نشریه پژوهش های حقوق تطبیقی
سال بیستم شماره 1 (پیاپی 91، بهار 1395)

The principle of full compensation for damages has been accepted in different legal systems and the international documents such as the Convention on the International Sale of Goods, Principles of European Contract Law, and UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contract. Also it is reliable about violation of international sale agreements for the damaged party. In violation of international sale contract, this principle necessitates to put the damaged party situation in a condition that it has been expected with full implementation of the contract; therefore, in methods of determining contractual damages, the above principle should be considered. So in objective method, determining the amount of damage that the damaged party has the right to conclude a successor deal, or in abstract method, determining the amount of damage that damaged party can receive the difference of the price of received the good with market price through applying the principle of full compensation is necessary, and any method that supports this principle well has priority.

Accountability as an element of good governance has long been in the core attention of Public Law and Politics scholars. Despite this, the concept of accountability and its dimensions are ambiguous, and sometimes, there exists confusion. This article tries to achieve the concept of accountability through functional democracy according to its object(i.e. allocating power). According to this definition, accountability is a two -dimensional concept and consists of “Answerability” and “Enforcement”: which achieving each of them needs two preconditions: transparency and rule of law. Furthermore, even if one or two of them are missing, we may still legitimately speak of acts of accountability.
Irrefutably clarifying the position of accountability in democracy and good governance can be useful for understanding this concept. Accountability is a concept with the emergence of which the concerns about limiting, control, monitoring and balancing the power can be fulfilled.

Sometimes, determining the amount of damage and the time and place of its assessment in out-of-contract responsibilities is very difficult. Maybe the person who has incurred a loss does not claim damages or may not be able to do so immediately after the damage. Therefore, there might be a period from the presentation of the petition and compensation payment. Meanwhile, the value of money and the compensation payment might increase or decrease. Sometimes, the place of damage is different from that of petition and compensation payment, or the property is moved, which has different prices in different places; so, it is necessary to determine criteria for assessing the time and place of the damage. The present research is a library study, and the method employed is descriptive, analytical, and comparative. We first mention compensation payment and its practices, then according to the judicial procedure to determine the damage, the time and place of damage assessment in compulsory security and out-of-contract responsibilities have been examined comparatively in Iran and Egypt law are compared. Finally, it is concluded that in Iranian law, there is a difference between fungible and curator. In assessing the fungible in case of apology or loss, it is the price on the day of sentence execution and it is the last price. In curator properties, the day of sentence execution is determined. The assessment place is also determined based on the criteria of time, payment place, and sentence execution. Egyptian law does not differentiate between fungible and curator, and rather sets the day of sentence as the time criteria; place is not explicitly referred to either. The legal criteria of Iran are better as they are in line with the goals of civil liability.

Commitment decision as a new and efficient tool has recently assisted competition authorities in dealing with competitive concerns quickly, conveniently and crucially. Unfortunately, Iranian competition law has ignored such suitable enforcement. Accordingly, having regarded the notion and functional advantages of commitment decision, the present research, in comparative study of legal approaches of EU, US and some other eminent countries, is going to provide the most suitable and favored solutions about the procedure and formalities of making commitment decision and its content, the possibility and conditions of reviewing and appealing such decisions and sanctions imposed in non-compliance, which consistent with our particular competition framework, give rise to best results.

Consequential damages entered on all members of a group or population araising from their membership or having identity, interests, goals, or any other common aspect are called “collective or group loss”. In this paper, the concept, characteristics, capabilities and motion compensation claim for such damages at Common Law, France and Iran’s legal system comparatively have been studied. Litigation Group in common law legal system, especially in England and America, is widely accepted. In France, only class actions brought to the court by the representative of legal personality for the indemnity corporate groups has been accepted. In Iran, there is no explicit law in this regard. However, based on general principles of law and the Article 1 of Law of Civil Liability, mass losses seem to be compensatable, and litigation on behalf of collectors or in the absence of legal personality by every benifitionary is possible.

Adoption of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court in the 1998 Conference, which made the crime of aggression, as one of international crimes, subject to jurisdiction of the Court, and adoption of necessary provisions for "defining this crime and setting out the conditions to exercise jurisdiction over it" at the 2010 Kampala Review Conference represent milestones in the International Criminal Law. These two events have made advocates of justice and human rights hopeful that, in the near future, those accused of committing this crime, which is the most important international crime and the source of other crimes such as genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity, will be sued at the International Criminal Court.
However, the factors that, after the Nuremberg and Tokyo tribunals, prevented inclusion of the crime of aggression in the jurisdiction of ad hoc international criminal courts had, directly or indirectly, undesirable consequences in the aforesaid events. Including the amendment procedure of the Statute for adding provisions necessary for applying the Court's jurisdiction over this crime is vague, and therefore, the provisions adopted at the Kampala are, in some respects, ambiguous or conflicting with the Statute. Most importantly, the procedure of entry into force of Kampala amendments as provided in them is inconsistent with the amendment procedure of the Statute as provided in it. So, if these ambiguities and contradictions are not seriously challenged. resolved, the legality and possible reliance of the Court on Kampala amendments to exercise jurisdiction over the crime of aggression would be.

On April 2 2013, the United Nations General Assembly adopted, by a large majority, the Arms Trade Treaty(ATT); a treaty focusing on conventional weapons, with the aim of taking a step forward not only in regulating the arms trade but also in dealing with its related challenges. As trade in conventional arms touches on many complex legal and policy issues related to commerce, national security, human rights and humanitarian law, it is expected that the ATT would be also able to deal with most of these sensitive and challenging matters. In order to evaluate its achievements and possible impact, this article starts by reviewing the international arrangements and regulations, which existed before the conclusion of the ATT. Based on this study, and through a critical structural analysis of the newly adopted treaty, its strengths and the deficiencies will be studied. The ATT came into force on December 24 2014. While the Islamic Republic of Iran is not yet a party to this treaty, the treaty has important implications for the national security of all states even non-members.