نشریه مطالعات حقوق تطبیقی معاصر
پیاپی 25 (زمستان 1400)

Under UNCITRAL model, law on secured transaction creation security right against intellectual property has been allowed. References in the model law to intellectual property are to be understood as references to intellectual property rights of an owner of intellectual property. The essence of the rights of an owner is the right to transfer its intellectual property, the right to prevent unauthorized use of its intellectual property and to pursue infringers, the right to register intellectual property and renew registrations, the right to authorize others to use or exploit the intellectual property and the right to collect royalties. Security right arises from security agreement. Under security right, owner of intellectual property provides these rights to secure an obligation. Although all intellectual property rights have a financial value and can be secured from the point of view of the model law, this law provides for two types of rights that have commercial and economic value, including the right to transfer intellectual property and the right to authorize others to use or exploit the intellectual property. It becomes intellectual property to third parties. There is no method in Iranian law similar to the method of the UNCITRAL Model Law for the authentication of intellectual property. It seems that the rules of the UNCITRAL Model Law can be used to legislate in Iranian law.

Civil Procedure Code has announced in article 87 that the respite of the exceptions of litigation is until the end of the first hearing session and in article 90 it has laid down that the sanction of this respite according to which that the judge is not bound to investigate the exception separately from merits of the case. Expression of this article needs to be reviewed with regard to the investigation of the exception separately from merits of the case. Not bounding the court in this regard and the situation of the exceptions that arise after the hearing session, and the sanction that is laid down in article 90 C.P.C. can be criticized with regard to the fact that the rules of exceptions are imperative and it is illogical to delay the investigation of the exception. Examination of the subject demonstrates that the sanction that is laid down in this article is not effective despite its serious appearance , and in such cases, the legislator should use the proper and effective execution guarantees, such as civil penalties.

Homicides investigated in Islamic law as felonies have always confronted severe criminal responses in criminal law. In addition to actus reus, intentional killing of a human requires the mens rea, and the murderer must have both the intention of the act and intention of acquiring the result.  Also the possibility of invoking the crime should be made to the will of the murderer. It is not easy to obtain mens rea in a deliberate murder, since intention of acquiring the result is not always explicit, but sometimes implicit. The murderer, without clear intention of killing, is committing a typically deadly act. Accordingly, it is very difficult to achieve the result of the latter. In this paper, an attempt has been made to explain the science of the fatalities of its various behaviors and its various fissures, and highlight the compatibility of the logical criteria “adjoining show in the special sense the result with perpetrating behavior” with the general penal principles of Islam to determine whether the person knew that the result is realized through his or her his behavior.

Pacta sunt servanda is one of the most important principles of law.  However, some people violate their contract obligations. One remedy for this violation is avoidance of contract. There are some differences regarding conditions which could result in a kind of right to avoid the contract. This research attempts to survey the effect of this avoidance through descriptive-analytic and a comparative method in Iranian and Iraqi law and also in Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods 1980 and analyze differences and similarities in above-mentioned legal systems. The results of this research show that although avoidance of contract leads to the deterioration of the parties' obligations in these three legal systems, there are some differences too. Avoidance of contract has a retrogressive effect in Iraqi and the Convention law but it is refused in Iranian Law. Also, there are some differences which have to be recovered by the parties.

Equality in its legal sense is a philosophical norm from which many of the fundamental rights and freedoms in the constitution derive. The present study uses a descriptive-analytic approach, and after examining and applying the theoretical aspect of equality and its variants (formally and substantially), it describes the discussions of constitutional experts leading to the adoption of the principles of equality. The result of the discussions and debates of major legislators is that, despite the acceptance of equality in the constitution, there have been various conceptions of equality in the House of Experts. Despite having apparent and partial divergent readings of equality, Constitutional legislators eventually incorporated the principle of equality in the relevant principles. Also, substantive equality in the views of constitutional experts had a relative and fragile meaning. That is to say, despite the acceptance of substantive equality, some of the substantive equality provisions were not accepted in the constitution and were bound by Islamic standards.

The right of precedence deals with the relationship between individuals, objects and places. It is a rational phenomenon, approved by the Sharia. Some scholars believe that the nature of the right of precedence is moral priority while others take it as an obligation. Still there are scholars who view it as an objective right. The realization of this right results in ownership or the right of precedence. There is a difference between Imamiah (the followers of the twelve Imams) and Sunni jurists as to whether the right of precedence causes ownership or the right of precedence. Sunni jurists believe in the absolute ownership and refer to narrations related to the revival of the dead lands as their proof. Imamiah jurists, on the other hand, accept ownership in some cases and the right of precedence in others because there is a consensus on the absence of absolute ownership. The jurists believe in ownership in cases such as taking possession and the revival of the dead lands, agriculture and the writing of scientific works. This study concludes that the right of precedence is an example of objective rights which include all the effects of this right, such as not allowing the violation of the right, the necessity for compensating the damage caused by the violation of the others’ right, etc. This article aims at explaining the nature and effects of the right of precedence. Meanwhile, based on library sources and by using analytical and descriptive methods, we will examine the views of the parties on the subject.

Although in enforcement of pecuniary judgments, resort to seizure of property for security or execution is the main method, and the resort to judgment debtor’s detainment cannot free the judgment creditor from it, this method is not perfect because there is an almost hidden rational principle in the civil judgments enforcement act according to which judgment creditor deserves to acquire judgment debt solely from the property seized for security or execution. This principle can be extended to the acquisition of judgment debt from the mortgaged substance. Few exemptions of this principle i.e. possibility of converting the property primarily seized for security or execution to another property’s seizure, possibility of converting the property secondarily seized for security or execution to another property’s seizure, possibility of converting the seizure of salary and privileges for security or execution to another property’s seizure, possibility of converting the property claimed by a third person to another property, and possibility of converting the unsold property to another property cannot always relieve the judgment creditor from restrictions caused by the above-mentioned principle. As a result, that principle in fact means the principle of non-convertibility of property seized for security or execution and is extendable to the mortgaged property and in contrast to what plaintiff or judgment creditor or their legal agents may suppose, hesitant and non-clever seizure of property for security or execution is not so useful and it may eventually cause serious problems on the way of enforcing the judgment.

The Administrative Justice Court is the most important judicial authority that was established in 1981 in line with the supreme goals of Article 173 of the Constitution. One of the challenges that has plagued the Court since the beginning, has been the issue of "adversarial jurisdiction" and the debate over this issue has continued among lawyers. Realizing this importance, the present article uses a descriptive, analytical research method to discuss the adversarial jurisdiction in litigation against the administration. Therefore, in response to such a possibility, it has been concluded that the judiciary needs rereading the adversarial principle in connection with the Court of Administrative Justice. Also, given the existential philosophy of the institution, a rereading of the capacity of the Administrative Justice Court is needed. In addition, the criterion of “adversary» was not the right criterion for determining the jurisdiction of the Court of Administrative Justice and we need a new standard.