جانشینی

In Iranian and English law -relying on numerous legal bases especially the privity of contracts and scattered articles of the law- the rule is prohibiting the imposition of a third party as the new party to the contract; This means that after the conclusion of the contract, the parties can refuse the unwanted encounter with a person other than the Primary party at the time of the conclusion of the contract, but its dimensions and components face many ambiguities and questions. The most important question is what are the principles and rules of these two legal systems, how they prohibit the imposition of a third party as a party to the contract, and what are their commonalities and differences? In this research by Studying the Doctrine and judicial decisions in a descriptive-analytical manner, we found despite the acceptance of the Prohibition’s rule in both systems, there are serious distinctions in its implementation. While Iranian law essentially denies the acceptance of a third party as a party to the contract without the consent of the other party, the British legal system tries to prevent the elimination of the previous party and allows a third party to be present in the contract and in fact, puts the third party next to the previous contracting party.

It was first in 1971 that the international law commission sought to include the issue of succession in international organizations in its long-term agenda. But finally, concluded that the scope of codification and progressive development of the law on this subject is limited. Therefore, there was no need to address this issue further. The main focus of the growth of the issue of succession in international organizations is in one of the advisories of the international court of justice, especially the advisory theory of july 11, 1950 on the international situation in south africa and in the doctrine. The question we seek to answer in this article is the possibility of substitution in the relations between international organizations. If so, the basis for the occurrence, as some of the judges of the court have claimed, could be automatic substitution. The hypothesis of the article is also based on the fact that despite the possibility of a split in international organizations, its basis can not be considered as an automatic replacement. In relations between international organizations, the succession is based on an agreement between the two organizations, and the treaty concludes the effects and results of the succession.

Succession of states in respect of international responsibility is considered as a consequence of succession, which is referring to obligations arising from the commission of internationally wrongful acts. In traditional thoughts, non-succession to such obligations has been recognized as a rule that its strict and functional result is the lack of  responsibility for successor state. Comparative study of subsidiary sources of international law (legal doctrines and judicial decisions) as the means for the determination of main sources, the present paper figured out its conceptual evolution, during the ages and showed that modern thoughts against the classic one has been raised and that is the rule of succession to such obligations. The classic attitude is barsed on the “reality” and the other is affected by the “truth”, more. Facing the mentioned thesis and anti-thesis, this paper considers the synthesize makes it possible to avoid any disadvantages; The sober attitude far away from absoluteness and entireness.

In the issue of the replacement of presumptive evidence (amarat) and principle with types of certitude (qate), two arguments are put forward:  the first argument is that what kinds of qate these are replaced with. The second is that wether the use of preumptive evidence and principles in place of certitude by men of reason denotes its replacement with certitude. As for the first argument, the fundamentalists expressed different points of view and each has their own reasons and adherents. Out of these, Imam Khomeini believes that presumptive evidence and principles only take the place of the incomplete certitude to the situation, not the complete certitude to the situation, or incomplete or complete descriptive sitution, or the pure situation certitude. As for the second issue, the well-known fundamentalists believe that the presumptive evidence and principles are used as the replacement of certitude, and in case of lack of certitude, men of reason definitely use presumptive evidence and principle in place of certitude on a regular basis. On the contrary, Imam Khomeini believes that the argument for the replacement of presumptive evidence with certitude is basically inaccurate and men of reason have acted upon certitude in its presence and in its absence and the presence of reasonable sign, they act upon that sign and evidence without concern for its replacement or downgrading (tanzil). That is because, from the point of view of Imam Khomeini, validity of the rational presumptive sign does not depend on the validity and reliability of presumptive evidence and complementary aspect of revealing reality, but rather has an independent validity. Based on this, we should not look for legal rendering as complementing the disclosure to the presumptive evidence, to act upon certitude. This study used a descriptive-analytical approach and library resources to examine different opinions and their evidence and emphasize the accuracy of Imam Khomeini's opinion.

On the basis of a personal nature of wrongful act, every internationally wrongful act of a State entails the international responsibility of that State. This principle does not provide an appropriate response on the succession of States as to the international responsibility of the predecessor state. If the international responsibility to be forgotten because of absence of doer state, internationally wrongful act will be released without reparation and the right to reparation of injured state will be ignored. Current practice of states show that has been very limited application of the doctrine of non-succession in International Responsibility, but in some cases including existence of doer state (predecessor state) and even on the assumption that there is predecessor state, it is could also raised the subject of succession of States in international responsibility by the consent of the successor state, the nature of territoriality of wrongful act and the principle of unjust enrichment. with using norms of law and state practice in different types of succession of states, this Article is to Endeavour to Responses this main challenge whether international responsibility of predecessor state before the date of the succession has been transferred to the successor state?

Revolution or insurrection as a social phenomenon has been the subject of international law in some respects. Although revolution and suppression of revolution is not prohibited in international law, in certain forms of government including those based on colonialism, occupation and apartheid, the people's uprising is recognized. An old and unstable stream is evident in the practice of some states as to the recognition of illegitimacy of governments breaching human rights and humanitarian laws and undemocratic governments. The revolutionist movement may be recognized as a belligerent, the representative of the people or a government in exile. In case of being premature and against de jure recognition of the central government, this recognition would be amounted to interference in internal affairs of the state. Becoming successful, the revolution would be faced with the subject of succession to international treaties, international debts and international responsibility. While less doubt exists regarding the succession of governments resulting from revolution to international treaties and international responsibility, there are different practices and views over the succession to international debts. In the event of unsuccessfulness of the revolution, international responsibility of revolutionists would not be transmitted to the central government on the ground of force majeure. In the revolutions occurred in the region called Islamic Awakening in countries such as Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Bahrain, Syria and Yemen, there is no practice supportive of the doctrine of illegitimacy of undemocratic regimes. As with succession, only the practice of Libyan revolution in support of doctrine of no-obligation in odious debts could be seen..