نشریه مطالعات حقوق تطبیقی معاصر
پیاپی 26 (بهار 1401)

Adopting a combined approach in Iran’s up-stream oil and gas contract or, in other words, continuing the contractor’s contractual presence in the production stage after the exploration and development phase on one hand, and stablishing a direct relationship between the contractors’ revenue and field production level on the other hand can create situations in which the contractors of the adjacent contract areas compete to extract as much as possible from the reservoir. The struggle of governments with the economic and environmental issues caused by these competitions has led to the legislation of some regulations in unitizations of adjacent areas contracts and consequently the Inclusivity of the Unitization and Unit Operating Agreements. The conventional tariff model proposed by the Association of International Petroleum Negotiators can be considered as an attempt to gather the governing customs in order to develop a standard sample contract. The application of this contractual model in Iran requires the observance of the national law demands such as the mandatory rules of contract law, so from this point of view, acceptance of possibility of concluding these contracts is accompanied by some doubts at the first glance. Legal analysis of challenging points shows that considering some precautions that are discussed in this article lead the contracts to be synchronized with Iranian law requirements.

The constitutional Council, as one of the constitutional institutions, like any other institutions, must have sufficient independence to perform its important functions; but the limits of this independence must be legal and envisaged by the competent authority. One of the aspects of the independence of the Constitutional Council is the approval of the financial, administrative, employment and organizational regulations of this institution. The Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran does not specify which institution should approve these regulations for the constitutional Council. Due to this gap, the Islamic Consultative Assembly passed a law, all of which was approved by the Constitutional Council. However, in the following years, the Constitutional Council deviated from its previous views and finally, on 4/19/2007 in the interpretative theory No. 21934/30/86 and according to Articles 4, 91 and 99 of the Constitution, assigned the competence to approve financial, administrative, employment and organizational regulations to this institution. This article uses a descriptive-analytical method to examine the possibility of regulating the Constitutional Council in the areas of finance, administration, employment and organization. The finding of this study is that due to the silence of the constitution regarding the regulation of the Constitutional Council and lack of connection between the above interpretation and the mentioned principles, the general legislative competence of Islamic Consultative Assembly prevails in this area as in the past. It is also suggested that the approval of the internal regulations of the Constitutional Council be explicitly granted to the Islamic Consultative Assembly.

In criminal law, sometimes a general title such as disruptive behavior, disrespectful conduct, humiliation and the like are included in a form of criminalization that encompasses many other general topics. Some of these topics are general offenses, offenses in the law and some in the free zone or common behavior. It is up to the judiciary to determine the minor details and identify other criminal cases involving the conduct that is in fact a judgment. This type of criminalization raises numerous legal and forensic challenges, such as violating the principle of legality of crime and punishment, creating a secondary title for crime, extremism, confusing people with laws and discrediting some criminal laws and thereby increasing there will be delinquency and many other challenges. The article seeks to explore the aforementioned damages and to come up with solutions that may limit the scope of personal inference and authority of the judiciary.