Journal of Islamic Law Research

Journal of Islamic Law Research

A Comparative Study of the Doctrine of Res Nullius in French and Iranian Law

Type : Research Article

Authors
Jafar Nouri Yushanlouei 1
Seyyed Mostafa Milani 2
1 Associate Professor, Department of Private and Islamic Law, Faculty of Law and Political Sciences, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.
2 PhD Student in Private Law, Faculty of Law and Political Sciences, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.
10.30497/law.2025.247744.3707
Abstract
 ‌Context & Objective: The concept of a right without an owner (Res Nullius) presents a unique legal relationship that, unlike typical property rights, is not tied to a specific holder. Traditional civil rights focus on person-centered entitlements, making rights without owners a less familiar and underexplored category. This article addresses the need to shift from individual-centered property law to an objective, property-focused understanding of such rights. It aims to explore the nature and legal recognition of Res Nullius within the context of French and Iranian law. The primary research question investigates how these rights are defined, recognized, and managed in the two legal systems, and what implications this has for property law theory and practice.
 ‌Method & Approach: The study adopts a doctrinal and comparative legal methodology. It mainly analyzes French law, which has established frameworks such as the saisine institution, tontine contracts, and easements that exemplify ownerless rights. These are then compared with Iranian law, which, though lacking a specific definition of Res Nullius, contains analogous concepts rooted in the Iranian Civil Code and Islamic legal traditions. Through this comparative lens, the article seeks to clarify the foundations and instances of ownerless rights.
 ‌Findings: The analysis reveals that French legal sources have developed necessary legal tools to recognize and regulate rights without owners, including temporary or permanent ownerless rights. Iranian law, despite the absence of explicit definitions, incorporates similar principles within its civil and Islamic law frameworks. This comparison highlights the complexity and diversity in conceptualizing Res Nullius and demonstrates that precise identification and legal treatment of these rights can enhance public property governance and refine the relations of ownership and obligations.
 ‌Conclusion: The article concludes that properly defining and understanding the doctrine of rights without owners is crucial for improving legal management of public property and ownership frameworks. It emphasizes the importance of integrating ownerless rights into legal theory and practice, which can foster more effective regulation and open pathways for innovative legal analysis within both French and Iranian contexts.
Keywords
Res Nullius
Property Rights
Public Property
Collective Rights
Law of Obligations
Subjects
  1. Aldon, J. (1765). Traité historique et pratique des droits seigneuriaux. Paris: Despilly, 834 p.
  2. Ansari, Morteza (1420 AH/1999). al-Makāsib (Vol. 3). Qom: Majmaʿ al-Fikr al-Islami [in Arabic].
  3. Atias, C. (2013). Les qualités multiples en droit des biens. In Le droit entre autonomie et ouverture: Mélanges en l’honneur de Jean-Louis Bergel (pp. 543–562). Brussels: Bruylant.
  4. Bahr al-Olum, Seyyed Mohammad (1403 AH/1983). Bulghat al-Faqīh. Tehran: Maktabat al-Sadiq [in Arabic].
  5. Barbièri, Jean-François. (1984). Les souvenirs de famille: Mythe ou réalité juridique? JCP G., 3156.
  6. Baudry-Lacantinerie, G., & Chauveau, M. (1903). Des biens. In Traité théorique et pratique de droit civil (3rd ed., Vol. 6, No. 7). Paris: Sirey.
  7. Boffa, R. (2008). La destination de la chose (Doctoral thesis). Paris: Lextenso.
  8. Boutaric, F. de. (1775). Traité des droits seigneuriaux et des matières féodales. Toulouse: Libraires associés, 692 p.
  9. Brun-Wauthier. (2012). Observation. Droit de la famille, commentaire no 49.
  10. Carbonnier, J. (2001). L'obligation entre la force et la grâce. In Flexible droit (10th ed.). Paris: LGDJ.
  11. Carbonnier, J. (n.d.). Métaphysique des biens: Les choses inanimées ont-elles une âme? In Flexible droit (pp. 362–370).
  12. Cass., civ. 2e, 29 mars 1995, no 93-18769: Bull. II, no 115.
  13. Cass., civ. 3e, 13 mai 2009, no 08-16525: Bull. III, no 111.
  14. Cass., civ. 3e, 29 février 1968, Étang Napoléon, no 66-12311: Bull. III, no 82; Dalloz 1968, p. 454.
  15. Cass., req., 14 mars 1939, Le Mesnager du But: DH 1939.260.
  16. Code civil. (2013). Retrieved from Legifrance.
  17. Codet-Boisse, Jean. (1905). Du catel (Doctoral thesis). Bordeaux.
  18. Dabin, J. (2008). Le droit subjectif. Paris: Dalloz.
  19. Dictionnaire de la langue française (Vol. Créance). (1873–1874). Paris: Hachette.
  20. Dross, W. (2004). La saisine successorale. Defrénois, p. 471.
  21. Dross, W. (2012). Droit civil: Les choses. Paris: LGDJ.
  22. Du Hamel, H. (1913). Essai sur la distinction théorique des biens en immeubles et meubles d’après le coutumier de Poitou de 1417 (Doctoral thesis). Poitiers.
  23. Duguit, L. (1921–1925). Traité de droit constitutionnel (2nd ed.). Paris: Fontemoing.
  24. Forest, G. (2012). Essai sur la notion d'obligation en droit privé. Paris: Dalloz.
  25. Fréminville, E. de la Poix de. (1746–1757). La pratique universelle pour la rénovation des terriers et des droits seigneuriaux. Paris: Morel, 5 t.
  26. Gharavi Esfahani, Mohammad Hossein (1418 AH/1997). Ḥāshiyat al-Makāsib (Vol. 1) (1st ed.). [n.p.]: Mohaqqeq [in Arabic].
  27. Gidrol-Mistral, G. (2020). De la propriété conditionnelle à la propriété collective (Doctoral thesis). Lyon III.
  28. Ginossar, S. (1960). Droit réel, propriété et créance. Paris: LGDJ.
  29. Grimaldi, M. (1991). La fiducie. Defrénois, pp. 897, 961.
  30. Grimaldi, M. (n.d.). La propriété fiduciaire. In La fiducie dans tous ses états (pp. 5–8).
  31. Gulphe, P. (1946). L’immobilisation par destination (Doctoral thesis). Paris.
  32. Hurr Amili, Mohammad ibn Hasan (1349 SH/1970). Wasāʾil al-Shīʿa (Vol. 25). Qom: Muʾassasat Āl al-Bayt (ʿA) li-Iḥyāʾ al-Turāth [in Arabic].
  33. Jafari Langroudi, Mohammad Jafar (1381 SH/2002). Ḥuqūq-e Amvāl [Property Law]. Tehran: Ganj-e Danesh [in Persian].
  34. Jafari Langroudi, Mohammad Jafar (1387 SH/2008). Tirmīnūlūzhī-ye Ḥuqūq [Terminology of Law]. Tehran: Ganj-e Danesh [in Persian].
  35. Josserand, L. (2004). Essai sur la propriété collective. In Le Code civil, 1804–1904: Livre du Centenaire (pp. 355–379). Paris: Dalloz.
  36. Kashef al-Ghata, Abbas (1434 AH/2013). al-Māl al-Mithlī wa-al-Māl al-Qīmī fī al-Fiqh al-Islāmī. Najaf: Kashef al-Ghata Institute [in Arabic].
  37. Katouzian, Nasser (1376 SH/1997). Qavāʿid-e ʿUmūmī-ye Qarārdādhā (Vol. 1) [General Rules of Contracts] (2nd ed.). Tehran: Yalda [in Persian].
  38. Katouzian, Nasser (1388 SH/2009). Amvāl va Mālikīyat [Property and Ownership] (26th ed.). Tehran: Mizan [in Persian].
  39. Katouzian, Nasser (1392 SH/2013). Qānūn-e Madanī dar Naẓm-e Ḥuqūq-e Kunūnī [Civil Law in the Current Legal Order] (37th ed.). Tehran: Mizan [in Persian].
  40. Katouzian, Nasser (1400 SH/2021). Amvāl va Mālikīyat [Property and Ownership]. Tehran: Mizan [in Persian].
  41. Khomeini, Seyyed Ruhollah (1368 SH/1989). al-Bayʿ (Vol. 1). Qom: Esmaeilian Institute [in Arabic].
  42. Khomeini, Seyyed Ruhollah (1421 AH/2000). al-Bayʿ (Vol. 1) (1st ed.). Tehran: The Institute for Compilation and Publication of Imam Khomeini's Works [in Arabic].
  43. Khomeini, Seyyed Ruhollah (1434 AH/2013). Taḥrīr al-Wasīlah (Vol. 2) (3rd ed.). Tehran: The Institute for Compilation and Publication of Imam Khomeini's Works [in Arabic].
  44. Kuhn, C. (2008). La mission du fiduciaire. Dr. et patrim., no. 171, p. 52.
  45. Leblond. (2012). Note. Defrénois, p. 343.
  46. Lemouland, & Vigneau. (2012). Observation. Dalloz, p. 971.
  47. Libchaber, R. (2007). Les aspects civils de la fiducie dans la loi du 19 février 2007. Defrénois, pp. 1094, 1194.
  48. Lorgnier, L. (1906). Les cateux dans les coutumes du nord de la France (Doctoral thesis). Paris.
  49. Meiller, E. (2012). La notion de servitude (Doctoral thesis). Paris: LGDJ.
  50. Meshkini, Ali (1434 AH/2013). Muṣṭalaḥāt al-Fiqh. Qom: Dar al-Hadith Institute [in Arabic].
  51. Moccia, L. (2011). Réflexions sur l’idée de propriété. RIDC, 63, p. 7.
  52. Mohaghegh Damad, Seyyed Mostafa (1406 AH/1986). Qavāʿid-e Feqh (Vol. 1) [Rules of Jurisprudence]. Tehran: Islamic Sciences Publishing Center [in Persian].
  53. Motulsky, H. (1948). Principes d'une réalisation méthodique du droit privé (Doctoral thesis). Paris: Sirey.
  54. Naeini, Mohammad Hossein (1418 AH/1997). Munyat al-Ṭālib (Vol. 1) (1st ed.). Qom: Islamic Publications Office [in Arabic].
  55. Najafi, Mohammad Hasan (1362 SH/1983). Jawāhir al-Kalām (Vol. 28). Qom: Dar Ihya al-Turath al-Arabi [in Arabic].
  56. Nast. (1928). Defrénois, 1928, p. 21759.
  57. Olivier, S. (2016). Pour en finir avec le débat sur la valeur de l’état descriptif de division. PA, 17 juin, no. 121, p. 7.
  58. Perrot, R. (1947). De l'influence de la technique sur le but des institutions juridiques (Doctoral thesis). Paris.
  59. Pieri, G. (1990). Obligation. Archives de Philosophie du Droit, 35.
  60. Planiol, M., & Ripert, G. (1928–1932). Traité élémentaire de droit civil (11th ed., Vol. 1). Paris: LGDJ.
  61. Planiol, M., & Ripert, G. (1960). Traité élémentaire de droit civil. Paris: LGDJ.
  62. Planiol, M., Ripert, G., & Picard, M. (1952). Les biens (2nd ed., Vol. 3). Paris: LGDJ.
  63. Popovici, A. (2016). Êtres et avoirs (Doctoral thesis). Laval (Québec).
  64. Sadr, Mohammad Baqir (n.d.). Iqtiṣādunā (2nd ed.). Qom: Shahid Sadr Scientific-Specialized Research Institute [in Arabic].
  65. Savatier, René. (1939). Une personne morale méconnue: La famille en tant que sujet de droit. DH, chron., 49.
  66. Shams, Ahmad (1386 SH/2007). Niẓām-e Ḥuqūqī-ye Arāżī-ye Millī-Shodeh [The Legal System of Nationalized Lands] (3rd ed.). Tehran: Gostar [in Persian].
  67. Taghizadeh Ansari, Mostafa (1374 SH/1995). Ḥuqūq-e Muḥīṭ-e Zīst-e Īrān [Environmental Law of Iran]. Tehran: SAMT [in Persian].
  68. Teymouri, Mohammad (1385 SH/2006). Māhiyat-e Shakhṣīyat-e Ḥuqūqī va Naẓarīyāt-e Murtabiṭ bā Ān [The Nature of Legal Personality and Related Theories]. Daneshpajouhan [Daneshpajouhan Journal], No. 9. Qom: Mofid University [in Persian].
  69. Trasbot. (1929). Rev. crit. législ. jurisp., 1929, p. 459.
  70. Vareilles-Sommières, G. de. (1905). La définition et la notion juridique de la propriété. RTD civ., 1905, p. 443.
  71. Vern, F. (2022). Essai d'une théorie des droits sans sujet en droit français des biens. Communitas, 3(2). https://eprints.gla.ac.uk/277405/
  72. Vern, Flora. (2021). La forme des communaux en droit civil des biens. In J.-F. Joye (Ed.), Les communaux au XXIe siècle (pp. 297–318). Presses de l’Université Savoie Mont Blanc.
  73. Vern, Flora. (n.d.). Les objets juridiques, précité, nos 343–344.
  74. Villey, M. (1949–1950). Du sens de l'expression jus in re en droit romain classique. In Mélanges Fernand de Visscher (Vol. 2). Brussels: Office international de la librairie.
  75. Xifaras, M. (2004). La propriété (Doctoral thesis). Paris: PUF.
  76. Zenati-Castaing, F. (2009). La propriété collective existe-t-elle? In O. Cachard & X. Henry (Eds.), Mélanges en l’honneur du professeur Gilles Goubeaux (pp. 589–610). Paris: Dalloz.
  77. Zenati-Castaing, F., & Revet, T. (2008). Les biens (3rd ed.). Paris: PUF.
  78. Zenati-Castaing, Fr. (1981). Essai sur la nature juridique de la propriété (Doctoral thesis). Lyon III.
  79. Zuhayli, Wahbah Mustafa (1984). al-Fiqh al-Islāmī wa Adillatuh. Damascus: Dar al-Fikr [in Arabic].

  • Received 08 February 2025
  • Accepted 25 April 2025