نشریه مطالعات حقوق بشر اسلامی
پیاپی 32 (بهار 1403)

Assessing the position of human rights in the light of "periodic global assessment" mechanism and comparing it with Islamic Sharia constitutes the main issue of the present research. In the article, the question which is raised include ‘’ what commonalities and differences can be seen in the comparison between UPR and Islamic Sharia in the field of human rights in Iran? In response to the question, this article tries to use the descriptive-analytical research method while dealing with the foundations of human rights in Islam and U. P. R deals with the differences between these two. Therefore, the following hypothesis is proposed: "In Iran, human rights are mostly derived from Islamic Sharia, which considers them as divine deposits and not natural gifts. Therefore, man has rights because he is God's creation, not because he is a human being." ; While in the light of U. P. Human beings are entitled to it by being human, and the religious and divine characteristics of human beings are ignored." The conclusion of the article shows that, firstly, Islamic human rights seems to have more comprehensiveness and universality due to the three categories of common nature, respect for other cultures, and the basis of peaceful coexistence. , secondly; Iran's Islamic interpretation of human rights and its incompatibility with secularist values cause a challenge between Iran and U.P.R in the field of human rights.

One of the main issues related to legal anthropology is the issue of legal and legal developments. In this regard, the impact of the law on people and the impact of people's behavior as a custom on the law can be investigated as an interaction. After the 1957 revolution, in the processes of development and legislation and evolution of social issues, we witnessed developments in the field of legislation and the impact of custom on law. One of the areas that saw changes according to the customary conditions of the society is the area of family law. In the following review, the role of custom in the most important laws of Iran after the revolution is examined because these laws are tied to the quality of life of citizens. In addition to the role of customs, on the other hand, the jurisprudence-law duality in relation to family law has always caused changes in the interpretation of Sharia and has an impact on law. This research seeks to investigate the most important legal-customary-jurisprudential changes with a qualitative method. Also, this article aims to answer the question that these changes in the field of the family were mostly centered around? According to the findings of the descriptive analysis and review of laws, many legal changes in the field of family law have a customary basis and have occurred with the will of the majority of the society and the pressure of public opinion.

Recently, a new type of contract called smart contracts has entered the legal life of citizens, the means of payment of which is Ramzarz. But cryptocurrencies may change in value, and it is important to discuss the termination of such contracts. This research has been done by analytical-descriptive method with the aim of investigating the possibility of concluding this type of contracts in the context of changes in the value of Ramzarz from the perspective of Islamic human rights. It was concluded that the possibility of terminating the contract due to value changes is not available in any of the options. However, according to the jurisprudential principles of fairness, hardship, human dignity and conditions of force majeure, it can be considered legal to replace this type of contract with ordinary contracts based on public custom. Given that the parties to the contract did not play a role in creating these conditions, they should not cause a sudden transfer of wealth from one side to the other, which would severely damage the poor human dignity. From a legal point of view, of course, if the contractual obligations are beyond the power of the parties and neither of them has a role in creating those conditions, the judicial authority or arbitration can, in accordance with public custom, determine a way to extend the contract. W

Universality and relativism are two different approaches to human rights. Universality implies recognition of the same and equal rights for all people around the world, and relativism, on the other hand, emphasizes on the dependence of human rights to the cultural components of each society .Nowadays universality is considered as the accepted discourse and the relationship between governance systems and universality is of significant importance. This article aims to investigate the relationship between Iran's governance system and the universality of human rights. In this regard, while introducing three general indicators, this issue has been examined. These indicators include the capacity to achieve public consensus in the field of human rights, adopting an acceptable position towards international human rights rules, and legally guaranteeing the minimum observance of international human rights standards. In general, this research is based on the fact that Iran's ruling system has adopted a special position towards human rights, which, although it is related to the theory of universality in terms of theoretical foundations, however, the specific religious approach of this system is somewhat relative. It tends to rely on the concept of cultural diversity and at the same time, while adopting a certain interpretation of universality, it also has tendencies towards relativism in terms of religiousness and specific political and cultural characteristics.