نشریه قضاوت
پیاپی 88 (زمستان 1395)

In Instable Ownership such as the ownership of customer in property in "Shofa" Right and the ownership of wife to the "Mahr" because of existence of third parties rights in the property, there is often the possibility of breaking up the owners relationship to the property regardless to the owners will. If the owner of this property in theperiod of instability of ownership, regardless to the third parties rights in the property, do the legal actions in property such as the transferring of property, there owner, contracting party and the beneficiary third party of instable ownership would be directly affected by these actions. The studies indicate that generally, such actions are valid, but in some cases the actions against the beneficiary parties of instability, are not enforceable and they could so apply their rights to the same property regardless of the actions done. However, in relationship of owner and contracting party there are no reasons for being invalid or nullity of such acts. Because of not allocating the independent research on the instable ownership in Iranian legal system and Islamic jurisprudence, therefore this article tries, by studying the diverse juridical aspects and legal doctrines, to study the legal status of mentioned acts in the time of instability in ownership, and to extract the general rule by using of induction.

In spite of continuance of landlord and tenant law contracts with expiration of lease time and their continuation to one of the law violation on behalf of tenant, the legislator has provided some instances that the vacation of lease object is possible only with expiration of lease time and necessity to commit any violation on behalf of tenant. These instances provided by Article 15 of landlord and tenant law (1977) are ways to modify the legal right of automatic revival of the lease contracts between landlord and tenant and in the other hand are related to landlords property right against tenants right about the legal right of automatic revival of the lease. Studying these cases and their conditions with policy centrality, this article tried to provide the appropriate solutions in controversial instances and where that law is silent and ambiguous.

According to Iranian criminal code the criminal liability has been defined based on the result of criminal conduct. Therefor, the liable agent is regarded as cause and/or perpetrator. The definition of cause according to Islamic jurisprudence is whatever upon which the cause is based and without which the cause may not have any effect. According to Iranian Criminal Code cause is what directly does not make the harm or offence. Therefore, indirect engagement in realization of the result is the difference between cause and perpetrator. We can not regard any strong cause for conduct such as perpetrator. However, according to Islamic Criminal Code, article 526, the wording is in such a way that its occurrence is possible. Cause is similar to other terms such as condition. Cause is what to which the conduct is attributed and condition is what its existence is essential for creation of something. The present study deals with the concept of cause and its requirements focusing on Islamic Criminal Law 2014.

Different types of options to terminate contracts require different bases. There are several bases including autonomy of the will of the parties of contract, the "no harm" rule and theory of mutuality of obligations. The "no harm" rule and theory of mutuality of obligations have very efficiency in the structure and analysis of termination of contracts. In this paper we are discussing the legal and islamic bases of options for termination of irrevocable contracts. This study will show whether the resolution of the contract is available upon the removal of the base of the option. In the meantime, the Iranian Civil Code as well as related materials will be critically reviewed. A question arises in options which based on "no harm" rule that, is payment or nullifying the loss sufficient for aborting the termination right or not? Iranian Civil code based on Islamic jurisprudence has different approaches in different options in such case. Thus this paper is discussing the relation of "no harm" rule with remaining or removal of termination option.

Impunity of some persons for international crimes has created some problems in relations among states and international community. The historical shows that there were some offenders of international crimes who have not been tried because of immunity. The expansion of outcomes of international crimes, especially in the two recent centuries, enforced international community to react. Accordingly, the states during the second half of the 20th century decided to create mechanisms for combating impunity of the accused of international crimes. The offenders need to be tried and punished. This has been recognized as the ideal of international community. To achieve its purpose, the community tried to use different mechanisms. All trials done during the history, from Breisach to Rome, in particular trials by Nuremburg Tribunal, International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia and Rwanda, indicate the seriousness of the community in combating the impunity of the offenders of international crimes. By participating in diplomatic conference in Rome (1998), the states reemphasized that they are faithful to combat impunity. The outcome of the conference was adoption of Rome Statute. It has entered into force in 2002 and resulted in creation of the International Criminal Court (ICC). One of the main purposes of the Court is to fight against impunity. By this way, it has helped to realization of one of the ideals of the international community. To realization of its purposes, especially for trial and punishment of the offenders of international crimes, the court needs special mechanisms. They have been provided for by the Rome Statute. By applying these mechanisms, the court tries to fight against impunity.

Iran’s Parliament adopted a bill under the title of Act on Jurisdiction of the Islamic Republic of Iran’s Courts on the Civil Claims against Foreign Stats on 7 February 2012 just four days after the ICJ judgment on the case of Jurisdictional Immunity of the State (Germany v. Italy: Greece intervening). The Iranian Act was in reaction to the U.S. government legislations and was basically a countermeasure action. With considering to the US acts and procedures and the aforesaid Iranian Act, this article will examine the main pretext for similar measures, exceptions to the immunity rule when meet with breaches of peremptory norm of international law, in light of the findings of the Court in the above case and other sources of international law. Through consideration the international law sources and internal acts, in conclusion and with dialectic between two previously mentioned sections, I try to find proper response for this question that whether or not countermeasure could have legal basis in the present case.

In the United States, corporations as entities, can be criminally tried and convicted for crimes committed by individual directors, managers, and even low-level employees. From a comparative perspective, such corporate liability marks the United States as relatively unique. Few other Western states impose entity liability, and those that do impose such liability comparatively infrequently and under the threat of far less serious punishment. The question of why the United States and only the United States imposes corporate criminal liability has been the subject of limited scholarly attention. This article seeks to fill that gap through the prism of comparative law. The German law, which imposes no corporate criminal liability, is considered as a counter point. The article argues that the American doctrine can be explained well not through criminal theory but rather through criminal procedure. American criminal procedure imposes unique difficulties on American investigators and prosecutors seeking to root out individual white-collar criminals. However, it also grants powers to those prosecutors that are unknown to their German counterparts. Among them is the power to threaten criminal indictment, one that allows prosecutors to force American corporations to cooperate, to waive the attorney-client privilege, and to stop ties with individual employees under investigation, thereby facilitating the prosecution of those individual defendants. Using differences in criminal procedure rather than criminal theory to explain the uniquely American doctrine, this article concludes by suggesting how the criminal procedure approach can be used well to understand and potentially to reform an American system that growing critics are made against it.