نشریه پژوهش های حقوق تطبیقی
سال بیست و نهم شماره 3 (پیاپی 129، پاییز 1404)

In the digital realm, online trading platforms play a pivotal role in facilitating commercial and economic interactions among users. The intermediary nature and diverse services offered by these platforms give rise to complex structures and roles that necessitate in-depth legal and economic analysis. This research delves into the legal and economic structures and roles of online trading platforms, employing a comparative approach to analyze the disparities and similarities between Iranian and European Union regulations. By adopting this methodology, the study meticulously examines the laws, regulations, and judicial rulings within both legal systems, focusing on the alignment of their perspectives on the roles of online platforms and the criteria for identifying these roles. To achieve these objectives, a descriptive-analytical research method was employed.The findings of this research reveal that these platforms, depending on their level of involvement in contract formation and the nature of their interactions with users, can assume the roles of intermediaries or direct service providers. Moreover, in the European Union, online platforms are obligated to adhere to safety and quality standards, a facet that has received less attention in the Iranian legal system.

After the issuance of Supreme Court’s decision No. 847-25/2/1403, some legal scholars have argued that the “interest of the client” is a fact rather than a law, and that this decision represents an encroachment by the general board of supreme court into the realm of “fact.” Since this critique is not new and has been raised in numerous previous decisions, this article seeks to answer the following questions: Is it possible to distinguish between fact dispute and law dispute What is the criterion for recognizing the supreme Court’s supervisory jurisdiction over the decision of the inferior court French legal scholars assert that distinguishing between the law and the facts in a court’s verdict is difficult, and it is not always clear whether the disagreement between two authorities pertains to the adjustment of the law or the interpretation of the facts. The correct measure is to separate legal description from judicial interpretation. Therefore, if the disagreement between courts pertains to the legal description of an event, issuing a decision by the general board is possible. However, if the disagreement concerns the personal interpretation of an event by the judge, the involvement of the general board of the supreme court faces a limitation. Based on this standard, the “welfare of the client” is an interpretive matter and falls within the subjective understanding of the judge. Consequently, any intervention in this matter is outside the jurisdiction of the General board of the Supreme Court.

Today, alternative dispute resolution methods play a significant role in resolving disputes. One of the relatively new methods in this field is baseball arbitration; this method, which originated in the resolution of disputes between baseball players and teams in the United States, has a unique process; the parties submit their final proposals to the arbitration tribunal in confidence and in sealed envelopes, and the tribunal is obliged to select one of these proposals as the final award without any changes. This method has gained great importance due to its simplicity and speed and can even be used in public and international law. The present study attempts to explain the concept and nature of baseball arbitration and compare it with other similar institutions. It also studies the feasibility of using it in the Iranian legal system by examining its historical development and applications in law. The findings of this study show that baseball arbitration is a branch of arbitration and therefore falls under the scope of arbitration regulations. In the Iranian legal system, this method has legitimacy, considering the generalities of international commercial arbitration law and the arbitration regulations of the Civil Procedure Code, and can be used as a private method of dispute resolution.

The negative pledge clause is a restrictive covenant in financing agreements, whereby the borrower (funding recipient) is prohibited from creating any security interest over its assets in favor of other creditors until the loan is fully repaid. This clause, which is common in unsecured financing contracts, aims to protect the lender (financier) against the risk of default. A breach occurs when the borrower fails to honor this commitment and grants security to a new lender. Among various proposed remedies, this article examines filing a tort claim for intentional interference with contractual relations against the new lender. This tort, which provides significant protection for the rights of the beneficiary of the negative pledge clause (the original lender), is analyzed through a comparative study with English law. This descriptive-analytical research aims to lay the groundwork for recognizing this tort in Iranian law to strengthen the position of the said beneficiary. By examining its constituent elements, it is concluded that, under certain conditions, accepting this cause of action as a remedy for breaching the negative pledge clause is feasible within the Iranian legal system.

Jerusalem, as a city with a special religious and historical status, has been a controversial issue in international law since its occupation by Israel and continuous efforts to change its legal, demographic and geographical status. Using historical and legal documents, this article analyzes the legal status of Jerusalem in light of the advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on 19 July 2024, based on the principles and rules of international law. In its advisory opinion, the Court, while focusing on East Jerusalem, emphasized the need to apply the principles and rules of international law to the entire city. In the advisory opinion, it only addressed the East Jerusalem section and recognized that Israel’s actions there were contrary to the principles and rules of international law. However, it seems that the Court’s findings regarding East Jerusalem can be generalized to West Jerusalem and are an important step towards achieving justice and clarifying the status of this city.

Environmental impact assessment is the most important practical tool for governments in order to achieve economic development goals and comply with environmental considerations concurrently or in other words, sustainable development. Environmental impact assessment has been recognized in the Iranian legal system from a long time ago. However, dispersion of laws and regulations in this area, lack of detail and lack of effective sanctions have turned the environmental impact assessment mechanism into a mere formality for obtaining construction and operation permits for development projects. While using a descriptive-analytic method, this article will describe the legal aspects of environmental impact assessment in People's Republic of China, International Finance Corporation and the Islamic Republic of Iran with a comparative manner. Then, by analyzing the requirements of this institution in Iranian laws and regulations, it will try to provide suggestions for improving the position of environmental impact assessment in the legal system of Iran. To address this challenge, it is recommended to draft a specific code with a focus on environmental impact assessment, specify details such as cumulative impacts, information disclosure and follow-up reports in the environmental impact assessment process as the responsibilities of project owners and implement effective and deterrent sanctions. These suggestions will not only strengthen the position of sustainable development in the legal system of Iran in a practical way, but will also lead to an improvement in the environmental situation of the country over the long term.

undoubtedly, the issuance of enhanced damages as a strong civil remedy in U.S. patent law is intended to compensate the injured party. However, challenges regarding the issuance of such damages and the necessity of proving willfulness in U.S. courts have arisen. These issues have led to contradictory rulings, reduced predictability of court decisions, and ambiguity in the rights of plaintiffs in patent infringement cases, which could serve as a model for Iranian law. Therefore, independent discussion and research on this subject seem essential. The primary question in this article is whether proving willful infringement is necessary for awarding enhanced damages in U.S. patent cases, and whether this legal concept can be applied in Iranian law. This article aims to provide a legal analysis of this issue. Based on the findings of this article, which is written using a descriptive and analytical method, despite the fact that the U.S. legislature has had the opportunity to address this matter, it has not imposed any requirement for proving willfulness in patent infringement cases, unlike other areas of intellectual property. Although U.S. courts have sought to align the proof of willfulness for awarding enhanced damages with other intellectual property domains or to resolve challenges from previous cases, this interpretation does not conform to patent law. The Iranian legislature could also consider utilizing this legal mechanism in its appropriate context based on necessity and policy considerations.