from the lack of coordination among various institutions, the ambiguity in distinguishing between customs violations and crimes, and the administrative complexities associated with precise implementation of the law. Moreover, the imposition of severe penalties without adequate consideration of the specific characteristics of each offense or crime has, in some cases, resulted in adverse economic and social consequences. Finally, this article emphasizes the necessity of legislative and administrative reforms to enhance the efficiency of Iran’s criminal policy in addressing customs-related crimes.

The present study comparatively examines the impact of artificial sleep (hypnosis) and the use of narcotic drugs on the legal classification of homicide (intentional, semi-intentional, and pure error) within the Iranian criminal justice system. The significance of this research lies in the fact that both conditions—by disrupting an individual’s consciousness and will—can alter the legal characterization of a homicide offense. Given the sensitivity of homicide in Iran’s legal and jurisprudential framework and its close association with criminal justice, it is essential to analyze the psychological, neurological, and legal dimensions of these phenomena. This study employs a descriptive–analytical and comparative approach. Data were collected through a comprehensive review of jurisprudential sources, Iranian criminal law (particularly Articles 153 and 290 of the Islamic Penal Code), and findings from neuroscience and psychology. The results indicate that both hypnosis and narcotic substances lead to a reduction in the level of consciousness and a partial or complete dissolution of free will. In hypnosis, due to the involuntary nature of suggestion and the absence of independent intent, Article 153 of the Islamic Penal Code can be invoked to grant full exemption from criminal responsibility. However, in the case of narcotic substances, because their consumption is typically voluntary, criminal liability generally remains intact. Nevertheless, in certain circumstances—such as severe intoxication or drug-induced hallucination—the classification of homicide may shift to semi-intentional or pure error. The fundamental distinction is that artificial sleep possesses a scientific–therapeutic dimension, whereas drug use is intertwined with broad social consequences, including addiction and criminal behavior. The findings suggest that Iranian criminal law adopts a more flexible stance toward hypnosis while maintaining a strict policy toward narcotic substances. This contrast reflects the legislator’s effort to balance the preservation of public order with the pursuit of criminal justice. Conducting such studies can contribute to enriching the literature of criminal law and enhancing judicial practice.

The principle of contractual binding and the non-dissolution of contracts—referred to as Asālat al-Luzūm—is among the general principles governing all contracts, and it remains effective except in cases where it has been specifically limited by the legislator. One of the notable exceptions to this principle, which leads to the instability of contracts, is the disturbance in the balance of the value of mutual considerations (ʿiwaḍayn). The question of what constitutes the rationale and foundation for deviation from the principle of binding force of contracts, in cases where the equivalence of considerations is absent, remains unanswered with precision and comprehensiveness despite its significant importance and profound implications in resolving contractual disputes. The prevention of unjust harm (nafy al-ḍarar al-nārwā) and the negation of coercion (nafy al-ikrāh) are among the well-known bases advanced by most Imami jurists and legal scholars to justify the removal of contractual binding in such cases. In the jurisprudence of Sunni schools, those who have recognized the option of ghabn (option of lesion) as a legitimate basis have either failed to specify a theoretical foundation for it or have relied on the aforementioned principles. In the present study, the authors critically examine the above-mentioned views, refuting each with reasoned arguments, and propose their own perspective grounded in the principle of "implied will and consent" (irādah wa tarāḍī ḍimnī), elaborating and clarifying its conceptual framework.

One of the most significant political, social, and legal concerns of modern states that has become a major issue in the field of human rights is the question of refugee protection. In the realm of international law, numerous instruments have been adopted to safeguard the rights of refugees, and many states have accepted the obligations arising from these conventions. Among them, Iran and Iraq are considered key host countries for refugees in the Middle East. The presence of millions of refugees-mostly from Syria and Afghanistan-has intensified debates over their civil rights and legal protections. Although both countries have acceded to several relevant international instruments and have introduced certain domestic regulations to address refugee issues, challenges such as ambiguity regarding the legal status of refugees, discrimination in the enjoyment of social and economic rights, and the lack of alignment between domestic laws and international standards have hindered the full realization of refugees’ civil rights. This paper seeks to answer the key question of What are the differences and shortcomings of the Iranian and Iraqi legal systems in ensuring the civil, social, and economic rights of refugees, and how can their situation be improved through legal reforms and enhanced international cooperation? The study adopts a descriptive–analytical method and concludes that the effective realization of refugees’ civil rights requires comprehensive legal reforms, strengthened international cooperation, and the adoption of universal human rights standards in both Iran and Iraq.

Contextual indicators (qarā’in), as interpretive and situational elements, play a fundamental role in discovering the intent of the Lawgiver and in structuring verbal implications throughout the process of ijtihad (jurisprudential reasoning). Despite the significance of these components, discussions related to contextual indicators in both Imāmī (Shi‘a) and Sunni uṣūl al-fiqh (principles of Islamic jurisprudence) are often fragmented, lacking structural coherence, and remain unsuitable for systematic application. The present study, aiming to design a stage-based and operational framework, seeks to present an integrated model grounded in the shared principles of both schools, thereby clarifying the position of each indicator in the formation of apparent meaning (ẓuhūr), the preference of interpretations, the synthesis of evidences, and the activation of procedural principles (uṣūl ‘amaliyya). The research method is analytical-comparative, employing both historical and structural examinations of contextual indicators across four evolutionary phases of uṣūl al-fiqh. From this examination, three common jurisprudential principles are extracted: the foundational principle (contextual indicators are a necessary condition for the realization of valid apparent meaning), the structural principle (classification of indicators into connected, disconnected, situational, and rational types), and the functional principle (the presence of contextual indicators at all levels of implication). Based on these foundations, a sixfold classification of indicators has been developed, encompassing origin (scriptural, rational, customary, sensory), form (verbal or nonverbal), connection (connected or disconnected), strength of effect (definitive or presumptive), semantic function (restrictive, explanatory, determinative, personal, generic), and jurisprudential application (contextual or complementary). A four-stage model is also proposed, organizing the movement of contextual indicators through the phases of primary appearance, secondary appearance, interaction of evidences, and procedural principles. The findings indicate that contextual indicators present at the moment of speech issuance form the basis of the primary appearance, while complementary indicators function in the subsequent stage by influencing restriction, specification, preference of meaning, and harmonization among evidences according to customary understanding. A case analysis of the issue of the purity of the People of the Book confirms the practical efficiency of this framework in analyzing complex jurisprudential problems, demonstrating that the proposed theory enhances both the precision of legal derivation and the coherence of the ijtihad process.