فصلنامه مطالعات حقوقی
سال پانزدهم شماره 2 (تابستان 1402)

The transportation of goods by sea plays a crucial role in global commerce, accounting for over ninety-three percent of goods transported worldwide. This preference for sea transport is primarily due to its ability to move large volumes of goods at lower costs compared to other transportation methods.Safety is paramount in ensuring the successful operation of maritime carriage. Ships must be equipped with the necessary technical instruments to guarantee safety. Maritime law establishes regulations for this purpose, commonly referred to as "seaworthiness." In essence, a ship must possess the required capabilities in all aspects to fulfill its designated mission, transport goods within the agreed timeframe, and deliver them safely to their final destination. The absence of seaworthiness poses risks to the ship itself, its cargo, its crew, and other individuals on board. Such events can have varying consequences, ranging from the most severe, such as ship sinking and total destruction of cargo, to the mildest, such as delivery delays resulting in economic losses due to market conditions. The comprehensive characteristics and essential conditions of a ship for the proper execution of a carriage contract are encompassed by the term "seaworthiness."The carriage of goods by sea and the operation of commercial ships are governed by two types of contracts: contracts of carriage and charterparties. International conventions, contractual agreements, and established customs in the field of carriage impose an obligation on ship owners and carriers to ensure the seaworthiness of their vessels. This research aims to address fundamental questions related to seaworthiness, including the criteria for evaluating it and how to determine if a ship owner or carrier has fulfilled their seaworthiness obligation. It also explores the legal nature of the seaworthiness commitment and the similarities and differences between this commitment in contracts of carriage and charterparties. Additionally, the study examines the proof of breach of this obligation and the resulting effects on the rights and obligations of the parties involved.This research adopts a library-based methodology, drawing insights from legal literature. The authors conclude that seaworthiness is a multidimensional and relative concept. It encompasses not only the ship's engines, hull, and technical aspects but also the competence and skills of the ship's personnel (captain, engineer, and crew) and the necessary certifications. The type of cargo and its stowage on board the ship can also impact the seaworthiness of the vessel. Seaworthiness can only be determined through a case-by-case assessment, considering various factors such as the type of contract, vessel, cargo, timing (season), and the location of contract execution (sea, ocean, lake, etc.).This article examines the legal nature and basis of the seaworthiness commitment in international conventions and different legal systems. It establishes that the commitment to seaworthiness is an implied and legal obligation imposed on carriers and ship owners, even in cases where the contract remains silent on the matter. Moreover, the carrier's responsibility for ensuring seaworthiness does not adhere to the general principles of liability. Under Article 386 of the Iranian Trade Law, the carrier's liability is based on the "assumption of responsibility." In other words, the carrier can only be exempted from liability if they can demonstrate that external factors caused the damage. However, this general principle is modified when it comes to the lack of seaworthiness. According to paragraph 1 of Article 55 of the Iranian Maritime Law (adapted from paragraph 1 of Article 4 of the Hague Rules-1924), the carrier's liability resulting from a breach of the seaworthiness commitment is based on the "presumption of fault." In practical terms, the carrier can be relieved of liability by proving that they exercised due diligence in ensuring the ship's seaworthiness. This distinction has significant implications in legal disputes involving cargo owners and carriers, as well as ship owners and charterers

The law of war, encompassing jus ad bellum and jus in bello, has been a subject of study within public international law. Theorists throughout history, such as Cicero, St. Augustine, Grotius, Kant, and Hegel, have contributed to the discourse on this topic. However, Iranian thinkers have been notably absent from this list. Can Saadi, a renowned Persian poet, and thinker, represent Iranian perspectives on the law of war? This research aims to identify and formulate Saadi's theory of war law as reflected in his works.The primary objective is to explore Saadi's theory of war law while acknowledging that it coexisted with Aquinas' just war theory during the same period. The secondary objectives include presenting an Islamic perspective on war and peace, as well as providing a brief overview of the contemporary law of armed conflict. The main question addressed is whether Saadi's works contain a discernible theory of war law. The research hypothesis proposes that Saadi's works, predominantly studied within the realm of Persian language and literature, have received limited attention from scholars in other disciplines such as sociology, law, and philosophy. Saadi, being a creative thinker, expressed his ideas eloquently in his writings, which have primarily been appreciated for their literary qualities. However, it is possible to identify Saadi's theory of war law by examining his prose and poetry. It should be noted that while this theory may not be directly applicable in the present day, it offers insights both from an antiquated perspective and as a potential source of inspiration for contemporary legal frameworks.The research methodology employs qualitative analysis through library research, content analysis, classification, and modeling of Saadi's viewpoints related to the law of war. The study avoids making broad assumptions about Saadi's overall philosophy and instead focuses solely on his perspectives on war and peace. The research takes a descriptive and non-evaluative approach, paying special attention to the historical context of Saadi's time.The findings reveal the existence of a scientific theory of war law within Saadi's works. Structurally, Saadi's theory may lack a coherent form, necessitating a comprehensive study of his voluminous writings rather than a verse-by-verse analysis. While the core of Saadi's theory of war law is found in the second chapter of Bostan, references to this subject can also be found in other parts of Golestan and Rasail.Substantively, Saadi presents a comprehensive theory of war law that is notable even in comparison to Aquinas' just war theory. The principles of Saadi's theory include: 1) prioritizing peace, 2) considering any means to avoid war as valid, 3) refraining from engaging in an unequal position, 4) recognizing the validity of peaceful defense, 5) preserving the dignity of individuals and civilian areas during war, 6) adopting strategies and tactics that minimize casualties while inflicting financial damage, 7) establishing an orderly military structure, 8) ensuring the existence of a well-organized military corps, 9) respecting hierarchy within the corps, and 10) acknowledging the rights and duties of military forces.Saadi approaches his theory pragmatically, aligning it with public interests. His theory is not solely influenced by Islamic or European ideas prevalent during his time but is rather a product of his lived experiences, sometimes conflicting with Islamic views and jurisprudence.In conclusion, Saadi's works contain a discernible theory of war law, affirming the research hypothesis. Saadi's contribution to the evolution of the law of armed conflict merits recognition, and it is incumbent upon Iranian and Persian legal scholars to acknowledge his ideas and position himappropriately among the esteemed theorists in this field. By shedding light on Saadi's theory of war law, Iranian and Persian lawyers can play a crucial role in highlighting his contributions and elevating his status within the field of legal theory.In summary, this research explores Saadi's theory of war law by delving into his writings. While acknowledging the coexistence of Aquinas' just war theory during the same period, this study focuses solely on Saadi's perspectives. The research methodology employs qualitative analysis and content classification to identify and formulate Saadi's theory. The findings reveal the existence of a scientific theory on the law of war within Saadi's works, with principles that encompass various aspects of war and peace. Saadi's theory is pragmatic and rooted in public interests, often differing from prevailing Islamic views and jurisprudence of his time. The research hypothesis is confirmed, affirming that Saadi has played a role in the development of the law of armed conflict. It is incumbent upon Iranian and Persian legal scholars to recognize Saadi's contributions and establish his rightful place among renowned theorists in this field.By extending our understanding of Saadi's theory of war law, we can enrich the discourse surrounding the law of armed conflict and draw insights from diverse cultural and historical perspectives.

One issue that can challenge the criminal justice system is the claim of mental disorder at the time of committing a crime. Acceptance of this defense reduces the punishment or leads to the acquittal of the accused. Mental disorders encompass a wide range of brain disorders, with the most severe being insanity, which is recognized as a factor that removes criminal responsibility in various legal systems, including those of Iran and the United States of America. Therefore, if a person commits a criminal act but lacks the necessary capacity to discern the rightness or wrongness of their actions, the attribution of responsibility to the perpetrator is lost, and they will not be held accountable. Article 149 of the Islamic Penal Code of 1392 states, "If the perpetrator is mentally disturbed at the time of committing the crime in such a way that they lack volition or discernment, they are considered insane." In American law, the concept of insanity is rooted in common law, and regulations governing insanity differ across different states in the country. American legal professionals believe that mentally ill individuals who commit crimes should undergo psychiatric treatment before facing punishment. At the same time, the legal rights of these mentally ill criminals must be respected, but concerns about public safety and preventing the frequent dangers posed by these individuals must also be taken into account. The goal is to strike a balance between the patient's right to treatment and the responsibility to ensure public safety.This study aims to explain the concept of insanity, the conditions required for its verification, and its effects on the criminal justice systems of America, Iran, and Imami jurisprudence. It seeks to answer the following questions: What are the conditions to prove insanity in the legal systems of Iran and America? What is the stance on diminished responsibility in the criminal justice systems of Iran and America? Are milder mental disorders than insanity also recognized as an obstacle to criminal liability? This study employs a descriptive-analytical method and relies on a library collection tool.Discussion and The principle of acquitting individuals with insanity from criminal liability is generally accepted in Imami jurisprudence and the criminal laws of Iran and America. Jurists consider it necessary for a person to possess the legal capacity to be held responsible, and the general conditions of religious obligation form the basis of criminal responsibility and the legitimacy of imposing any type of punishment that society implements on a criminal for committing a crime. Insanity has an impact on criminal liability in the laws of Iran and America. Article 149 of the Islamic Penal Code, approved in 2012 and based on the McNaghten criteria and the Model Penal Code, establishes that mental disorders leading to a decline in volition or discernment remove criminal responsibility. Criminal responsibility or non-responsibility is absolute in the Islamic Penal Code. Consequently, many individuals with mental disorders are deemed fully criminally responsible. The need to consider diminished responsibility in the context of insanity rules is evident and requires attention and revision to ensure fairness. Recognizing this necessitates focusing on two aspects related to the issue of insanity: the legal aspect and the psychiatric aspect. Psychiatry has shown that there are intermediate states between sanity and insanity that do not lead to a deterioration of criminal responsibility like insanity, yet the accused does not possess complete mental and psychological health to be considered responsible for their actions.Diminished responsibility comes into play when an act has been committed, and the law prescribes punishment for the act, but due to specific circumstances, the primary punishment cannot be applied, and a lighter punishment is imposed instead. In the United States, the "guilty but mentally ill" act has recognized diminished responsibility since 1957. In cases where the perpetrator exhibits impaired discernment or volition but does not lack them entirely, they are considered guilty but mentally ill, and a reduced sentence and rehabilitation are taken into account. The purpose of this law is to both remove dangerous individuals from society and provide treatment for mentally ill individuals. This means that mentally ill patients who have not reached the point of insanity are not sentenced to the original punishment for the crime committed but rather receive a lesser degree of punishment. In American law, according to the McNaughten rule and the Model Penal Code, if mental retardation leads to a decline in discernment, the person is not held criminally responsible. The Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution considers the death penalty for mentally retarded individuals as an unjust punishment, but lighter punishments are applied to such individuals. In Iranian law, Article 38 of the Islamic Penal Code includes illness as a mitigating circumstance. However, when the defendant's illness is not deemed effective in committing the crime, the judge has the power to reduce the punishment based on the clarity and combination of the two aforementioned articles.

A transaction conducted with the intention of evading debt payment is a legal act that poses challenges to ensuring judicial justice. By engaging in such a transaction, the obligee practically diminishes their financial power, rendering their previous obligation non-binding according to debt-related provisions. This situation leads to losses for creditors who have entered into long-term transactions with the debtor, as they trusted the debtor's property as collateral. Conversely, it allows the trader to unjustly and illegitimately benefit from legal protections meant for debtors. The purpose of these protection provisions is to assist genuine debtors who did not willingly expose themselves to debt, not those who exploit these protections to escape their obligations.
The prevalence of such transactions, which result in the appearance of formal transactions without substance and transactions lacking the intention of implementation, poses a problem for contract law and the provision of judicial justice. The issue can be explained by examining the status of any contract in two stages. First, there is the stage of identification and legitimization, where the contract is evaluated based on social interests and the general objectives of contract law. If the transaction aligns with the underlying principles, it will be recognized as part of the structure of contractual rights; otherwise, it will be deemed prohibited. For instance, Gharari transactions are not recognized in Islamic law as they contradict the fundamental principles. Once a deal passes this stage, it enters the second stage, which involves validating the contract in specific circumstances and in relation to the parties involved. This assessment determines whether the concluded contract meets the conditions of correctness. Therefore, the conformity of a transaction with the general rules and goals of contract law is referred to as legitimacy, while its non-compliance is considered illegitimacy, resulting in its nullity.
It is worth noting that although numerous books and articles have analyzed this issue from the perspective of validity and invalidity, this article examines it from the standpoint of transactional legitimacy. It explores whether a transaction with the intention of evading debt payment can be considered legitimate, considering the principles of respecting creditors' rights, fostering trust in the market, and promoting social benefits while resolving conflicts. In Iran's contract law, the "transaction with the intention of evading debt payment" has become a legal issue in contractual relations. Article 218 of the Civil Code considers such a transaction valid and enforceable, while criminal regulations allow for its prosecution under fraud and other criminal charges. This article adopts an analytical-descriptive approach to delve into the principles of contract law, differentiate between superstructure and underlying principles, and investigate the status of this transaction in light of the basic principles from which contractual rules are derived.
The main research question addressed in this study is: What is the legal status of transactions with the intention of evading debt payment from the perspective of the basic principles of contract law? From a Sharia perspective, it seems that the invalidity of such transactions is warranted due to their detrimental consequences, including harm to creditors' income, erosion of trust in the Muslim market, and an increase in contract disputes—all of which are considered illegitimate according to Sharia arguments. Furthermore, the findings of this research indicate that transactions with the intention of evading debt payment are inconsistent with the principles of justice, contractual security (which necessitates fulfilling obligations and paying debts), and the legitimacy of the transactional purpose. Therefore, due to their lack of authenticity and validity, they cannot be considered legitimate according to principles like the rule of dominion and the principle of the sovereignty of will.
While freedom of contract and the sovereignty of will are fundamental principles in contract law, their real function is to establish a foundation and create a framework for the rules of contract law. Contract law comprises two categories of principles: basic principles and governing principles (superstructure). A transaction with the intention of evading debt payment does not necessarily conflict with fundamental principles of contract law, such as the principle of authenticity, as these principles primarily govern the relationship between the parties involved in the contract. However, in terms of basic principles such as the principle of security, the necessity of fulfilling obligations and paying debts, closing legal avenues for evading execution and fulfillment, ensuring justice in legal relations, and preventing support for illegitimate goals, a transaction with the intention of evading debt payment contradicts these principles and cannot be supported.
Such a transaction also goes against the goals of contract law as it has illegitimate objectives and purposes. The philosophy underlying contract law is to uphold legitimate goals while preventing illegitimate ones. Therefore, it is necessary to revise the judicial and legal approach to such transactions in Iran's contract law. Based on the underlying principles, transactions with the intention of evading debt payment should be unequivocally deemed illegitimate and void.

Regarding the pillars of civil liability, in general, many researches and writings have been done, but in the field of civil
Numerous research and writings have been conducted on the pillars of civil liability in general. However, when it comes to the civil liability of the government, due to the diverse activities of government institutions, the complexity and ambiguity of certain topics, and the difficulty of distinguishing the applicable legal regime, challenges still persist to a significant extent. Such a situation calls for greater attention to the distinctive features of government civil responsibility. One crucial question in this regard is: What impact does the element of loss have on other aspects of government civil liability?
This article asserts that the nature of loss, both quantitatively and qualitatively, can, in some cases, play a role in determining the type of fault, establishing the necessity of existence, determining the reference relationship, addressing compensability of damages, establishing the basis of civil liability, and even determining jurisdiction. Using an analytical approach, the findings of this research demonstrate that government civil liability is rooted in the element of fault, considering the various regulations related to attribution. Furthermore, legal exemptions are conditional on the absence of objective damages. In most cases where the government causes harm to individuals, the resulting damage is the consequence of administrative decisions, which cannot directly cause harm. Therefore, such cases should be analyzed in terms of "causation." Moreover, the concept of legal exemptions for the government solely covers non-objective damages or damages resulting from utilization. In other words, the government is only exempted from civil liability when it derives legal benefits from individuals' properties, which necessitates specific provisions in the law and does not grant automatic exemption.
Based on these premises, Article 11 of the Civil Liability Law regarding government sovereign acts can be interpreted as follows: only actions that harm individuals within the scope of the government's legal duties are immune from liability because the law permits such behavior. However, it is worth noting that this legal permission may have been implicitly abrogated by subsequently enacted laws, particularly after the Islamic Revolution's victory.
To explain the aforementioned cases, this article proceeds in two steps. First, it discusses the concept of damage within the realm of government civil liability, examining various types and categories of damages. The identified categories include actual loss vs. judgmental loss, material loss vs. spiritual loss, objective loss vs. loss of profit, and liability resulting from utilization in contrast to direct damages. Second, it explores the relationship between damage and the elements of government civil liability, focusing on the liability associated with key government actions such as policy-making, general construction projects, assimilation of benefit and benefit, limiting property ownership, case-by-case prohibition of utilization, and disciplinary measures involving the abandonment of expedient actions.
Regarding the second pillar, attention is given to the correlation between losses and causality. This entails addressing citizen security and losses within the framework of risk and loss theory, as well as losses stemming from decision-making (administrative decisions). The element of fault and its relationship with loss present specific issues in the realm of government civil liability. Noteworthy topics include considering loss as a presumption of error, the impact of loss on proving a lawsuit and initiating legal action for administrative errors, and the association between the loss ratio and the nature of the administrative error.
The next section delves into one of the most challenging aspects of government civil liability, namely, the compensability of losses to injured parties and its connection to the element of loss. It discusses the principle of equality of citizens in relation to public expenses and its role as one of the justifications for government exemptions. Furthermore, it examines the relationship between loss and the basis of government civil liability, as well as the effect of the nature and type of losses on government exemptions.
In the last topic, attention has been paid to the nature of loss and jurisdiction, specifically addressing the cases in which the type of loss can decisively impact the determination of the competent judicial authority to handle civil liability claims against the government.
By thoroughly examining these issues, this article aims to contribute to the understanding of government civil liability, particularly by highlighting the role of the element of loss and its implications for various aspects of civil responsibility. The analytical methodology employed in this research facilitates a comprehensive analysis of the subject matter, taking into account the complexities and specificities of government activities. Ultimately, the findings shed light on the intricate relationship between loss, fault, compensability, legal exemptions, and jurisdiction in the context of government civil liability.
Through a deeper understanding of these dynamics, policymakers, legal practitioners, and scholars can gain valuable insights into the distinct nature of government civil liability and make informed decisions regarding the legal framework and regulations governing government actions. Furthermore, this research can provide a basis for further studies and discussions aimed at refining and enhancing the legal mechanisms and principles related to government civil liability in order to ensure accountability, fairness, and justice in the interactions between the government and individuals affected by its actions.
Overall, this article serves as a significant contribution to the existing body of knowledge on civil liability, specifically focusing on the unique challenges and considerations related to government civil liability. By addressing the impact of loss on various aspects of civil responsibility, this research offers valuable insights and paves the way for further exploration and development in this crucial field of study.

The role of the King in selecting the Prime Minister and ministers in the Iranian Constitution of 1906-1907 is the focus of this study. Prior to the victory of constitutionalism and the formulation of the Constitution, efforts were made to establish a cabinet, with chancellors appointed by Naser al-Din Shah Qajar and subsequent rulers to govern the country. The King's involvement in choosing the chancellor and ministers had a significant impact, as reflected in the constitutional law. However, the constitutionalist government, with the Parliament as its main institution, played an active role in overseeing the executive branch. Conversely, the King, as a non-responsible body in the constitutionalist government, had to distance himself from governance and restrain his authority. Given its historical background in Iran, the monarchy sought to maintain its political superiority by interpreting the constitution differently and exerting influential interference in the selection of ministers. This dynamic has undergone changes from the Qajar period to the Pahlavi era and beyond.This article aims to demonstrate the existence of such precedents in Iran's constitutional rights and to provide real cases and examples of the role played by the country's leader in appointing officials in the executive branch, even if not explicitly stated in the laws. The documentary evidence presented in this article substantiates the role of the country's leader in the selection of ministers and prime ministers. The challenges associated with this issue within the legal system become apparent when examining the political practices resulting from such procedures. The study delves into each period, exploring the role of the Parliament in ministerial selection during the Qajar era, the King's personal decision-making in the first Pahlavi era, and the diminishing role of the Parliament in the second Pahlavi era, when constitutional governance rules were observed from August 1941 to July 1953.The tradition of kings choosing chancellors and ministers in pre-constitutional systems influenced the inclusion of such decision-making powers in the constitutional laws. In the establishment of the Supreme Court during the reign of Mirza Husayn Khan, it was stated that the appointment and dismissal of the chancellor was solely at the discretion of the King, and the appointment of ministers was subject to the chancellor's appointment by the decree of the King. This distinction between the monarchy and the government was highlighted in the Supreme Court Bill, emphasizing the role of the chancellor as the head of the government responsible for all government departments. Early treatises promoting constitutionalism also recognized the king's power in appointing and dismissing government officials. However, in the constitutional monarchy, this role was redefined in relation to other principles and underwent significant changes.The establishment of the Grand Court aimed to separate the monarchy from the government, with "consultation of ministers" being a prerequisite. The Prime Minister was to oversee the entirety of the government in the presence of the King, while ministers held responsibility in their respective branches under the chancellor. These provisions sought to delineate the authority and competence of each entity, although some brevity and ambiguity remain. Nevertheless, the intention behind these provisions is discernible.

The notion of uncertainty in the real world has raised doubts about the conventional outcomes of economic analysis. While economic analysis suggests that injurers apply an optimal level of care based on cost-benefit logic, empirical observations indicate that injurers often deviate from this rational behavior and exhibit varying levels of care. This raises the fundamental question of how uncertainty affects the motivation of the injurer in determining the optimal level of care.
Research studies have demonstrated that individuals adjust their level of care, either reducing or increasing it, in response to the degree of uncertainty associated with the application of liability rules that aim to minimize their costs. Consequently, negligence criteria in liability systems, such as the "Reasonable Human" standard, fail to accurately capture human decision-making.
This article aims to prove that real humans do not always act solely based on cost-benefit analysis, which forms the foundation of most legal analyses when making decisions. Instead, when faced with a high probability of an accident, individuals may exhibit care levels that deviate from the optimum.
The primary question addressed in this article is whether the cost-benefit logic model, under conditions of uncertainty, can provide a criterion for determining fault that truly reflects the decision-making process of real individuals regarding the applicable level of caution.
The hypothesis or claim of this article is that the injurer's decision based on the "reasonable person" criterion is not immune to the effects of uncertainty on the injurer's motivations and the quality of the resulting loss. Consequently, the exclusive reliance on the "reasonable human" standard for establishing negligence, in the presence of uncertainty, introduces a departure from the model of rational behavior. Hence, economic models of civil responsibility are not fully compatible with this standard, as they fail to accurately depict human decision-making and yield objective results that align closely with reality.
Research This article utilizes an economic approach to explore the impact of uncertainty on the injurer's incentive to exercise care, aiming to critique the expected outcomes based on economic consequences.
Considering the influence of uncertainty on the quality of the injurer's motivations, which results in deviations from rational behavior, it becomes apparent that the theory of "reasonable person's behavior" as an interpretation of the negligence verification criterion fails to provide an accurate representation of human decisions.
The application of this criterion in the real world, seemingly influenced by the "theory of rational behavior" as an economic assumption, inevitably occurs under conditions of uncertainty. In other words, every decision, by its very nature, incorporates the presence of uncertainty and requires its effects to be taken into account.
The decision regarding the level of care that a reasonable person should exercise is made under the assumption that each level of caution corresponds to a distinct probability of liability, signifying a degree of uncertainty.
If an injurer faces a high probability of liability under the assumption of optimal care, there is an incentive to exercise more care than the optimum, and vice versa. Therefore, the decision of the reasonable injurer, based on the "reasonable person" criterion, is not exempt from the effects of uncertainty on the injurer's motivations.
Consequently, the exclusive reliance on the "reasonable human" standard for determining negligence, in the presence of uncertainty, leads to a departure from the model of rational behavior. This highlights the incompatibility of economic models of civil responsibility with the aforementioned standard, which fails to accurately portray human decisions and yield objective results that closely align with reality.
For instance, it is an undeniable proposition that a reasonable person, when making decisions about the level of care, considers a level of care based on cost-benefit logic. However, a real human, not merely an economic entity, may deviate from this proposition when faced with a high probability of liability despite taking optimal care. In such cases, the real human would be motivated to exhibit care levels beyond the optimum, even if it entails bearing expenses without economic justification. It becomes evident that reducing the degree of uncertainty and eliminating any ambiguity in establishing responsibility rules could be a potential solution.
In conclusion, this article argues that uncertainty significantly impacts the incentive of the injurer in fault-based liability with an economic approach. The reliance on the "reasonable human" standard, which is influenced by the assumptions of rational behavior in economic models, fails to account for the effects of uncertainty on human decision-making. As a result, economic models of civil responsibility do not fully align with this standard and cannot accurately capture human behavior. By acknowledging the inherent presence of uncertainty and its influence on decision-making, a more realistic and objective understanding of human motivations in determining the optimal level of care can be achieved.

The contract theory is divided into two sub-projects: the descriptive project, which explains the structure of contract law, including regulations, rules, and principles, as well as the fundamental values ​​in a legal system; and the normative project, which focuses on the goal of this field of law and the criteria for legislation. This philosophical study of law is of scientific importance as it provides a deeper understanding of existing law and guides lawyers and legislators in evaluating and reforming the legal system. This article addresses a specific question within the descriptive field of contract theory: Can a fundamental principle or value be found in Iran's contract law system that rationalizes and justifies the contractual structure? The general rules of contracts consist of legal principles, rules, and regulations, which are systematically described by legal doctrine to present a coherent account of the contract system. This article takes a more fundamental step by proposing a specific interpretation that forms the foundation of this system. It assumes that a coherent structure of contract law can be based on a specific principle, which, in turn, is grounded in a higher value. The article introduces a theory called "interpretive autonomy theory" by describing the contractual system as a coherent and interconnected whole. In response to the raised question, four related claims are proposed: 1. The fundamental principle of "enforcing the cooperative will" justifies the general principles of Iranian contract law. 2. The value or right of autonomy can be considered the fundamental value of Iran's contract law and serves as the justifying criterion for the fundamental principle of enforcing the cooperative will, as well as certain exceptions to this principle. 3. Public interest justifies exceptions to autonomy in the contractual system. 4. The value of efficiency, which is closely related to autonomy, can be utilized in designing and justifying the details of the contractual system, particularly in financial contracts. The first part of the article discusses interpretive theory, the criteria for evaluating theories, and the nature of the contract within interpretive theory. Interpretive theory is a type of descriptive theory that introduces a basic principle or value to organize and improve the understanding of the contract system. The evaluation criteria include fit, internal coherence, morality, and transparency. In interpretive theory, the contract is viewed as the common or cooperative will of the parties, creating a legally binding relationship between them. The second part examines the general principles of Iranian contract law, proposing seven principles: freedom of contracts, validity of contract, pacta sunt servanda, irrevocability of contracts, ability to invoke the contract against third parties, equilibrium, and la zarar (no harm). The central part of the article demonstrates how all the aforementioned principles can be based on the fundamental principle of "enforcing the cooperative will." The legislator aims to support the will of the parties and ensure the validity and irrevocability of the created legal relationship. Violation of the common will leads to damages or rescission. Additionally, the principle of enforcing the cooperative will is grounded in the value of autonomy, which guarantees human dignity and moral agency. The regulations based on the general principles of contracts serve to support the cooperative will and protect the value of autonomy. The fourth part reviews exceptions to the principle of enforcing the cooperative will and explains that autonomy also justifies many contractual rules that may appear exceptional. However, there are some provisions in contract law that can be solely justified by public interest or the common good. Although rare, such cases exist, considering that contract law primarily falls within the realm of private law. Even in fields like employment law or consumer contracts, many rules are applied to support the will and autonomy of the weaker party, enabling them to evaluate the necessary conditions for autonomy. According to the theory presented, certain values such as distributive justice lie outside the scope of contract law, while values such as individual welfare, efficiency, or the development of interpersonal relationships can be considered constituent elements of autonomy or ordered in a hierarchical manner. principle, but also the justification of exceptions can be based on autonomy.

Migration means traveling and moving a human being from one country to another country for living and residence. This
Migration involves the movement of individuals from one country to another for the purpose of living and settling. This economic phenomenon can be examined through social, cultural, political, and popular lenses. This research focuses on the right of Muslims to immigrate to non-Islamic countries and establish residence, exploring it in the context of jurisprudential standards and international law doctrines. The investigation delves into the permissibility of Muslim migration to non-Islamic countries and the acceptability of continued residence in such countries, drawing from jurisprudence and international law doctrines.
The research encompasses various aspects, including "international law and the migration and settlement of individuals," "background study and jurisprudential stance on Muslim migration and residence in non-Islamic countries," "foundations and evidence for arguments against living in non-Islamic countries under non-Islamic laws," "foundations and evidence for arguments supporting living in non-Islamic countries," and "critique of the foundations and evidence supporting permissibility and sanctity," followed by an analysis and conclusion.
The research adopts an analytical approach, considering the interdisciplinary and comparative nature of the subject matter. It juxtaposes teachings from the fields of jurisprudence and international law to address the discussed issue comprehensively. The findings of this research, particularly in the realm of international law and guided by the principles of the international human rights system, establish the right to immigration and residence as a fundamental first-generation right. This right finds its expression in documents such as the "Universal Declaration of Human Rights" and the "International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights," with the principle of freedom of movement serving as a tangible manifestation of this right.
Recognizing the earth as humanity's home, as reflected in various international documents, forms the basis for acknowledging the right of individuals to utilize it and migrate freely across its territories. This viewpoint aligns with the notion of "God's land is vast," which underpins the right to immigrate and reside within religious thought and the Holy Qur'an. Both perspectives emphasize the right of human beings to utilize the land, with migration and settlement serving as examples of this entitlement.
In international law and the teachings of the international human rights system, the focus is on the right to immigration and residence rather than the religious affiliation of the migrant. The destination country's religion holds limited relevance. Conversely, within the literature of accomplished scholars of jurisprudence, migration has primarily been discussed in the context of moving from "Dar al-Kafr" (land of disbelief) to "Dar al-Aman" or "Dar al-Islam" (lands of safety or Islam) for individuals unable to practice their religion and rituals freely. Thus, contrary to the teachings of international law and the international human rights system, the religious identity of the migrant and the Islamic nature of the destination country have become subjective factors. The focus for many jurists has been on reverse migration from non-Islamic lands to Islamic countries and the ensuing settlement.
Challenging the foundations of the jurisprudential division of the world into "Dar al-Islam" and "Dar al-Kufr" (lands of Islam and lands of disbelief) and the dual worldview based on an insider-outsider geographical dichotomy plays a crucial role in determining the outcome of the subject investigated in this research. This division, which serves as an epistemological starting point for several matters related to Islamic communication algorithms in the international arena, has profound implications. One might argue that the concept and issue of migration fundamentally represent concepts and issues of the post-modern state. Consequently, the right to immigration within the international human rights system emerges as a new issue intertwined with the challenges posed by the modern state, differing from the jurisprudential literature's division of the world into "Dar al-Islam" and "Dar al-Kufr" (lands of Islam and lands of disbelief).
In general, regarding the right to immigration and residence of a Muslim person in non-Islamic countries, two main ideas can be identified: the idea of prohibition and the idea of permission. Proponents of both ideas rely on Sharia documents, including Quranic statements, Sunnah, consensus, and interpretations, to support their arguments. However, it appears that a holistic and systematic study reveals that the verses and propositions cited by proponents of different ideas do not definitively disprove opposing claims. It is essential to avoid drawing conclusions solely based on atomistic analysis.
Moreover, paying attention to reason and rationality becomes imperative in this research. Considering the broader objectives of the law, it becomes clear that reason understands the importance and necessity of preserving Islamic religion, identity, and independence while also facilitating religious life in the modern world. Believing in comprehensive, universal, and eternal Islamic teachings, the understanding of reason leads to different interpretations of the requirements for immigration to Islamic countries, ranging from necessity to illegitimacy. Reason recognizes that human and Islamic life may not be compatible with life in Islamic countries in certain situations, times, and places.
In conclusion, this research investigates the right of Muslims to immigrate to non-Islamic countries and establish residence by examining jurisprudential standards and international law doctrines. It emphasizes that the right to immigration and residence is a fundamental first-generation right within the international human rights system. The research challenges the dichotomy between "Dar al-Islam" and "Dar al-Kufr" and explores the complexities and subjective factors associated with the religious identity of migrants and the nature of the destination country. Furthermore, it highlights the importance of reason and rationality in understanding the necessity or illegitimacy of immigration to Islamic countries. By considering these aspects, this research aims to contribute to a comprehensive understanding of migration within the context of Muslims' rights and international legal frameworks.

Fake news and disinformation have emerged as significant challenges in the digital age, with profound implications for individual and societal well-being. This article aims to provide an extensive analysis of recent international legal mechanisms developed since 2015 to address the escalating threat posed by fake news and disinformation to international peace and security. Employing a descriptive-analytic approach, this study explores the reasons behind the proliferation of fake news and disinformation, and their multifaceted impacts, and draws upon several legal articles addressing this issue.Efforts to counter the spread of fake news and misinformation have gained traction among international organizations, regional and global institutions, national governments, and various stakeholders at different levels. These initiatives aim to uphold democratic structures, protect the rights of minority groups, and maintain security and stability in society. For instance, the United Nations (UN) has recognized the impact of disinformation on peace and security, emphasizing the importance of promoting information literacy, critical thinking, and responsible journalism to combat this issue (UN, 2020). The UN Security Council, in its Resolution 2317 (2016), acknowledged the potential role of fake news in exacerbating conflicts and destabilizing regions.However, such endeavors have not been without criticism, particularly concerning the potential infringement upon freedom of expression. Critics argue that measures taken to combat fake news and disinformation may inadvertently curtail the rights and freedoms of individuals and groups. Balancing the need to address the harmful effects of fake news while safeguarding freedom of expression remains a complex challenge for policymakers and legal experts alike. Legal scholars such as Fenwick (2019) highlight the necessity of finding the right balance between countering disinformation and protecting free speech, advocating for nuanced approaches that do not undermine democratic values.Moreover, research conducted in multi-ethnic countries reveals that fake news and disinformation can exacerbate ethnic tensions, leading to a new form of threat and discrimination against ethnic groups. False information can perpetuate existing conflicts and foster animosity between different communities. A study by Johnson et al. (2018) examined the role of disinformation in fueling ethnic conflicts in Southeast Asia, highlighting the need for comprehensive strategies to counter its divisive impact. Similarly, research by Di Gennaro and Dutton (2019) explored the impact of disinformation on ethnic polarization in Nigeria, emphasizing the role of social media platforms in amplifying divisive narratives.To effectively address the challenges posed by fake news and disinformation, international legal mechanisms should be carefully designed to target the dissemination of false information while upholding the fundamental rights and freedoms of individuals and groups. Collaborative efforts between international organizations, governments, civil society, and media institutions are crucial in developing and implementing strategies. The Council of Europe, for instance, has adopted a comprehensive approach, emphasizing media pluralism, transparency, and supporting fact-checking initiatives (Council of Europe, 2017). The European Union, through its Code of Practice on Disinformation, seeks to promote transparency, integrity, and accountability in online platforms (European Commission, 2018).Drawing upon the experiences and recommendations of legal scholars and researchers, several key strategies can be identified to address the issue of fake news and disinformation comprehensively. First, fostering media literacy and critical thinking skills is essential in enabling individuals to discern reliable information from falsehoods. Educational programs, awareness campaigns, and media literacy initiatives should be promoted to enhance the public's ability to critically evaluate news sources and content (Kaplan, 2019). The importance of media literacy is also recognized by organizations such as UNESCO, which emphasizes the need for comprehensive media and information literacy programs to counter disinformation (UNESCO, 2018)Second, promoting responsible journalism practices is vital to combating the spread of fake news and disinformation. Media organizations should uphold journalistic ethics, fact-checking protocols, and professional standards to ensure the dissemination of accurate and reliable information. Collaborative efforts between media institutions, fact-checking organizations, and technology platforms can contribute to the verification and debunking of false information (Wardle & Derakhshan, 2017). The role of media self-regulation in maintaining journalistic integrity and countering disinformation is highlighted in the research by Nielsen and Graves (2017), which emphasizes the importance of industry-wide initiatives to address this issue.Third, the regulation of social media platforms and technology companies is crucial in curbing the spread of fake news and disinformation. Transparent algorithms, improved content moderation, and cooperation with fact-checkers can help mitigate the dissemination of false information. Striking a balance between regulation and avoiding censorship is a challenge that requires careful consideration of the potential impact on freedom of expression (Citron & Norton, 2011). Legal scholars such as Gillespie (2018) argue for a comprehensive regulatory framework that ensures accountability, transparency, and user empowerment in the digital ecosystem.Furthermore, international cooperation and coordination are essential to effectively address the transnational nature of fake news and disinformation. Cross-border collaboration between governments, international organizations, and technology companies can facilitate the sharing of best practices, information, and resources in combating this global challenge. The Global Disinformation Index, for example, serves as a collaborative effort to provide tools and data to mitigate the spread of disinformation (Global Disinformation Index, n.d.).In conclusion, the rise of fake news and disinformation poses a grave global threat to international peace and security. Countermeasures against this phenomenon have encountered both support and opposition, with the need to balance the preservation of freedom of expression and the mitigation of harmful effects. Efforts to combat fake news and disinformation should encompass a multi-faceted approach that includes media literacy, responsible journalism practices, regulation of technology platforms, and international cooperation. By implementing comprehensive legal mechanisms and fostering collaboration among stakeholders, societies can effectively confront the challenges posed by fake news and disinformation while upholding the principles of freedom of expression and preserving peace and security.