نشریه پژوهش های حقوق تطبیقی
سال بیست و نهم شماره 4 (پیاپی 130، زمستان 1404)

Nowadays, according to the need to respect the will of individuals, many regulations and international conventions are amended. Among the articles of the Civil Code of Iran, which states one of the rules of conflict resolution, is Article 963, which refers the resolution of disputes arising from personal and financial relationships of foreign couples with different citizenships to the law of the country of the man's nationality. In other words, in this article, according to the ruling spirit of the civil law, which states that the man is the head of the family, which many articles of the law have been drafted, he imposes the national law of the man on the woman. But the basic question of the current research is whether the legislator can, by adhering to this principle that is related to Islamic rights, establish regulations for foreigners who are not even Muslims in many cases and prefer the law of one of them over the other The authors, using a descriptive-analytical approach, first briefly examine the legal-jurisprudential scope of the husband's headship over the family, which has an effective contribution to the decision-making of the following sections, then analyze Article 963 of the Civil Code, and finally examine the law of France, which accepts the rule of common residence in such cases. It is clear that in Iranian law, there is a possibility of amending the conflict resolution rule of Article 963, and this change is not contrary to jurisprudence.

The development of new technologies, especially in the field of artificial intelligence using the autonomous vehicles in global transportation systems, has created a great transformation in the transportation industry. This evolution has brought up new questions in the legal, social and ethical fields and has also created many challenges. The purpose of this research is to examine the legal and executive frameworks of Germany, as the first country with an approved law for level 4 autonomous self-driving cars (vehicles) in specific operational areas, and also to assess the possibility of its legal adaptation to the Iranian legal system. By defining a technical supervisory body, dividing responsibility among stakeholders in a structured way among the owner, technical supervisor and manufacturer, and requiring the installation of a black box to record vehicle data, Germany has created a clear framework for responding to new issues. Iran, however, does not have specific and codified laws and regulations for self-driving cars. Therefore, the authors intend to examine the legal capacities of Iran in the three areas of civil, insurance, and criminal law to determine whether the existing frameworks are capable of responding to challenges such as determining liability in accidents, insurance coverage of accidents caused by software defects, or even the possibility of committing crimes by self-driving systems, and similar issues. Finally, the authors of the article present a set of suggestions for the legislation of self-driving cars in Iran, which include the development of an independent legal system with a classification of levels of self-driving, the creation of a specialized authority to handle claims, the design of new insurance mechanisms, and the requirement to install a black box. They intend that, given that no specific legal mechanism has been developed in Iran to deal with this phenomenon, this model, inspired by the German experience, can be the basis for future legislation in Iran and for the development of smart transportation.

Alternative litigation represents the transfiguration of the movement of legal systems from pure formalism to judicial realism. This institution, which has become the core of comparative procedural law over the past century, is mainly based on several pillars: ensuring efficiency and access to justice, preventing unnecessary proliferation of lawsuits, and reducing the social and economic costs of handling lawsuits. This research introduces and analyzes alternative litigation in Iranian law with a critical and analytical approach, and in this regard, it also conducts a comparative study of the status of this concept in American and French law. In the Iranian legal system, despite the existence of scattered evidences, including limited references and examples in judicial procedure, the formal and structured effect of alternative litigation is not clearly evident. The structure of legal articles and the conservative interpretation of judicial procedure have created an obstacle to the full acceptance of this institution in practice. This has made it difficult for plaintiffs, in cases where the basis of their claim or demand is in doubt, to easily present an alternative claim with an appropriate efficiency factor in accordance with the requirements of the proceedings. In contrast, rapid and fundamental changes in American law, especially after the adoption of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure of 1938, have contributed to the acceptance and deepening of alternative claims; in such a way that various causes and aspects of the claim can be raised in a single lawsuit, regardless of coherence and even despite the logical inconsistency of the claims. Also, the French legal system, by accepting this institution and creating a mandatory framework and mechanism through judicial procedure, has taken fundamental steps to recognize alternative claims and litigations.

The intellectual property rights of dissertations in the Iranian educational system face conceptual, fundamental and philosophical challenges. It can be inferred from the content of the regulations of the Ministry of Science and Islamic Azad University that dissertation is considered a joint work between the professor and the student, commissioned by the university. Nevertheless, the application of the concepts of "joint work" and "commissioned work" to academic dissertation is faced with serious doubts and the legal framework governing research and the papers derived from it is subject to criticism. This text, using a descriptive and analytical method, with reference to the philosophy and principles of intellectual property rights, seeks to strengthen several interrelated claims with a look at the rules of higher education systems in some countries and the opinions of the Administrative Justice Court. Firstly, the intellectual property rights of dissertations generally belong to the student, unless there are exceptional cases. Secondly, the intellectual property rights of a paper derived from the work also belong to the student, and the term derived paper is distinct from a paper co-authored by the professor and the student. Thirdly, the intellectual property rights of the work belong to an institution or university when the student has been funded by that institution to carry out their research project, or if the student has carried out a significant portion of their research work using the resources and facilities of that institution.

This article adopts an analytical-descriptive approach combined with a comparative study to examine the buyer's obligation to take delivery of the goods under Iranian law, in comparison with the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG). Paragraph 4 of Article 362 of the Iranian Civil Code emphasizes the buyer's obligation to pay the purchase price but leaves the obligation to take delivery of the goods ambiguous. In contrast, the CISG explicitly considers taking delivery as one of the buyer’s obligations and provides various remedies for its breach. The findings indicate that although Iranian law does not expressly stipulate the obligation to take delivery, it can be inferred implicitly from general legal principles such as the binding nature of contracts, the correlation between delivery and receipt, the duty to fulfill contractual obligations, and prevailing commercial customs

In the United States legal system, significant efforts have been made to protect ideas in the form of five legal theories, the turning point of which is protection through the trade secret law system; a system that, with the least theoretical objections compared to other theories and the provision of civil and criminal liabilities, is a suitable legal tool for idea owners. In this research, we have collected materials in a library manner and, using a descriptive-analytical method in analyzing the existing materials, we have concluded that ideas whose ambiguities have been reduced to some extent are compatible with trade secrets, and if they meet the necessary conditions for protecting trade secrets according to the new Iranian Industrial Property Protection Law, this system can be considered an appropriate vehicle for protecting the possible rights of idea owners.

In numerous rulings, the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has been compelled to give its opinion on concepts such as the essential security interests of states, national interests, and national security. These concepts, which are widely cited, have created significant ambiguities in the interpretation and application of international rules due to their general and flexible nature. These ambiguities have not only been a source of disputes among states, but have also provided an opportunity to misuse these concepts to justify unilateral actions or breaches of international obligations. In this regard, the question arises: what interpretations have the Court and, consequently, its judges offered for these ambiguous and political concepts, and what have been the consequences and effects of these interpretations on states’ actions and the Court’s future rulings The article also addresses the question of whether states’ actions that violate international law, particularly unilateral sanctions, are justified based on the exceptions related to security interests. The findings of this research indicate that international law has imposed limitations on exceptions pertaining to security interests and similar concepts. Furthermore, the extent of states’ discretion in invoking these concepts depends on the specific wording within the security exception, varying from one tribunal to another and from one clause to another. Specifically, exceptional clauses that contain self-judging language (such as Article XXI of the GATT) grant greater discretion to the states. However, the Court’s rulings, particularly the provisional measures order of October 3, 2018, and the preliminary objections in the case concerning the alleged breaches of the 1955 Treaty of Amity, demonstrate that even when states rely on their own subjective discretion and assessment based on clauses with a self-judging nature in determining meaning and interpretation, they must act in compliance with the obligation of good faith stipulated in Article 26 of the Vienna Convention. Moreover, the essential security interests mentioned in Article XX of the 1955 Treaty of Amity lack self-judging language; consequently, they neither hinder the Court’s jurisdiction, nor compliance with legal formalities, equality of arms, nor the Court’s mission to realize justice. In the merits phase of defense, this is equivalent to interests threatened by armed attacks or other emergencies where the life of the state is endangered. In this context, economic interest can only be considered a security interest if it causes widespread disorder, severe political turmoil, or other security threats.