نشریه پژوهش های حقوق تطبیقی
سال شانزدهم شماره 4 (پیاپی 78، زمستان 1391)

Following the September 11، 2001 event، Gorge W. Bush announced the “War on Terror”. Initially، it was not so clear that what Bush meant. Previously، the term “war” was regarded to a conflict between two states، whereas in “War on Terror”، one side of the conflict is not a state، but a non-governmental organization or non-governmental entities. So، after attacking on Afghanistan and Iraq، establishing of Guantanamo Detention Center، and launching of Targeted killing of Al-Qaeda’s members، gradually it become clear that what Bush meant. Governing of the International Humanitarian Law (Law of War) in conflict with terror، including detention of Al-Qaeda’s members out of supervision of international legal institutions، recalling preemptive self-defense in attacking to Afghanistan and Iraq، and finally، Targeted Killing، was among the reasons for calling “War” on the conflict with terrorist organizations. Scholars and experts of International Terrorism belive terror is a phenomenon of criminal، not as an armed conflict under the Law of War. In this article، beside deliberating the different of extra-territorial targeted killing of Al-Qaeda’s members، it is reviewed from the viewpoint of the international law، governing to conflict with terror، whether Human Law or International Humanitarian Law. Finally، the legitimacy or lack of legitimacy of targeted killing with drone fighters from the international Law prospect would be declared.

Today، most of criminal justice systems، with the help of the legal concept of “Diminished Responsibility”، try to explain the behavior of a group of criminals with an abnormality of mind. While، we can say that diminished responsibility has not any place in Iranian judicial discourse، and criminal responsibility has been proposed in the two states of complete responsibility or not responsibility. Instead، English law، with recognition of the said defense، has taken an important step for protecting these people. Accordingly، in this paper، with descriptive-analytical approach، concepts، principles، and manifestations of diminished responsible have been studied، and using comparative approach، ignoring of diminished responsibility in Iranian criminal justice system has been evaluated. According to the results of the present study، the function of Iranian government in judicial and legislative discourse is not positive، due to neglecting the comparative law findings and researches.

Protection of the consumer of goods has long been considered in the legal systems but with the development of multiple technologies and specialized and complex production processes، the need for consumer protection is felt more than ever. Preventive and remedial supportive techniques are used in the field of consumer protection as the weaker party. The liability of manufacturers of defective and dangerous product is supported in the Articles 2 and 18 of the Consumer Protection Act، enacted on 22/3/1388 and the EU Product Liability Directive، enacted on 1985/25/5 (85/734/EECL). Principles of the civil liability of suppliers of goods and services against consumer in order to support Cortex-informed in the legal relations have been attended. The accepted principles are Doctrine of Gaveat Emptor (let the buyer)، warranty and strict liability. In this article-as a basis for civil liability in respect of supplier and consumer - strict liability is accepted

Freedom of religion and belief is one of the most fundamental human rights، and it can said that even the general idea of human rights was due to the protection of religious minorities. This right، which has been reflected in the first domestic laws on human rights، like “French Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen” and “First Amendment to the U. S. Constitution«، has also been under consideration from the outset of the world movement for human rights، and the most important international human rights instruments such as Universal Declaration of Human Rights، Covenant on Civil and Political Rights، European Convention on Human Rights، American Convention on Human Rights and African Charter on Human and Peoples'' Rights have emphasized on it.

In the upcoming article، by adopting a comparative approach to the criminal law of Australia، we decided to make clear the murder caused by necessity in different scenarios. Hence، after dividing the general premise of “deliberate murder caused by necessity” to three more minor sorts “killing one to save yourself”، “killing one of the parties at risk by a third party،” and “killing fewer people to save the lives of more people”، evidences about both acceptance and rejection of murder under necessityin such circumstances have been discussed. Finally، it is concluded that when it is possible for the perpetrator to evaluate the benefits and harms of his/her action، and he/she had been acted on the basis of acceptable religious and secular rational values ​​for determining the more important value (specially the numerical criteria mentioned in the article)، he/she has no criminal responsibility.

In this paper، in order to explain the scope of the parties'' will in one of the most fundamental issues related to arbitration، the capacity of natural and legal persons for referring to arbitration has been studied. The study of legal verdicts and thoughts (judgments and opinions)، national and international rules، and regulations governing international commercial arbitrations، simple laws، conventions and rules of international arbitration organizations show that the dominance (governance) of the freedom of will principle is always present in these subjects. However، in some legal systems، there are some limitations for legal persons of public law such as predicted in the Article 139 of Iranian Constitution. These constraints that are exceptional only in the realm of internal rights، are respected، and based on the international commercial arbitration procedures in the international commercial، there are ignored because they say these limitations are contrary with the international and transnational public orders.

In the new legislations، in order to explore truth، there is a tendency to increase the adoptions of juridical judge like what it is in penal affairs. Also there is a tendency for having more trust in the judge in this field. Therefore، the rules that limit the recognition power of the judge are decreasing، and the traditional view on the basis of separation between judicial litigations and penal litigations for proof has been diminished to some extent. The principle of judicial evaluation freedom of civil evidence like penal reasons has been accepted in most of the systems at present. According to the modern purpose of civil judgment، namely the exploration of truth، the acceptance of this principle should be considered as the effect that the legislators see it as exploration of truth. According to the existence evaluation، the judicial judgment is not the agent of hostility disjunction، and he/she is not the storyteller like before، rather the principle of reasons evaluation freedom creates this possibility that، according to this possibility، the judge does not only act according to the appearance of evidence that refers to the general science، rather he/she can access to conscience continence. This is the way for access to real truth. In this article، beside offering the correct concept of evidence evaluation and relying on the possibility of judicial evaluations of all reasons، we study its effect on judgment.