نشریه دین و ارتباطات
سال دوازدهم شماره 4 (زمستان 1384)

The importance of literary and artistic works and their copyright is undeniable. Nevertheless, offering a logical definintion of the issue and standards for the recognition of those works may prove to be difficult or even impossible. This article shows on the basis of both national and international documents that there is no other choice but to offer a variety of examples though not restrictive. It is also proved that besides the major works, the secondary works (like translations, adaptations and abridgements) are also to be under protection if they observe the legal conditions. It is then referring to the necessary provisions for the protection of literary and artistic works. To name a few of these one could mention tangibility, authenticity, proprietary worth, legal credit, territorial publication, identity, registration, etc. According to the Iranian law, mentioning the identity and registration of the works is not obligatory.

Obligation to payment of money may replace another type of obligation done according to current cost. Here, the quantitative change of money is acceptable provided that its value is decreased or doesn,t match with the one fixed in the original obligation, because the given obligation is nothing but a replacement of the main one. Sometimes, however, this obligation is valid per se and the obligated party has no other option but to pay a fixed amount at the time it is due. Quite obviously expecting an amount higher than the original is unjustifiable. However, high inflation and the decrease of money value has caused the payment of time monetary obligations to be unjust. Therefore, some experts take the changeability of the quantitative amount of money in time as compatible with the general rules prevailing in monetary obligations, in a way that it could compensate for the loss. Others, on the other hand have denounced it as something which is against both the legal and religious principles. This article offers the pros and cons of the argument disinterestedly and examines the legal aspects of the issue.

On April 14, 2002, Israel decided to construct a separation barrier in the Western Bank of Jordan river. The social, economic and human implications of this decision for the Palestinian people drove the UN General Assembly to file a case for the issue at the International Tribunal in December 2003 in order to seek judgement about the consequences of the action. This was issued on July 9, 2004. This article intends to examine the problem from the point of view of the UN Charter, UN Resolutions, International Humanitarian Law and International Human Rights and then explain the legal consequences of the breach of international law as a result of the construction of the wall as viewed by the Tribunal in regard to Israel, third parties and the UN.

When the sufferer,s fault (or his act when fault is not a condition) influences the occurrence of damage to him, it causes that he be deprived of the compensation of that part of damage which relates to his fault (or act), provided that one could apply the damage to both. In case the sufferer,s act is the result of the agent of damage, this wouldn,t have any effect on the latter,s responsibility and he is to compensate for all damages he incurred in regard to the sufferer. The share of responsibility between the sufferer and the agent is of equal degree, though the amount of the effects of each or the faults may be different.

consideration among scholars from the past. Various views have been presented in this regard leading to specific legal consequences. One resulting discussion is about the necessary link between interest and property in ownership. Hence there is a pertinent principle stipulating that "anyone owning a property would necessarily own its interests". Two views exist here. The article expounds on them while criticizing the first which takes the necessary link between interests and property as a basic element in ownership.The second view which holds a subordinate relationship between the two in the sense that the ownership of property is transmitted to interests is the one approved here.

The establishment of order and general security and a permanent stability of political authority is an interest of prime value which has put into oblivion the legislators, concern in recent decades about extending assurance to all phases of legal procedure and providing justice in them. The Iranian penal measures concerning crimes against security, and the French penal policy in the field of terrorist acts and those commited against the nation,s vital interests, have some important characteristics that make them apt to be examined under the title of legal procedure differences.This article tries to illustrate the specific features of legal procedures applied to crimes against security by relying on the legal texts of both countries. These could gradually lead to the formulation of security–based penal laws in the procedure law of the two countries.