نشریه پژوهش های حقوق تطبیقی
سال هجدهم شماره 4 (پیاپی 86، زمستان 1393)

Dispute among different persons is conducted when either every one of them allege independent interest in proceeding subject، or when numerous plaintiffs and defendants having common interest allege or defend action. Phrase “Inseparable judgment” includes dispute among the plaintiffs and defendants having common interest. “Indispensable claim” is a kind of dispute among the persons having common interest; but there is only this relation among the defendants. Because in this kind of dispute، all of the defendants must be complained. Article 74 of Civil Procedure is observer on inseparable claim. This paper discusses the concept and kinds of disputes among different persons from a comparative aspect. The approach of Iranian civil procedure in this matter is considered as an important subject that needs to be discussed by adopting convenience rules from foreign law.

The Internet،due to its global scope، easy access، cheapness and possibility in global communication، is the endless world،andhas important role in developing and/or destructing countries. If it is used to make peace، economic security and positive communication، then it will be considered as proper technology for the countries; however، if it is used to violate privacy، intellectual ownership rights، insult، defamation and softwaremalfunctions، it will affect inversely. Toutilize this new world، it is necessary to create an integrated system including controlled rules with related needs. In this paper، the acceptedmodels of legal society are studied as a system to legitimate the internet in Iran، UK and USA. In this regard، international law has high exclusive capability to legitimate this space. These studieslead us toward a proper legal system with legitimated Internet.

The implementation of justice in a reasonable time is a fundamental principle of penal procedure. It is necessary to note that it is reasonableness can be considered as an important criterion in the fairness of the proceedings. The concept of reasonableness of trial time is that dealing with the case can be done within the reasonable period of time and by this way، justice can be satisfied. But determining what period of time، it is fair and reasonable، is not easy. In this paper، three criteria (objective) and subjective (personal) and mixed (intermediate) as a benchmark to determine the reasonableness of the trial period were analyzed. It means that hearing the deadline is set by the legislator''s emphasis on objective criteria. The subjective criteria is proportionate to the circumstances of each case that determines a reasonable deadline set according to the case، and can vary from case to case. Finally، the complex criterion makes benefit of both of the above mentioned factors. The mentioned principle has been considered in the statute of the International Criminal Court and the European Convention on Human Rights as a right، especially to plaintiff، and as a duty for International Criminal Court. The importance of this principle has caused that، in addition to breaking out the issued decision- as far as its noncompliance makes disrupt the safety or health of the procedure- compensation from the convicted should be ruled too.

The whole or part of contractual rights is transferred to the transferee through agreement between the transferee and the transferor in the course of transferring credit، and by that، the transferee is replaced with the transferor in terms of the right to claim his/her credit in the main contract. However، in some situations، the ability to invoke credit-transferring agreement is disrupted by the debtor، and he/she، through resorting to objections such as ignorance، correcting the main contract، contractual restrictions of transfer، etc. (as the case may be)، causes exemption or the refusal right to pay his/her debt to the transferee. This issue is one of the circumstances in which a given right conflicts with the International Private Law problems، and therefore، is a place for the considering conflict of law rules. As a result، in this paper، we studied comparatively the rules governing the relationship between the transferee and the debtor in Iran’s law and The Uniform Commercial Code in the view of some International Instruments. It came to light that whereas in these two legal systems and International Instruments، the governing conflict of law rule and as a result، governing law is the same both on the main contract and the relationship between the transferee and the debtor، the obstacles to the invocability principle of credit-transferring are different with respect to this relationship in the mentioned legal systems and International Instruments as well.

In the company law، the vindication of the company’s rights is directorial affairs، and in the exclusive authority of directors who represent a company. In the cases، which the directors avoid of vindicating the rights of their company، due to personal interests or the interests of those who may have ascendancy over them، the prediction of suitable strategy would secure the rights of the company and its minority shareholders. In this respect، legal systems have allowed the shareholders to intervene and bring an action in the name of the company. This is called a “Derivative Action”. The contrast of this sort of action with independent legal personality and the exclusive representation of the directors of the company، necessitates this sort of action to be defined as exceptional and thus limited in the domain of enactment so that the minority shareholders do not have the power to abuse it in order to interfere with the way the directors operate، and prevent them from bringing action against the competent and capable directors. Therefore the derivative action is limited in domain and is usable only in fixed or appointed cases. In England، France and Iran، the legislature has enacted the derivative action for the cases of vindicating the company’s rights against directorial faults، whereas in the United States، it can be brought against any person.

Cancellation of Hadd (prescribed punishment) is prohibited in some Islamic narrations. These narrations have often been interpreted and construed as referring to Hodoud as opposed to Tazira’t and their inflexible implementation. According to such an inflexible reading of the texts، Hodoud would not be flexible enough to cover all the necessary expediencies، and would not be compatible with the requirements of different circumstances and conditions. By critically analyzing the content of these narrations، this article comes to the conclusion that they are not specifically related to Hodoud. Rather، they are talking about punishment، in general، and that any unjustified ignorance and abolitionist approach to the punishment is not acceptable: be the punishment Had or Ta’zir. So the main objective of these narrations is not to emphasize rigidity، inflexibility، and unreasonable seriousness in Hodoud in their idiomatic sense; rather they are emphasizing the certainty of punishments in general. Also the article criticizes some rules inferred from the narrations.

In our today society، there are many children who are arising from the marriage of Iranian women with foreign men، and thereupon are unqualified for Iranian citizenship and its related privileges. Although the legislator، in Paragraph 5 of Article 976، sets the rule about possibility to earn Iranian citizenship; however he has not talk about the status of children before they reach the age of 18 years. Single article of determination of the citizenship status of the children raising from the marriage between Iranian women and foreign men، approved in 1385 (2006)، also didn not remove brevity of the civil law about this، and the reforming proposal of the citizenship status determination of children of Iranian women married to foreign men has remained silent since 1391 (2012)، so that determining a solution for granting citizenship through interpretation of Paragraph 4 of Article 976، reforming paragraphs 2 and 6، or at least granting some necessary privileges like subsidies، free education، and having Iranian ID card before reaching the age of 18 can help significantly to solving this problem.