The Encyclopedia of Comparative Jurisprudence and Law

One of the most basic issues of constitutional rights is "sovereignty". In this descriptive-analytical research, "national sovereignty" has been selected as one of the sub-branches of the discussion of sovereignty and its place in the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran has been examined and analyzed. The purpose of this research is to answer these questions: What are the foundations of governance in the pure Islamic legal system? What kind of sovereignty does the constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran accept? How is the rule of people and the rule of religion compatible with each other? Do the people give legitimacy to the rule in the Islamic Republic system or not? What is the effect of elections as an immutable principle in governance? Does sovereignty belong to God? Does sovereignty belong to the people? Does the sovereignty belong to the jurist? How are the majority vote and the legal guardian's vote compatible with each other in provincial government? The findings of the research show that the referendum and plebiscite (principle 59), the election of the leader and legal guardian (principle 107), the election of the president (principles 114 and 117), the election of the representatives of the Islamic Council (principle 58 and (62), Election of members of local councils (principle 7 and 100), election of MPs and leadership experts (principle 108) and approval or disapproval of the approvals of the Constitutional Review Council (principle 177) are among the manifestations of national sovereignty in the constitution.

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.

The aim of the present article is to examine the impact of the registration of plant varieties on food health in light of public law and bioethics. This issue represents a significant point of potential conflict and controversy between food health—as one of the components of bioethics and, more broadly, as a public right—and the registration of plant varieties by plant breeders. The central question concerns the mechanisms for achieving balance and equilibrium between the registration of plant varieties and food health, within the framework of bioethics and public law. This article adopts a descriptive-analytical approach and uses library research to address the stated question. The findings indicate that both domestic legal systems and international instruments have established various mechanisms to balance the right to food health—recognized as one aspect of public rights—with plant breeders' right to register plant varieties. These mechanisms include creating safe conditions for the transfer of genetically modified technology and plant varieties, informing relevant authorities, preserving the confidentiality of genetically modified products, and ensuring the provision of accurate information about genetically modified products by governments. However, there are deficiencies, particularly in international instruments, regarding the enforcement of these mechanisms, which need to be addressed. In conclusion, it can be stated that the right to health is emphasized in both domestic law and international instruments, but it enjoys stronger enforcement mechanisms in Iran’s domestic legal system.

Disruption in economic crimes is one of the criminal topics in Iranian criminal law that is subject to ambiguity and various interpretations. Accordingly, the aim of this article is to examine the question: How can Iran's criminal policy toward economic disruption be analyzed with an emphasis on the scapegoat theory? This is a descriptive-analytical article that employs a library-based method to address the aforementioned question. The findings indicate that Iran’s criminal policy is predominantly a security-oriented penal policy, attempting to portray itself as powerful, whereas the true strength of the system and penal policy lies in crime prevention. In reality, the state, by sacrificing a scapegoat, seeks to influence public opinion with the notion that it possesses sufficient authority to confront offenders. The fact of the matter is that in the context of economic disruption, the multiplicity and proliferation of criminal labels—driven by pragmatism—undermine economic development, as they cause confusion and fear of prosecution among investors due to the abundance of legal provisions, leading them to hesitation; whereas adherence to clear and transparent laws fosters trust and encourages investment. Furthermore, the notion of growth and development is meaningless without consideration for judicial security. This can only be achieved when fundamental principles such as the independence of the judiciary, judicial independence, and timely adjudication are taken into account. However, in many instances, populist approaches and practices based on the scapegoat theory lead to the neglect of these principles.

Bribery and corruption are terms used within Iran's administrative system to refer to corrupt behaviors, particularly regarding financial corruption. Corruption remains one of the major challenges for the country, as reflected in various reports. However, there is ambiguity surrounding the precise definitions of these terms. Thus, providing clear definitions and developing regulations to combat these issues is crucial. Effective actions to fight corruption, especially financial corruption, are essential to enhance transparency and accountability within Iran's administrative system and ensure the proper use of public resources. The importance of addressing private bribery, whether private bribery or private corruption, lies in the fact that financial corruption is one of the main causes of inefficiency in administrative systems. Furthermore, bribery is a crime against public security and comfort, and every government must seek appropriate solutions to address this phenomenon to maintain legitimacy and societal order. In the past, bribery could only occur in the public sector; however, with the expansion of the private sector and the transfer of many government duties to private entities, the conditions for bribery in the private sector have also emerged. Although Iranian lawmakers have not generally criminalized private bribery, Article 588 of the Islamic Penal Code refers to private corruption concerning judges and experts. However, the 1401 Penal Code Draft gives attention to criminalizing corruption in the private sector. Based on international models, particularly the Merida Convention, criminalizing private bribery has become essential. Therefore, this study emphasizes the necessity of criminalizing private corruption and analyzes this issue according to the 1401 Penal Code Draft.