https://ilr.isu.ac.ir/ Journal of Islamic Law Research en daily 1 Tue, 19 May 2026 00:00:00 +0330 Tue, 19 May 2026 00:00:00 +0330 https://ilr.isu.ac.ir/article_78135.html https://ilr.isu.ac.ir/article_78136.html https://ilr.isu.ac.ir/article_77651.html ∴ Introduction ∴ ‌The concept of a “deemed contract” has emerged from instances where the legislator, departing from the conventional requirement of mutual consent, imposes the effects of a contractual relationship upon parties that may never have intended to enter into such a contract. This phenomenon operates in two distinct scenarios, both evident in Islamic jurisprudence and Iranian law: first, when an existing contract terminates—through expiration of its term, rescission, or other legal grounds—yet the legislator continues to apply the contractual effects beyond the point of termination; and second, when no actual agreement exists but a contractual relationship is artificially imposed by legal mandate. In both situations, the legislative intervention overlays a “deemed contract” upon an “underlying relationship” that may have neither the formal structure nor the voluntariness of an authentic contract. From a theoretical standpoint, the notion of deemed contracts stands in tension with the principle of autonomy of will, a cornerstone of contractual theory in both Islamic and Iranian legal systems. The premise that a contract’s legitimacy and consequences are derived from the agreement of the parties would seem to leave little room for the legislator to create contractual obligations unilaterally. Nonetheless, historical and contemporary legal sources do evidence legislative practices by which these obligations are artificially continued—or deemed to exist anew—despite the absence of explicit or continuing consent. This suggests a countervailing principle whereby the legal system permits or even requires the preservation or creation of contractual effects in order to serve broader social objectives, safeguard public interests, or protect the rights of vulnerable parties. ‌ ∴ Research Question ∴ ‌Against this backdrop, the central research question of the study is as follows: What are the conceptual foundations, justifications, and legal mechanisms that allow the legislator to impose a deemed contract on an existing or a non-existent contractual relationship, and how does this legislative intervention reconcile with established principles of autonomy of will in Islamic and Iranian contract law? This question seeks to bridge the theoretical gap between the foundational emphasis on mutual consent in Islamic legal doctrine and the practical phenomenon where contractual effects arise in the absence of a bona fide agreement. By pinpointing the rationale, scope, and operation of deemed contracts, the research aims to elucidate whether they represent a necessary exception to the principle of autonomy of will or an overreach that risks undermining parties’ freedom to structure their relationships. ‌ ∴ Research Hypothesis ∴ ‌Based on preliminary observations of legal texts and juristic opinions, this study posits the following hypothesis: Deemed contracts in Islamic law and the Iranian legal system are legitimized by jurisprudential and statutory principles that permit the extension or imposition of contractual effects in pursuit of broader legal objectives, such as preserving social welfare, upholding fairness, and ensuring legal certainty. This hypothesis suggests that, while the core principle of contractual autonomy remains intact, there exist recognized exceptions whereby the legislator’s overriding will is used to preserve or create legal outcomes that promote societal or individual interests. ‌ ∴ Methodology & Framework, if Applicable ∴ ‌The research follows a doctrinal methodology, engaging in an in-depth examination of primary sources of Islamic law (the Qur’an, Sunnah, and authoritative juristic treatises) alongside the key provisions of Iranian legislative texts and relevant judicial precedents. This analysis is complemented by an inductive approach, starting with concrete examples of deemed contracts across different statutory contexts, and gradually extracting the underlying legal principles and theoretical justifications. The framework of the study can be outlined in several stages: Conceptual Clarification: Identification and classification of the various forms of deemed contracts, drawing on both classical Islamic jurisprudence and modern Iranian law. Jurisprudential Foundations: Exploration of the legal maxims and jurisprudential arguments (e.g., necessity, prevention of harm, or public interest) that may authorize or mandate the creation or continuation of contractual effects in the absence of genuine agreement. Legislative and Judicial Analysis: Systematic review of statutory provisions and relevant court decisions to illustrate how and under what conditions deemed contracts have been recognized and enforced. Comparative Evaluation: Where useful, references to parallel doctrines in other legal systems may be employed to highlight the universal or unique aspects of Iran’s legislative approach in the context of Islamic legal principles. ‌ ∴ Results & Discussion ∴ ‌The core results of this study illustrate that the notion of a deemed contract is not merely an exceptional or ad hoc legal construct but rather a concept with solid jurisprudential underpinnings that has been systematically recognized and applied in both Islamic and Iranian law. Through examining various legislative instances and scrutinizing relevant jurisprudential texts, it becomes clear that there is a consistent pattern of legal reasoning by which legislators and jurists justify the imposition of contractual effects on relationships that lack the conventional hallmarks of consent and mutual intention. A key insight gleaned from the analysis is that deemed contracts can arise under two main circumstances: (i) when an actual contract has ceased due to rescission or expiration, yet legal effects are prolonged by the legislator; and (ii) when no authentic agreement has been concluded, yet the legislator fabricates a contractual relationship. In either case, the pivotal aspect lies in the legislator’s perceived need to achieve certain legal or societal objectives—such as protecting public order, preventing harm, or safeguarding third-party interests—even at the cost of overriding party autonomy. From a jurisprudential standpoint, the study identifies six principal foundations that are instrumental in justifying a deemed contract. These include reliance on appearance, equity and justice, the rule of no-harm [La-zarar], public order, the principle of Ta’zeer (understood here in a civil liability context), and public interest [Maslaha]. Collectively, these foundations highlight the multifaceted manner in which legal systems balance the principle of autonomy with broader concerns about fairness, social stability, and the protection of rights. For instance, reliance on appearance often emerges when third parties justifiably assume that a transactional arrangement continues to exist, thereby preventing unjust outcomes. Similarly, the rule of no-harm [La-zarar] and equity considerations come into play when abruptly terminating or refusing to recognize a contractual effect would result in disproportionate injustice or damage. These findings underscore the functional role of deemed contracts as a protective mechanism. Rather than abandoning parties to the potential injustices that can arise from doctrinal rigidity, legislators employ the device of a deemed contract to ensure a more balanced outcome. However, one potential concern identified is the risk of overreaching by the legislator, wherein continual reliance on deemed contracts may erode the fundamental principle of party autonomy. The study posits that a prudent approach would involve legislative intervention only when the social or individual welfare at stake is sufficiently compelling. ‌ ∴ Conclusion ∴ ‌The concluding observations of this research affirm that deemed contracts, rooted in established jurisprudential and statutory principles, serve as more than isolated legal anomalies. Instead, they constitute a recurring doctrinal rule in Islamic law and the Iranian legal system, wherein the legislator, guided by various jurisprudential bases, extends contractual effects to scenarios lacking the usual consensual framework. In many instances, the legislator’s ruling is premised on criteria of sufficient breadth and generality to qualify as a legal rule—an overarching standard that can be invoked in a range of circumstances to protect or advance societal and individual interests. The evidence presented shows that the deemed contract meets the characteristics of a general legal rule: it possesses a binding force across cases, underscores an orderly social fabric, and is supported by an array of authoritative foundations. Among these foundations are reliance on appearance (ensuring that third-party assumptions are not undermined), equity and justice (aligning outcomes with principles of fairness), no-harm principle [La-zarar] (averting harm and ensuring proportional responses to wrongdoing), public order (maintaining societal stability), Ta’zeer (in its broad sense of enforcing liability for harmful conduct), and the principle of public interest [Maslaha]. Each of these conceptual underpinnings has sufficient explanatory power to justify transforming a non-contractual or expired contractual relationship into a deemed contract when the circumstances demand it. Additionally, the study highlights that the legislator’s imposition of a deemed contract is most defensible when it aligns with these core jurisprudential justifications—namely, promoting fairness, preventing harm, preserving social order, and upholding the legitimate expectations of third parties. Where these objectives are absent or tangential, reliance on a deemed contract is more likely to conflict with the foundational premise of free will and consent that animates contract law generally. https://ilr.isu.ac.ir/article_77706.html ∴ Introduction ∴ ‌The doctrine of liability for blood money [Diyya] in Islamic law has traditionally been centered around the concepts of intentional, quasi-intentional, and unintentional offenses, with well-established jurisprudential rules concerning cases of murder. However, the matter becomes more legally and ethically complex in cases of offenses less than murder—such as physical injuries or amputations—especially when the perpetrator becomes unavailable. In such cases, where the execution of Qiṣāṣ (retaliation) is practically impossible, the question of who bears the financial responsibility for Diyya becomes of paramount importance. While juristic consensus among Shia scholars provides a tiered order of liability—starting with the perpetrator, followed by the ʿĀqilah (certain relations of the offender who are responsible for payment of blood money in non-intentional offences), and ultimately the Bait al-Māl (public treasury)—the application of this model to offenses less than murder has not been consistently addressed in legal codification. Notably, the Islamic Penal Code of the Islamic Republic of Iran (1991) recognized this classical order in cases of murder but remained silent in cases of lesser offenses. By contrast, the 2013 Penal Code omitted the ʿĀqilah from the chain of responsibility altogether, assigning liability first to the perpetrator and then, if necessary, to the public treasury. This paper seeks to address the significant legal and jurisprudential gap in the treatment of non-homicidal offenses when the perpetrator is unavailable. "Unavailability" herein refers to a broad set of circumstances in which the perpetrator, though identified, is inaccessible—due to death, flight, captivity, or geographical isolation—thus necessitating an alternative mechanism for the delivery of justice to the victim. ‌ ∴ Research Question ∴ ‌The central research question guiding this study is: To what extent should the classical Islamic jurisprudential framework of financial liability—comprising the perpetrator, ʿĀqilah, and Bait al-Māl—be applied to offenses less than murder in cases where the perpetrator is unavailable, and how consistent is the current legislative approach of the Iranian Islamic Penal Code with this framework? This question further expands into sub-inquiries, such as: What is the evidentiary basis in Islamic sources (particularly Hadith) for assigning financial responsibility in non-homicidal offenses? Why did the Iranian legislature omit the ʿĀqilah in the 2013 Penal Code despite its inclusion in classical jurisprudence and the 1991 Code for homicide cases? What legal or policy rationales underlie the shift in legislative approach, and do they align with juristic doctrine? ‌ ∴ Research Hypothesis ∴ ‌The Islamic Penal Code of Iran, particularly in its 2013 iteration, does not fully align with the established Shia juristic consensus on the matter of Diyya responsibility in cases of non-homicidal offenses involving an unavailable perpetrator. Specifically, the exclusion of the ʿĀqilah represents a divergence from the traditional three-tiered framework of liability that includes the perpetrator, ʿĀqilah, and the public treasury. ‌ ∴ Methodology & Framework, if Applicable ∴ ‌This study employs a qualitative, doctrinal methodology rooted in traditional Islamic legal reasoning (Ijtihād-based). Primary sources include classical Fiqh literature, Qur’anic exegesis, and relevant Hadith compilations, with a particular emphasis on the opinions of prominent Shia jurists across various centuries. Secondary sources include academic commentaries, comparative analyses of different versions of the Islamic Penal Code, and legal interpretations issued by recognized juristic bodies. The analytical framework is structured around the evaluation of legal responsibility through the tripartite lens of: Perpetrator liability – based on ownership of property and moral culpability; ʿĀqilah liability – derived from tribal and familial obligations in classical Islamic society; Bait al-Māl liability – reflecting the state's residual responsibility for delivering justice when other sources are unavailable. ‌ ∴ Results & Discussion ∴ ‌The study’s analysis reveals that the traditional hierarchical model of responsibility—beginning with the perpetrator, followed by the ʿĀqilah, and ultimately the Bait al-Māl—is not substantiated in the case of offenses less than murder when the perpetrator is unavailable. A close examination of the jurisprudential sources and Hadith evidences demonstrates that the term "al-Damm" (blood), often cited in support of this order, refers specifically and definitively to cases of murder. Its extension to non-homicidal offenses such as bodily injury or amputation lacks sufficient textual and contextual support. The research finds that applying the same evidentiary base used for murder to non-murder cases introduces significant jurisprudential ambiguity. Furthermore, the legislative shift in the Islamic Penal Code of 2013—removing the ʿĀqilah from the chain of responsibility and retaining only the perpetrator and the public treasury—was critically assessed. The study concludes that while the 2013 Code attempts to provide legal clarity, its foundation remains unsubstantiated in Islamic jurisprudence. Even the inclusion of the public treasury as a secondary liable party lacks a firm juristic basis in the context of non-murderous crimes. Hence, the proper legal conclusion in both jurisprudential and statutory contexts is that the responsibility for paying Diyya in such cases should rest solely with the perpetrator, regardless of his availability, with no obligation extended to either the ʿĀqilah or the Bait al-Māl. ‌ ∴ Conclusion ∴ ‌This research concludes that the traditional model of sequential liability—perpetrator, ʿĀqilah, and Bait al-Māl—cannot be justifiably applied to offenses less than murder in cases where the perpetrator is unavailable. The Hadiths cited by jurists are either ambiguous or explicitly limited to cases of murder, and their application to non-homicidal offenses lacks jurisprudential integrity. Consequently, the Iranian legislature’s adaptation of this hierarchical responsibility model, both in its earlier recognition (1991) and later modification (2013), fails to align with sound Islamic legal reasoning. The findings affirm that neither the ʿĀqilah nor the public treasury should bear any responsibility in such cases. Rather, the perpetrator alone must be held accountable for the payment of Diyya, reinforcing the individual’s direct liability for harm caused, even in his absence. https://ilr.isu.ac.ir/article_77712.html ∴ Introduction ∴ ‌Civilizations, fundamentally, manage their social and individual dimensions through structured and systemic frameworks spanning various spheres such as education, economy, religion, judiciary, and family. Within Islamic civilization, it is posited that the comprehensiveness of Islamic Sharia inherently possesses the capacity to guide contemporary human life and civilization comprehensively. Therefore, the identification and implementation of Islamic systems and frameworks constitute a critical foundational step towards actualizing religious governance within Islamic societies. Prominent among Islamic thinkers addressing this area is Ayatollah Sayyid Muhammad Baqir al-Sadr (1935-1980), whose theoretical and practical contributions to jurisprudential theorization significantly shaped contemporary Islamic thought. Al-Sadr explicitly identifies the lack of coherent social systems as a critical issue plaguing modern humanity, positing Islamic systems as the solution to achieving social felicity. His significant jurisprudential innovation lies in distinguishing "fiqh al-ahkam" (jurisprudence of specific legal rulings) from "fiqh al-nazariyyat" (jurisprudence of broader theoretical frameworks). This distinction, relatively novel within Shi‘a jurisprudence, facilitates theoretical exploration and development across diverse societal domains. Al-Sadr’s theoretical framework visualizes an Islamic society structured upon foundational epistemological and ontological principles, informing specific social domains—economics, politics, culture, health—through overarching religious obligations and prohibitions. Beneath these guiding principles lie detailed jurisprudential rulings. Fiqh al-nazariyyat specifically addresses the intermediate tier, encompassing general policy directions and systemic principles necessary for managing society in accordance with Sharia. Integral to al-Sadr’s jurisprudential framework is the concept herein termed "Synergistic Authority of Islamic Jurists’ Opinions," a theory essential to transitioning from fiqh al-ahkam to fiqh al-nazariyyat. Under this paradigm, jurists can utilize methodologically sound rulings from fellow jurists to supplement their own interpretations, generating a comprehensive and cohesive body of jurisprudence. Despite its significance, this approach, though implicitly integrated within broader methodological discussions, has yet to receive an explicit designation or comprehensive exploration in al-Sadr's works. ‌ ∴ Research Question ∴ ‌This research investigates a fundamental jurisprudential inquiry: What constitutes the evidentiary grounds for validating or rejecting the credibility of synergistically combining juristic opinions in the discovery and formulation of jurisprudential theories, particularly within the theoretical domain identified by Ayatollah Muhammad Baqir al-Sadr as fiqh al-nazariyyat? More specifically, the research explores whether the synergistic authority approach provides a robust jurisprudential methodology suitable for theorizing within Islamic criminal law, especially concerning the sensitive area of Limits imposed by God punishments. ‌ ∴ Research Hypothesis ∴ ‌The central hypothesis underpinning this study is that the synergistic authority of Islamic jurists' opinions, as methodologically elaborated by al-Sadr, enjoys general credibility and can serve as a foundational pillar for jurisprudential theorization across diverse societal sectors. By enabling jurists to systematically integrate and build upon each other's rulings, this methodology significantly enhances the scope and reliability of jurisprudential theorization. It is hypothesized that the synergistic authority approach is not merely supplementary but foundational, offering a necessary and legitimate method for deriving coherent and comprehensive Islamic legal theories. ‌ ∴ Methodology & Framework, if Applicable ∴ ‌This research employs a doctrinal and inductive methodological framework, deeply rooted in jurisprudential theory and Islamic legal scholarship. Initially, it delineates the conceptual scope and theoretical status of the synergistic authority theory within al-Sadr's broader intellectual structure. Following this doctrinal clarification, the study adopts an inductive analytical approach, examining relevant textual sources from al-Sadr's jurisprudential writings and related Islamic jurisprudential literature. Primary texts analyzed include al-Sadr’s foundational works and secondary scholarly interpretations of his jurisprudential methods. Furthermore, this study introduces an illustrative application of the synergistic methodology within criminal law theory, specifically addressing Islamic jurisprudential approaches to Limits imposed by God penalties. This practical framework provides a testbed for evaluating the method’s operational viability and highlights the theoretical intricacies involved in synergistically deriving jurisprudential theories. ‌ ∴ Results & Discussion ∴ ‌This study carefully examined the concept of the "Synergistic Authority of Islamic Jurists’ Opinions," a methodological innovation attributed implicitly to Ayatollah Muhammad Baqir al-Sadr, evaluating its theoretical justification and practical implications within jurisprudential theory-building. Through rigorous analysis, five distinct arguments emerged as supportive of the validity and efficacy of employing synergized juristic opinions both in the discovery phase (identifying underlying jurisprudential principles) and the adoption phase (implementation within a social governance framework). Initially, the research addressed epistemological considerations, emphasizing that genuine attribution of any theoretical construct to Sharia fundamentally requires a robust epistemic threshold—certainty (Qat‘). The mere aggregation of juristic opinions without achieving this epistemic certainty, although methodologically useful, remains insufficient for definitive Sharia attribution. Therefore, the study underscored the necessity of integrating epistemological strategies such as "minor closure" (Insidad Saghir), a jurisprudential technique distinct from major closure (Insidad Kabir), which sanctions reliance on probabilistic reasoning (Zann) in limited jurisprudential domains. Minor closure effectively allows jurists to cautiously circumvent otherwise inaccessible epistemic pathways by endorsing highly reliable juristic opinions as valid supplementary proofs, thereby enhancing certainty through cumulative inductive reasoning. The research further analyzed the role of the jurist's guardianship authority (Wilayat al-Faqih) in reinforcing the legitimacy of synergistic juristic opinions, especially in their adoption within social systems. Although absolute guardianship remains a contentious theoretical stance among various Islamic scholars, this study identified sufficient jurisprudential backing—within the intellectual legacy of al-Sadr and subsequent scholarship—to affirm that the guardianship principle provides robust grounds for adopting synergistically derived jurisprudential theories into governance and policy frameworks. In scenarios where certainty remains elusive, the authoritative capacity vested in the jurist enables pragmatic yet principled adoption of synergized opinions to ensure coherent social system governance aligned with Islamic ethical and legal standards. Moreover, the research discussed the "probable agreement" (Ittifaq Muhtamal) argument, clarifying its specific utility in the context of theory adoption rather than initial theoretical discovery. This subtle distinction underscores the epistemological caution within al-Sadr’s framework, delineating clear boundaries between theoretical exploration (discovery) and practical jurisprudential application (adoption). The probable agreement, while persuasive, cannot independently sustain theoretical discovery absent stronger epistemic corroboration. The study rigorously addressed significant critiques of the synergistic methodology, particularly the potential confusion between traditional jurisprudential ruling (fiqh al-ahkam) and jurisprudential theorization (fiqh al-nazariyya). Two primary counterarguments were articulated: first, highlighting essential distinctions between these two categories of jurisprudence, and second, re-framing debates to focus precisely on the epistemic foundations and legitimacy of juristic synthesis rather than peripheral or methodological misconceptions. ‌ ∴ Conclusion ∴ ‌Through an extensive exploration of the synergistic authority concept, this research provided substantial theoretical validation for integrating multiple juristic opinions as a credible methodology in jurisprudential theorization. It was established that genuine theoretical attribution to Sharia mandates achieving a threshold of certainty, either through inductive reasoning combined with minor closure or through legitimate juristic guardianship authority. Thus, the epistemic credibility of synergized opinions emerges not merely from convenience or expediency, but from deep-seated jurisprudential principles. Resolving major epistemological and methodological objections, the synergistic authority model effectively addresses fundamental inconsistencies previously encountered in jurisprudential theorization, particularly discrepancies arising from isolated juristic interpretations. By systematically harnessing collective juristic wisdom, this approach expands interpretive capacities, facilitating a coherent integration of juristic insights into comprehensive Islamic legal theories. Practically, adopting the synergistic method empowers the Islamic jurist-ruler (Wali al-Faqih) with a legitimate jurisprudential strategy to consolidate and standardize governance rulings across political, economic, social, and penal domains. Applying the synergistic method to criminal law notably elucidates deeper jurisprudential and policy objectives underlying Limits imposed by God. Clarifying these objectives offers significant jurisprudential advancements, resolving interpretive ambiguities while practically guiding legislative and policymaking processes. This enhanced understanding critically informs and refines the design and enactment of complementary ta’zir (discretionary) punishments, enriching the overall Islamic penal system with coherence and robust epistemological support. Thus, the validation of the synergistic authority not only resolves theoretical complexities inherent in jurisprudential theorization but also significantly enhances practical legislative efficacy. https://ilr.isu.ac.ir/article_77518.html ∴ Introduction ∴ ‌The legal landscape governing relationships among the constituents of joint-stock companies in Iranian law remains notably incomplete, lacking a cohesive theoretical grounding. Conventional approaches often treat commercial companies as exceptions to the general rules of civil law and Islamic jurisprudence, thereby perpetuating a fragmented understanding of their internal dynamics. Existing analyses fail to draw upon a cohesive jurisprudential framework, leaving critical gaps in the conceptualization of these commercial entities. To address this deficiency, the present study introduces and applies the Estimân (Trusteeship) theory, rooted in Shiite jurisprudence, as a unifying system of reference. By anchoring the internal relationships of joint-stock companies in this jurisprudential paradigm, the research aims to integrate legal and Islamic principles, thereby offering a more coherent and theoretically grounded approach to understanding the intricate interplay among shareholders, directors, and other key stakeholders. ‌ ∴ Research Question ∴ ‌The central inquiry guiding this study is: How can the relationships among the various components of joint-stock companies in Iranian law be justified, structured, and explained based on the Estimân (Trusteeship) theory within Shiite jurisprudence? ‌ ∴ Research Hypothesis ∴ ‌This research posits that by applying the Estimân theory as an underlying jurisprudential framework, the interactions and obligations among the shareholders, directors, and other elements of joint-stock companies can be both consistently defined and normatively justified. The hypothesis suggests that the Estimân theory, when properly interpreted and adapted, will yield a more stable and transparent legal environment that aligns with both Islamic jurisprudential principles and the broader objectives of corporate governance. ‌ ∴ Methodology & Framework, if Applicable ∴ ‌This study employs a doctrinal legal methodology, drawing on primary and secondary sources. It scrutinizes legal texts, jurisprudential treatises, commercial codes, and scholarly commentaries. ‌ ∴ Results & Discussion ∴ ‌The findings of this study demonstrate that conventional theories employed to explain the internal relationships within Iranian joint-stock companies—such as the director-as-agent model, legal representation, and the doctrine of directors as corporate organs—suffer from significant theoretical and practical shortcomings. These established frameworks have long been challenged by the evident conceptual gaps and contradictions they generate, particularly when attempting to reconcile the role of directors, shareholders, inspectors, and the legal personality of the company itself. A key discovery arises from the application of the Estimân (Trusteeship) theory to these corporate relationships. Unlike existing approaches, the Estimân theory does not rely on treating commercial companies as exceptions to general civil and jurisprudential principles. Instead, it positions the company as a legal entity capable of independently selecting and entrusting various components—directors, the general assembly, and inspectors—with the fulfillment of designated responsibilities. Under this theory, trusteeship emerges as the central conceptual framework: the company, as a legal entity, entrusts its directors with the management of corporate affairs, and in turn, shareholders entrust the company (and not the directors directly) with their investments and participation. This approach alleviates the persistent critiques that arise under other models. For example, previous interpretations faced difficulty justifying why the selection of directors by a majority of shareholders would also bind minority shareholders, or why the death or incapacity of a shareholder does not terminate a director’s tenure. The Estimân theory resolves these issues by shifting the focus from individuals—shareholders and their fractional interests—to the corporate legal personality as the source of authority. Directors and other key players are not chosen as agents of specific shareholders; instead, they are trustees of the company as a unified, volitional legal person. Similarly, the validity and continuity of a director’s mandate are not tethered to any single shareholder’s personal status but rather to the existence and operational viability of the company itself. This perspective also effectively addresses criticisms aimed at the agency theory and legal representation doctrine. Critics have noted that these models struggle to explain the retention of authority in the face of shareholder turnover or personal changes. The Estimân theory sidesteps this issue by clearly delineating that it is the company, as an enduring legal entity, which delegates authority. Thus, the termination of a director’s role is logically tied to the legal entity’s insolvency or dissolution, not to the life events of a particular shareholder. In addition, where legal representation models introduce complexities associated with exceeding authority or irrevocability, the Estimân theory brings clarity. Instead of a statutorily imposed representative whose bounds may be vague or inflexible, the theory envisions trustees selected based on the company’s own volition and governing documents, ensuring that their authority is both contextually defined and practically enforceable. This alignment between jurisprudential principles and corporate reality suggests that the Estimân theory is not merely an alternative model, but a more coherent and holistic framework better suited to the evolving nature of commercial companies in Iran. ‌ ∴ Conclusion ∴ ‌The conclusion of this research affirms the pressing need for a cohesive and jurisprudentially grounded theory to govern the relationships among the various components of joint-stock companies in Iranian law. Existing conceptual models have proven unable to neatly reconcile the intricacies of these commercial entities, leaving directors’ roles ambiguous and the corporate personality under-theorized. In turn, scholars and practitioners have struggled to rely on a firm legal-analytical foundation, often resorting to fragmented and ad hoc explanations. The Estimân theory directly addresses these deficiencies. It frames directors, inspectors, and the general assembly as trustees of the corporate entity, and the company itself as a trustee for its shareholders. This conceptual shift eliminates the perceived necessity of treating commercial companies as anomalies within civil law and Islamic jurisprudence. Instead, it enables a clearer, more principled approach: the company, as an independent legal entity, exercises its will by selecting trustees who manage, oversee, and guide its affairs. The authority and responsibilities of these trustees derive not from an uncertain nexus of shareholder mandates or legal fictions, but from the stable conceptual ground of trusteeship drawn from Shiite jurisprudence. This solution transcends the limitations of the agency, representation, and corporate organ doctrines. Where agency theory struggles to explain the universal binding of minority shareholders, the Estimân theory attributes the appointment of directors to the company’s own legal person. Where representation and organ theories fail to justify the ramifications of a shareholder’s death or incapacity, the Estimân theory points to the corporate entity’s enduring role as principal and trustee. The alignment between legal practice and jurisprudential principles renders this model resilient to common critiques, further validating its superiority. https://ilr.isu.ac.ir/article_77555.html ‌ ∴ Introduction ∴ ‌The advent of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies has significantly impacted the practice of arbitration, prompting legal scholars and practitioners to reassess fundamental principles of dispute resolution. In particular, the application of AI as an arbitrator—rather than merely as a supportive tool—has raised complex legal and ethical questions. While traditional dispute resolution methods rely on human adjudicators to evaluate evidence, the increased efficiency and predictive capabilities of AI have made it an appealing alternative for arbitration tribunals aiming to reduce costs and time. However, the notion of granting an AI system autonomous authority challenges established arbitration norms, such as impartiality, fairness, and accountability. Current debates in AI-related scholarship demonstrate both optimism and caution. On one hand, AI’s capacity for rapid data processing and pattern recognition could enhance the arbitral process by streamlining the review of voluminous documentation and evidence. On the other hand, scholars point to inherent limitations of AI, notably the risk that algorithmic decision-making systems might reproduce biases present in their training data and operate opaquely, undermining the transparency crucial for a fair legal process. As the sophistication of AI grows, some commentators wonder whether machines could evolve into entities comparable to human intelligence—capable of recognizing emotional nuances or developing self-awareness—while others contend that these prospects remain largely theoretical. Within this context, the distinction between symbolic and non-symbolic (connectionist) AI is pivotal. Symbolic AI systems rely on predefined rules that explain how they generate conclusions, providing a measure of transparency well suited to legal settings. In contrast, non-symbolic AI operates through inductive reasoning, often employing neural networks that “learn” from large datasets but offer limited insight into the reasoning process. This divergence raises practical and ethical questions when AI is tasked not merely with assisting in evidence evaluation but also with taking on a more autonomous role as the primary decision-maker.‌ ∴ Research Question ∴ ‌This study centers on a core inquiry: What legal and ethical challenges arise when AI is deployed as an arbitrator or in a supportive capacity for evaluating arbitration evidence? Specifically, it seeks to determine how AI-driven decision-making processes align with the foundational principles of arbitration—neutrality, procedural fairness, and due process—and whether current legal frameworks can address questions of liability and accountability. The question encompasses both the advanced scenario of fully autonomous AI arbitrators and the more common reality of AI tools aiding human arbitrators. By examining these distinct yet interrelated roles of AI, the research aims to clarify how emerging technologies might fit (or fail to fit) within existing arbitration norms. ‌ ∴ Research Hypothesis ∴ ‌The central hypothesis posits that while AI in an assistive capacity can efficiently streamline arbitration procedures—reducing costs and shortening timeframes—its role as an independent arbitrator may present profound challenges that compromise the integrity of the arbitral process. Specifically, the research hypothesizes the following: Ethical and Legal Vulnerabilities: If AI functions with minimal human oversight, biases, discrimination, and a lack of transparency may contravene essential arbitration principles of fairness and equality. Liability and Accountability Complications: Assigning responsibility for AI-generated decisions in arbitration remains unsettled, particularly when no human agent actively supervises the system’s determinations. Potential for Beneficial Complementarity: When integrated responsibly—under appropriate human guidance—AI can enhance the accuracy of evidence analysis without forfeiting the essential legal safeguards that human judgment provides.‌ ∴ Methodology & Framework, if Applicable ∴ ‌This research adopts a doctrinal methodology, focusing on an analytical review of existing legal instruments, ethical guidelines, and scholarly commentaries related to AI application in dispute resolution. By examining key arbitration laws, codes of ethics, and relevant court precedents, the study will identify areas in which AI fits seamlessly into established norms, as well as those in which regulatory gaps persist. ‌ ∴ Results & Discussion ∴ ‌The research findings indicate that AI can significantly enhance the efficiency and objectivity of arbitration proceedings when deployed in an assistive capacity. Specifically, AI-driven tools excel at sorting large volumes of data, identifying relevant evidence, and conducting preliminary legal analysis with speed and precision. By minimizing human error and offering consistent results, AI systems reduce the likelihood of inconsistencies and procedural delays, thus lowering costs and expediting the resolution process. Moreover, parties involved in arbitration benefit from a more transparent workflow, as symbolic AI systems can provide explanations for their reasoning through predefined rules. This explainability aligns well with procedural fairness, offering clarity on how a conclusion or recommendation is reached. However, the discussion reveals critical concerns regarding the use of AI as a fully autonomous arbitrator. Chief among these is the risk of bias, which arises when AI algorithms are trained on datasets containing discriminatory patterns. In such instances, prejudices embedded in the data may be amplified by AI-driven decisions, compromising the foundational principles of equality and impartiality in arbitration. Even in advanced neural network architectures, the “black box” nature of machine learning often obscures the rationale behind outcomes, challenging the transparency that is crucial for maintaining the credibility of the arbitral process. Furthermore, assigning liability for AI-based decisions remains a gray area: if an AI system misjudges or violates fundamental legal rights, determining whether fault rests with developers, owners, or arbitration institutions proves complex. An additional consideration is the gap between formal legal reasoning and AI’s computational logic. Judicial or arbitral reasoning frequently involves normative judgment, subjective interpretation, and contextual evaluation—factors not easily distilled into a finite set of rules or training patterns. This gap is particularly stark when the arbitrator’s role extends beyond the mechanical application of law to include moral or equitable considerations, where rigid, data-driven mechanisms may falter. Thus, while the research underscores the utility of AI in procedural and administrative tasks, it also highlights inherent limitations when AI is expected to embody the nuanced reasoning typically associated with human arbitrators.‌ ∴ Conclusion ∴ ‌In light of these findings, the study concludes that AI can play an instrumental role in assisting arbitration tribunals by swiftly evaluating evidence within clear, predefined parameters. Where the arbitrator’s role is largely passive—focused on applying established rules rather than exercising broad discretion—AI’s objective and rule-based functionality proves advantageous. It can reduce time and expense, offering a more streamlined resolution process. However, the aspiration to replicate the depth of judicial reasoning or to strive for substantive justice through AI alone remains unfulfilled. Legal judgments often rest on interpretive and moral determinations that cannot be uniformly codified into a single algorithmic framework, rendering current AI technology inadequate for this higher-level adjudicative function. Moreover, reliance on AI as an independent arbitrator raises legal and ethical complexities, including the potential for bias or discrimination, insufficient transparency in decision-making processes, and challenges to the principle of arbitrator independence. These issues become especially pronounced when AI’s “learning” is shaped by datasets that reflect existing societal prejudices, potentially skewing outcomes in ways that undermine fundamental fairness. The absence of a robust liability framework further complicates matters, as arbitrating parties, developers, and institutional sponsors may dispute responsibility for any damages arising from erroneous AI-driven decisions. To address these concerns, this paper recommends several measures. First, the limitations of AI in evidence evaluation should be clearly defined at the outset, ensuring that disputing parties understand both the advantages and risks. Second, developers and owners of AI systems must register their algorithms with relevant regulatory bodies and disclose any modifications to enhance transparency and accountability. Third, clear liability standards should be established to determine who bears responsibility if AI malfunctions or produces unjust outcomes—whether that liability rests with developers, owners, or the arbitration institutions themselves. Finally, governments and arbitral bodies should collaborate to formulate guidelines and require mandatory insurance coverage, ensuring that any damages arising from AI’s application in arbitration can be compensated. By taking these steps, arbitration systems can incorporate AI responsibly, striking a balance between technological innovation and the enduring principles of legal fairness. https://ilr.isu.ac.ir/article_77667.html ∴ Introduction ∴ ‌The intellectual growth and maturity of adolescent offenders hold critical importance in shaping fair and effective judicial responses within Iran’s criminal justice system. While Iran’s Islamic Penal Code of 2013 introduced noteworthy reforms by differentiating between adult and juvenile offenders, Article 91 leaves room for ambiguity in determining “criminal maturity.” Consequently, judicial authorities have often resorted to subjective standards or followed the findings of forensic commissions without clear procedural guidelines. This lacuna undermines both the consistency of court decisions and the credibility of juvenile justice. Recognizing these challenges, the present study focuses on identifying and categorizing objective criteria that can inform a more coherent legal framework for assessing adolescents’ intellectual growth and maturity, thereby strengthening Iran’s juvenile justice policies. ‌ ∴ Research Question ∴ ‌This article aims to address a central question: What are the most suitable and practically applicable criteria for ascertaining the intellectual growth and maturity of adolescent offenders in Iran’s criminal justice system, particularly in light of Article 91 of the Islamic Penal Code? By refining the existing standards, the study seeks to offer insights that enhance the consistency and transparency of juvenile court proceedings. ‌ ∴ Research Hypothesis ∴ ‌The core hypothesis posits that current legislative and judicial frameworks in Iran do not provide sufficiently clear or comprehensive guidelines for determining adolescents’ intellectual growth and maturity. As a result, significant variability emerges in judicial decisions, creating inequities in sentencing and sometimes jeopardizing the rights and welfare of juvenile offenders. The study further hypothesizes that drawing upon both Islamic jurisprudential principles and international human rights instruments can help form a balanced set of objective criteria, ultimately rectifying present inconsistencies. ‌ ∴ Methodology & Framework, if Applicable ∴ ‌Employing a doctrinal research method and extensive library-based inquiry, this study systematically examines the statutory provisions of the Islamic Penal Code, related guidelines, and relevant Islamic jurisprudential texts. In addition, it analyzes human rights conventions and comparative legal models to extract functional benchmarks for assessing adolescent maturity. Case analyses from the Legal Medicine Organization’s forensic evaluations and judicial verdicts illuminate existing practices and point to the gaps in current policy. The research framework thus marries theoretical perspectives with empirical observations to propose a structured typology of indicators—from cognitive awareness of wrongdoing to emotional and psychosocial development—that courts can use when adjudicating cases involving juvenile offenders. ‌ ∴ Results & Discussion ∴ ‌The findings of this study reinforce the view that Iran’s existing legal and judicial mechanisms do not sufficiently articulate concrete criteria for determining the criminal maturity of offenders under the age of 18. By examining documented case files, court rulings, and forensic assessments, the research reveals a high degree of variance in judicial practice. Despite the Islamic Penal Code’s intention to align domestic norms with both Islamic jurisprudential principles and international obligations, judges often face ambiguities due to a lack of standardized guidelines. In practice, the reliance on Article 91’s broad stipulation—where courts “may consult the Legal Medicine Organization or use any other appropriate means”—has led to inconsistent procedures. Moreover, the “Guideline for Determining the Intellectual Growth and Maturity of Individuals Under the Age of 18,” introduced in 2023, centralizes the role of the Legal Medicine Organization’s forensic commission but remains silent on supplementary indicators necessary for an objective assessment. As a consequence, judges in Juvenile Criminal Court One either strictly adhere to forensic opinions without considering contextual or psychological evaluations or disregard these opinions based on alternative, sometimes personal, criteria. Through a doctrinal analysis of relevant legal texts, cross-referencing scholarly commentaries in Islamic jurisprudence and international human rights documents, this research shows that a multi-dimensional framework is urgently required. Factors such as psychological evaluations, personality assessments, behavioral reports, the defendant’s understanding of legal prohibitions, and cognitive indicators during and after the commission of the offense offer a more comprehensive basis for establishing intellectual maturity. Integrating these factors not only curbs the risk of arbitrary sentencing but also aligns judicial outcomes with the rehabilitative ethos central to juvenile justice. Overall, the results underscore the need for greater legislative specificity and a collaborative approach, wherein legal, forensic, and psychosocial perspectives collectively shape the determination of an adolescent offender’s criminal maturity. ‌ ∴ Conclusion ∴ ‌The enactment of Article 91 of the Islamic Penal Code of 2013 represents a dual effort to honor Islamic legal traditions and fulfill international human rights obligations. On paper, this provision champions a progressive approach by recognizing that individuals who have reached puberty but remain under 18 may lack the requisite intellectual maturity to bear full criminal responsibility—particularly for crimes punishable by Hadd [prescribed punishment] or Qisas [retaliation]. In practice, however, the absence of explicit criteria has paved the way for inconsistent and, at times, discretionary rulings. Although the note to Article 91 allows courts to consult the Legal Medicine Organization or employ other reasonable methods, this guidance remains too broad to ensure uniformity. Equally, the 2023 guideline on determining criminal maturity, which relies almost exclusively on forensic commission opinions, has not resolved the ambiguity. Judges frequently issue verdicts that either hinge solely on forensic input or contravene these findings without substituting any clear, objective standard. In light of these lacunae, it becomes evident that a purely theoretical review of Islamic jurisprudence and human rights doctrines will not suffice. Practical benchmarks—ranging from psychological profiling and social worker evaluations to witness statements, the defendant’s comprehension of wrongdoing, and investigatory findings—must be systematically incorporated into the adjudicative process. The study concludes that when such objective measures are thoroughly utilized, many juvenile defendants lack the intellectual growth and maturity necessary to justify the imposition of Hadd or Qisas penalties. By embedding these guidelines into routine judicial practice, Iran’s juvenile justice policy can move closer to ensuring both fairness and consistency in cases involving adolescent offenders. https://ilr.isu.ac.ir/article_77702.html ∴ Introduction ∴ ‌The rapid advancement of technology in the 21st century has brought forth profound transformations in social, economic, and governance structures globally. Iran has not been immune to these changes, experiencing significant shifts within its societal and governmental frameworks due to technological progress, especially in cyberspace and its associated branches. Emerging technologies—ranging from artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) to blockchain, virtual reality, and quantum computing—exhibit an inherently dynamic, flexible, and indeterminate nature. These characteristics distinguish them markedly from traditional sectors governed by centuries-old legal paradigms. As such, regulation in the field of emerging technologies requires rethinking traditional approaches, emphasizing the protection of privacy, the creation of safe digital environments, the management of content, and the promotion of ethical standards. Globally, various regulatory trends are evident: many countries are moving towards risk-based frameworks that seek not to restrict innovation but to manage technological risks responsibly. Concurrently, there is an increasing emphasis on international collaboration, ethical oversight, and multistakeholder engagement in shaping technology governance. Institutions such as the European Union and the United Nations have advanced initiatives aiming to harmonize regulatory standards for emerging technologies. However, Iran faces unique challenges in this regulatory context, rooted in its centralized governmental structure, socio-cultural diversity, economic limitations induced by international sanctions, and traditionalist legal theories. These challenges contribute to regulatory fragmentation, lack of coherence, and slow adaptation to technological advances. Consequently, there is a pressing need to develop a transparent, robust, and adaptive regulatory framework capable of fostering innovation while safeguarding public interests and aligning with global standards. This article seeks to identify and analyze the key legal and institutional obstacles impeding Iran’s regulatory effectiveness in the domain of emerging technologies, aiming to contribute to both scholarly discussions and practical reforms in the Iranian legal system. ‌ ∴ Research Question ∴ ‌The central research question guiding this study is: "What are the legal challenges facing the regulatory system for emerging technologies in Iran?" This core inquiry will be broken down into several sub-questions throughout the study, including: To what extent does the current Iranian legal framework address the regulation of emerging technologies? What structural, cultural, and political factors contribute to the challenges in regulating new technologies within Iran? How does Iran’s regulatory approach compare with international best practices? What reforms could strengthen Iran’s regulatory system to promote innovation while ensuring public welfare? ‌ ∴ Research Hypothesis ∴ ‌This research operates under the following primary hypothesis: "Iran’s regulatory system for emerging technologies is fragmented and lacks coherence, resulting in ineffective governance that hampers technological innovation and fails to adequately address societal risks associated with digital transformation." ‌ ∴ Methodology & Framework, if Applicable ∴ ‌The research adopts a doctrinal legal research method complemented by comparative analysis and qualitative content analysis. The study will employ theories of regulatory governance, risk regulation, and legal responsiveness to frame its analysis. Concepts such as "adaptive regulation," "sandbox regulation" (as used in fintech industries), and "ethical technology governance" will guide the exploration of innovative legal frameworks suitable for emerging technologies. Stakeholder Analysis: Attention will be given to the roles of different actors—government bodies, private sector innovators, academia, civil society organizations—in shaping and influencing regulatory development. Interviews or secondary analysis of statements, policy papers, and media coverage will be used to gauge stakeholder perspectives when applicable. ‌ ∴ Results & Discussion ∴ ‌The findings of this research reveal significant structural and substantive challenges within Iran’s regulatory system concerning emerging virtual technologies. The most salient result is the fragmented and incoherent regulatory landscape, characterized by the isolated establishment of multiple regulatory bodies without a structured delineation of their interrelationships or their integration into the broader governance framework. This disjointed regulatory structure has produced ambiguity, jurisdictional conflicts, and inefficiencies that undermine both private sector innovation and the safeguarding of public interests. In practice, numerous governmental and supra-governmental bodies—including the Islamic Consultative Assembly, the Cabinet, the Supreme Council of Cyberspace, the Supreme Council of the Cultural Revolution, the Communications Regulatory Authority, and others—exercise overlapping or conflicting authority over cyberspace-related matters. These institutions often operate in silos, with minimal coordination and an absence of clear legal mandates defining their competencies, resulting in regulatory duplication, gaps, and inconsistent policy implementation. Furthermore, the regulatory mechanisms lack a networked model that connects sectoral regulators with the country's main branches of government—the executive, legislative, and judiciary. Without formalized channels for inter-regulatory dialogue and coordinated decision-making, regulatory bodies act independently, leading to a disjointed legal environment that hinders coherent policymaking, strategic planning, and effective enforcement. An additional result concerns the absence of complementary regulatory institutions that could support a more robust governance framework. Specifically, the Iranian system lacks: Oversight regulators to ensure compliance and accountability across sectors. Diverse regulatory tools to tailor regulatory interventions appropriately to different technological fields. Intermediary regulatory bodies that could mediate conflicts between agencies. Scientific and research institutions specialized in technology law and policy to inform evidence-based regulation. Barriers to innovation and private sector development are further exacerbated by deficiencies in critical legal protections. The absence of comprehensive data protection legislation, limited safeguards for intellectual property rights in the digital realm, and restricted access to public information all contribute to a regulatory environment that is perceived as unpredictable and hostile to technological entrepreneurship. Moreover, Iranian regulatory policy does not sufficiently engage with stakeholder participation from the technology sector, civil society, or academia. In contrast to global trends that emphasize multistakeholder governance, Iran’s regulatory model remains largely top-down and state-centric, which limits the inclusion of valuable insights from non-governmental actors and diminishes regulatory legitimacy and effectiveness. ‌ ∴ Conclusion ∴ ‌This study demonstrates that the current Iranian regulatory structure for governing emerging virtual technologies is deeply fragmented, incoherent, and inefficient. The proliferation of isolated regulatory bodies, unclear institutional mandates, and the absence of structured relationships between regulators and the main branches of government have created an environment marked by confusion, jurisdictional conflict, and regulatory inertia. Fundamentally, the Iranian legal system has yet to establish a coherent vision for the regulation of cyberspace that aligns with contemporary global practices emphasizing coordination, transparency, accountability, and stakeholder engagement. Without a comprehensive regulatory architecture, the grand function of regulation—the balancing of private innovation with public welfare—cannot be achieved. The research underscores that meaningful regulation of emerging technologies must be rooted in an interdisciplinary public law framework that integrates policymaking, ethics, scientific expertise, and participatory governance. Regulatory success depends not merely on the formation of isolated bodies but on the systematic design of rules, institutions, procedures, and tools that can respond flexibly to technological evolution. Among the most critical legal reforms needed are: The clear legal definition of regulatory mandates and competencies; The establishment of complementary institutions such as oversight regulators and intermediary bodies; The development of a diverse toolkit of regulatory instruments; The promotion of scientific, research, and educational infrastructure in technology law; The adoption of comprehensive data protection and intellectual property laws; And the institutionalization of stakeholder participation mechanisms. A reorganized and restructured regulatory system is not only vital for protecting public interests but also for supporting domestic innovation, attracting investment, and ensuring Iran’s competitiveness in the global technological ecosystem. https://ilr.isu.ac.ir/article_77503.html ∴ Introduction ∴ ‌Constitutions form the foundational legal framework of nations, establishing the principles that govern state affairs and defining the relationship between the government and its citizens. Adherence to constitutional provisions is crucial for protecting individual freedoms, upholding human dignity, and promoting political and social justice. A key mechanism in enforcing constitutional supremacy is the judiciary's ability to invoke constitutional provisions when adjudicating cases, especially those involving violations of constitutional rights. Globally, the extent to which courts rely on the constitution varies. In the United States and countries influenced by its legal system, judges frequently base their decisions directly on constitutional provisions, reinforcing the doctrine of constitutional supremacy. In contrast, many European countries with centralized constitutional review systems contest the practice of ordinary judges independently invoking the constitution. This divergence highlights differing views on the judiciary's role in constitutional interpretation and enforcement. In Iran, which follows a centralized model of constitutional oversight, there is significant debate about whether judges can independently rely on the constitution as the sole basis for their rulings. This study explores this issue, examining the legal and constitutional grounds that may permit or prohibit judges in the Iranian legal system from basing their decisions solely on constitutional principles. ‌ ∴ Research Question ∴ ‌The primary research question guiding this study is: Can judges in the Iranian legal system independently rely on the constitution as the sole and sufficient legal basis for their judicial decisions, rather than merely using it to reinforce their reasoning? Specifically, does the Iranian Constitution permit judges to issue rulings based solely on constitutional provisions without recourse to statutory laws? ‌ ∴ Research Hypothesis ∴ ‌The study hypothesizes that under Article 166 of the Iranian Constitution, judges have the authority to independently base their rulings on constitutional principles. Article 166 stipulates that judicial verdicts must be well-reasoned and documented with reference to legal codes. The hypothesis asserts that constitutional provisions qualify as "legal codes" within the meaning of this article. ‌ ∴ Methodology & Framework, if Applicable ∴ ‌To investigate the research question and test the hypothesis, this study employs a doctrinal legal research methodology, focusing on a critical analysis of constitutional texts, statutory laws, judicial practices, and scholarly interpretations within the Iranian legal system. ‌ ∴ Results & Discussion ∴ ‌The analysis conducted in this study centers on whether judges in the Iranian legal system can independently rely on the constitution as the sole basis for their judicial decisions, particularly under Article 166 of the Iranian Constitution. The findings support the hypothesis that judges do possess this authority. This conclusion emerges from a critical examination of both the textual interpretation of constitutional provisions and the evaluation of counterarguments that challenge this authority. Firstly, the term "principles" in Article 166 is pivotal. The article mandates that judicial verdicts must be well-reasoned and documented with reference to "principles and laws." The term "principles" can be reasonably interpreted to include constitutional principles. This interpretation is bolstered by the textual analysis of the constitution, where the broad language suggests an inclusive approach to legal sources that judges may reference. Even if one were to interpret "principles" as general legal principles rather than specifically constitutional ones, the constitution's supreme status in the legal hierarchy inherently grants it precedence. Given that constitutional provisions are the highest form of legal norms, they naturally qualify as foundational principles upon which judicial decisions can be based. Counterarguments suggest that the constitution's general nature renders it inapplicable without specific legislative elaboration. Critics argue that judges should rely solely on statutory laws for detailed guidance, relegating the constitution to a supportive role in legal reasoning. However, this study finds this argument unpersuasive. The distinction between judicial reliance on the constitution and the implementation of its provisions is significant. Judges can interpret and apply constitutional principles to specific cases without overstepping their mandates, especially when statutory laws are silent, ambiguous, or in conflict with constitutional mandates. Moreover, concerns about infringing upon the Iranian Guardian Council's authority to interpret the constitution are addressed. The Guardian Council holds the power to provide definitive interpretations of constitutional provisions, which are binding and general in nature. However, the judiciary's reliance on the constitution in individual cases does not necessarily encroach upon this jurisdiction. Judges are tasked with applying the law to the facts before them, and in instances where the Guardian Council has not provided a specific interpretation, judges can and should turn to the constitution to guide their decisions. This practice ensures that constitutional rights and principles are actively upheld within the judiciary, rather than remaining theoretical ideals. The discussion also highlights that judicial reliance on the constitution enhances the protection of individual rights and reinforces the principle of constitutional supremacy. By allowing judges to base their decisions solely on constitutional provisions, the legal system ensures that all laws and regulations are consistently measured against the highest legal standards. This approach prevents the possibility of statutory laws undermining constitutional guarantees and promotes a more cohesive and just legal system. ‌ ∴ Conclusion ∴ ‌The term "principles" in Article 166 encompasses constitutional principles, affirming that judges can reference the constitution directly in their verdicts. Even if "principles" were interpreted to mean general legal principles, the constitution's superior status and specific provisions on various issues strengthen the case for its independent use in judicial decisions. The constitution, being a codified legal document, inherently permits judicial reliance unless explicitly excluded. Arguments suggesting that the constitution's general nature precludes its direct application are found to be unconvincing. Judicial reliance on the constitution is distinct from the legislative process of implementing its provisions. The absence of detailed legislation does not inhibit judges from applying constitutional principles to specific cases. Each constitutional provision addresses particular issues, often providing sufficient detail to guide judicial reasoning and uphold legislative intent. Furthermore, judges invoking the constitution do not infringe upon the Guardian Council's jurisdiction to interpret constitutional provisions. The Guardian Council provides general interpretations that are binding across all cases. However, judges retain the authority to apply these provisions to the cases before them, especially in situations where the Council has not addressed specific matters, or new evidence emerges that necessitates judicial consideration of constitutional principles. https://ilr.isu.ac.ir/article_77471.html ∴ Introduction ∴ ‌In the contemporary international landscape, the ethical nature of warfare remains a pivotal concern for global leaders seeking to justify military actions to their constituencies and the wider world. Despite a structured framework of international laws—most notably the United Nations Charter, which delineates the conditions for peace and war among nations—moral justifications are frequently invoked to legitimize conflicts. Michael Walzer, a renowned moral philosopher, asserts that discussions about war invariably involve arguments grounded in the logic of a just war. Historical instances underscore this trend: during the Kosovo War (1998–1999), then UK Prime Minister Tony Blair described the conflict as "a moral war based on values, not territorial ambitions." Similarly, U.S. President George W. Bush framed the Iraq War as a "Moral War," seeking to morally justify military actions against Saddam Hussein's regime. This pattern extends to the Israeli leadership's rhetoric concerning military engagements with Palestinian groups. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has declared the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) as "the most moral army in the world," asserting that their operations against Hamas are justified acts of self-defense against terrorism. Former Defense Minister Ehud Barak and politician Avigdor Lieberman have echoed this sentiment, emphasizing the IDF's commitment to ethical principles even amidst allegations of disproportionate force and civilian casualties. Despite these assertions, reports from human rights organizations and international bodies suggest that certain military actions have resulted in significant civilian harm, raising questions about compliance with international humanitarian law. The discrepancy between the proclaimed moral stance and the reported outcomes of military operations necessitates a critical examination of the ethical and legal justifications employed. This research aims to scrutinize the Israeli leadership's invocation of Just War Theory in the context of their military actions against Palestinian resistance groups, assessing the validity of their claims within the frameworks of international law and moral philosophy. ‌ ∴ Research Question ∴ ‌Despite numerous crimes in the occupied Palestinian territories, particularly in Gaza, the Zionist regime repeatedly claims the title of "the most moral army in the world." This implies that all of the army's military operations have been solely for self-defense, consistently distinguishing between military personnel and civilians, and issuing necessary warnings to residents before attacking a residential area. This research, seeks to understand the logic of the regime's leaders in labeling their army as moral and ultimately aims to refute this claim. ‌ ∴ Research Hypothesis ∴ ‌The Israeli leadership's assertion of conducting moral warfare, grounded in Just War Theory, is unsubstantiated when evaluated against international legal frameworks and ethical standards. The hypothesis posits that the IDF's military operations against Palestinian resistance groups do not fulfill the criteria of just war as defined by international law and moral philosophy. Consequently, the repeated claims of moral justification serve more as a strategic rhetoric to legitimize actions that may constitute violations of international humanitarian law, rather than reflecting genuine adherence to ethical warfare principles. ‌ ∴ Methodology & Framework, if Applicable ∴ ‌This study employs a doctrinal and analytical research methodology to investigate the alignment between the Israeli leadership's justifications and established international legal and ethical standards. The doctrinal approach involves a comprehensive examination of international legal documents, including the United Nations Charter, the Geneva Conventions, and rulings from the International Court of Justice, to delineate the legal parameters of just war and self-defense. The analytical framework is structured around Just War Theory, focusing on its key principles: jus ad bellum (the right to go to war) and jus in bello (the right conduct in war). Criteria such as legitimate authority, just cause, right intention, proportionality, distinction between combatants and non-combatants, and last resort are scrutinized in relation to the IDF's military operations. Primary sources include official statements from Israeli political and military leaders, the IDF's Code of Ethics, and statistical data on military operations and their impacts from credible organizations like the United Nations, Human Rights Watch, and UNICEF. Secondary sources consist of scholarly articles on international law, Just War Theory, and analyses of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Data will be critically analyzed to assess whether the actions and policies of the Israeli military adhere to the principles of Just War Theory and international legal standards. The research will also explore the narratives constructed by Israeli leaders to justify military operations and how these narratives conflict with documented evidence of their conduct during conflicts. ‌ ∴ Results & Discussion ∴ ‌The research critically examines the Israeli leadership's claims of conducting moral warfare within the frameworks of Just War Theory and international humanitarian law. The findings indicate a significant disparity between the professed ethical standards of the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) and their actions during military confrontations with Palestinian resistance groups. Violation of Just War Principles: Just Cause and Right Intention: While Israel frequently cites self-defense as the justification for military operations, the research questions the legitimacy of this claim. The principle of self-defense under international law requires an immediate and overwhelming necessity, leaving no choice of means and no moment for deliberation. However, the scale and frequency of Israeli military actions suggest a broader strategic objective beyond immediate self-defense, potentially aimed at territorial expansion and suppression of Palestinian self-determination. Proportionality: The principle of proportionality prohibits the use of force exceeding what is necessary to achieve legitimate military objectives. The research highlights that Israeli military responses often result in disproportionately high Palestinian civilian casualties compared to Israeli losses. For instance, during specific military operations, reports indicate that for every Israeli casualty, there are significantly higher numbers of Palestinian deaths and injuries, many of whom are civilians, including women and children. Distinction between Combatants and Non-Combatants: International humanitarian law mandates that parties to a conflict distinguish at all times between combatants and civilians. The IDF's operations in densely populated areas like Gaza have led to substantial civilian harm. Documented instances include airstrikes on residential buildings, schools, hospitals, and places of worship. Despite claims of targeting militant positions, the high rate of civilian casualties suggests a failure to adhere to the principle of distinction. Last Resort: Just War Theory posits that force should be used only after all peaceful alternatives have been exhausted. The ongoing blockade of Gaza, restrictions on movement, and lack of meaningful engagement in peace negotiations indicate that non-violent avenues are not being fully pursued. The continued expansion of settlements in the West Bank further undermines efforts toward a peaceful resolution. Humanitarian Law Violations: Blockade of Gaza: The Israeli-imposed blockade severely restricts the flow of goods, including essential humanitarian supplies. This blockade has been characterized by the United Nations and other international bodies as a form of collective punishment, prohibited under Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Targeting of Medical and Humanitarian Personnel: Reports from organizations such as the International Committee of the Red Cross and Médecins Sans Frontières have documented attacks on medical facilities and personnel. Such actions violate the protections afforded to medical units and staff under international humanitarian law. Use of Disproportionate Force: The employment of advanced military technology and heavy weaponry in civilian areas raises concerns about the use of disproportionate force. Weapons with wide-area effects, when used in populated regions, increase the likelihood of civilian harm and infrastructure damage. Rhetoric vs. Reality: The Israeli leadership's consistent portrayal of the IDF as the "most moral army in the world" appears incongruent with documented actions on the ground. This rhetoric serves several functions: Justification of Actions: Framing military operations as moral and necessary for self-defense aims to legitimize actions in the eyes of the international community and domestic audiences. Delegitimization of Opponents: Equating Palestinian resistance groups with internationally recognized terrorist organizations like ISIS seeks to undermine their political legitimacy and justify harsh military responses. Deflection of Criticism: Emphasizing moral conduct helps deflect accusations of war crimes and human rights violations, shifting the narrative away from alleged misconduct. Implications for International Law: The research underscores the challenges in enforcing international humanitarian law when powerful states or entities engage in conduct that violates these norms. The lack of accountability mechanisms and the political dynamics within international bodies like the United Nations often hinder effective responses to such violations. Erosion of Legal Norms: Persistent violations without consequences can lead to the erosion of established legal norms, weakening the overall framework of international humanitarian law. Humanitarian Impact: The civilian population bears the brunt of the conflict, facing loss of life, injuries, psychological trauma, and destruction of essential infrastructure, leading to long-term societal impacts. Prospects for Peace: Continued military aggression and failure to address underlying issues, such as occupation and denial of rights, diminish the prospects for a sustainable and just peace. Broader Context: The research situates Israeli actions within a broader strategy that appears aimed at consolidating control over Palestinian territories. Policies such as settlement expansion, annexation plans, and legislative measures restricting Palestinian rights suggest objectives beyond immediate security concerns. Settlement Expansion: The continued growth of settlements in the West Bank violates international law, specifically the Fourth Geneva Convention, which prohibits an occupying power from transferring its civilian population into the territory it occupies. Displacement of Palestinians: Military operations and restrictive policies contribute to the displacement of Palestinians, altering the demographic composition of contested areas. ‌ ∴ Conclusion ∴ ‌The Israeli military confrontations since 1948 reflect a pattern of behavior that challenges the regime's self-professed adherence to moral warfare and democratic values. The post-2000 conflicts with Palestinian resistance groups, characterized by high civilian casualties and humanitarian crises, highlight significant deviations from international legal and ethical standards. Israel's dual identity as a Western-style democracy and a Jewish state creates inherent contradictions, particularly in its treatment of Palestinian populations. While espousing principles of freedom and equality, the regime's actions suggest a prioritization of territorial expansion and maintenance of a Jewish majority state over the rights and welfare of Palestinians. The claims of conducting moral military operations are undermined by: Systematic Violations of International Law: Evidence of disproportionate force, targeting of civilians, and obstruction of humanitarian aid contradicts the principles of Just War Theory and international humanitarian law. Expansionist Policies: Actions such as settlement building and refusal to return to internationally recognized borders indicate an agenda of territorial annexation rather than defense. Lack of Genuine Peace Efforts: The failure to engage in meaningful negotiations, lift blockades, or recognize Palestinian self-determination suggests that military actions are not aimed at achieving lasting peace. The research concludes that the Israeli leadership's invocation of moral justifications serves more as a rhetorical device to legitimize military operations and mitigate international criticism than as a reflection of actual adherence to ethical warfare principles. The disparity between rhetoric and reality highlights the need for the international community to critically assess such claims and hold actors accountable for violations of international law. Addressing these issues requires: International Accountability: Strengthening mechanisms to enforce international humanitarian law and hold violators accountable, regardless of political alliances or power dynamics. Support for Palestinian Rights: Recognizing and upholding the rights of Palestinians to self-determination, security, and a viable state. Promotion of Genuine Dialogue: Encouraging negotiations based on mutual recognition and respect for international legal norms, aiming for a just and sustainable resolution to the conflict. Ultimately, achieving peace and justice in the region necessitates a departure from narratives that obscure realities on the ground and a commitment to actions aligned with ethical and legal obligations. The international community plays a crucial role in facilitating this process by demanding accountability and supporting efforts toward reconciliation and respect for human rights. https://ilr.isu.ac.ir/article_77689.html ∴ Introduction ∴ ‌The Abbasid era of Caliph al-Mahdi (158–169 AH / 775–785 AD) witnessed acute social crises, political factionalism, and rampant administrative corruption. Against this backdrop, the judiciary emerged as an establishing institution charged with enforcing Sharia and governmental regulations, arbitrating civil and criminal disputes, and embodying the principle of political equality before the law. Although individual rulings of famous qāḍīs have been studied piecemeal, the systemic contribution of the courts to public order and social rights during al-Mahdi’s reign remains under-explored. This article therefore situates the judiciary at the center of statecraft, interrogating how procedural innovations, enhanced oversight, and the Caliph’s direct patronage of judicial offices translated into tangible improvements in communal security and perceptions of justice.‌ ∴ Research Question ∴ ‌The study asks: To what extent did the Abbasid judiciary—through its institutional design, procedural practices, and doctrinal orientation—promote sustainable justice, public security, and the protection of social rights during the caliphate of al-Mahdi? Subsidiary questions examine (a) whether judicial interventions mitigated specific categories of unrest, and (b) how judicial authority interacted with executive power when enforcing equality before the law.‌ ∴ Research Hypothesis ∴ ‌It is hypothesized that the judiciary functioned as a decisive instrument of governance, such that:Consistent application of Sharia norms and administrative edicts reduced arbitrariness, thereby lowering incidences of social unrest.‌ ∴ Methodology & Framework, if Applicable ∴ ‌Employing a historical-analytical design, the research triangulates narrative chronicles, juristic treatises, and archival fragments of judicial decrees preserved in later fiqh compilations. Theoretical grounding draws on socio-legal scholarship that links legal legitimacy to state capacity, while a governance-security nexus model frames the judiciary as an intermediary variable between executive policy and societal order.‌ ∴ Results & Discussion ∴ ‌Qualitative content analysis shows a pronounced judicial insistence on siyāsah sharʿiyyah—the doctrine that governmental measures must be tethered to Islamic aims of justice and welfare. Case reports document judges voiding tax exactions deemed inequitable and overruling provincial governors who exceeded lawful punishment thresholds. Such decisions, while occasionally provoking tension with local authorities, reinforced perceptions of procedural fairness and curtailed opportunities for administrative corruption.Second, the Dīwān al-Maẓālim under al-Mahdi acted as a quasi-appellate forum. Its expanded sitting schedule, coupled with the Caliph’s personal attendance at selected sessions, signalled executive endorsement of judicial oversight. Citizens of diverse strata—merchants, mawālī, and tribal notables—successfully prosecuted claims against state agents, illustrating the court’s function as an equalising institution. This visibility, in turn, augmented public trust: narrative sources remark on heightened willingness of litigants to seek legal redress rather than resort to self-help or factional retaliation.Taken together, these findings corroborate the hypothesis that an empowered and comparatively autonomous judiciary operated as a stabilising pillar of early Abbasid governance. The data further nuance standard political histories by demonstrating that al-Mahdi’s drive for legitimacy relied not only on patronage and military strength but also on the institutionalisation of rule-of-law norms that tempered executive authority.‌ ∴ Conclusion ∴ ‌The evidence indicates that during 775-785 AD the Abbasid judiciary transcended a reactionary dispute-settlement role to become an architect of social order. By coupling strict doctrinal fidelity with pragmatic oversight of fiscal and administrative practice, judges reduced the incidence of public disorder, widened access to justice, and bolstered the moral credibility of the caliphal regime. The Dīwān al-Maẓālim emerged as the emblem of this synergy, simultaneously addressing citizen grievances and disciplining state officials. In effect, judicial independence—though never absolute—proved sufficient to check local abuses, foster compliance with Sharia-grounded [Islamic jurisprudence] governance, and entrench the notion of political equality.These outcomes illuminate broader debates on the relationship between law and security in pre-modern Islamic polities. They suggest that where judicial institutions harness both doctrinal authority and executive backing, they can function as powerful levers for societal pacification and rights protection. The Mahdian precedent thus offers a historical template for understanding how legal legitimacy can underpin—not merely adorn—durable political stability. https://ilr.isu.ac.ir/article_77714.html ∴ Introduction ∴ ‌The principle of access to justice occupies a central place in both modern legal systems and classical Islamic jurisprudence. Within any structured legal order, especially in a civil society founded on rule of law, the ability of individuals—both natural and legal persons—to assert their rights through judicial processes is fundamental. Accordingly, the law not only recognizes the right to file claims but also institutionalizes procedural safeguards to ensure the fairness and integrity of litigation. Among these safeguards, the requirement that claims be clear and well-defined is pivotal. If such clarity is lacking, the legal system risks adjudicating disputes on ambiguous grounds, thereby compromising judicial certainty and undermining the enforceability of rulings. Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh), particularly within the Shi'a tradition, is no exception to this requirement. The classical jurists have elaborated on the essential elements of a valid claim, repeatedly emphasizing the necessity of its clarity. The prevailing view in Shi'a legal doctrine holds that claims which are vague—those lacking specificity in terms of the object, quantity, or identifying features—are inadmissible and do not merit judicial consideration. Nevertheless, a minority view within Islamic jurisprudence challenges this assumption and suggests that in some circumstances, vague claims may still be worthy of review and adjudication, particularly when partial information emerges during the judicial process. The impetus for the present research stems from this jurisprudential divergence. Although contemporary Iranian civil procedure law aligns with the traditional requirement of claim clarity, this alignment has not extinguished academic or judicial interest in re-examining the boundaries of admissibility. This study seeks to explore the doctrinal roots and contemporary relevance of these divergent views, using a systematic and critical approach rooted in Islamic legal theory. ‌ ∴ Research Question ∴ ‌The central research question of this study is: To what extent can vague claims be considered admissible and subject to judicial review under Islamic jurisprudence, and under what conditions—if any—can such claims be substantiated and lead to a legal remedy? ‌ ∴ Research Hypothesis ∴ ‌This study is premised on the hypothesis that the absolute inadmissibility of vague claims, as maintained by the majority of jurists, does not adequately reflect the dynamic nature of judicial inquiry in Islamic law. Rather, the hypothesis posits that certain categories of vague claims—particularly those wherein the claimant holds certainty of a right but lacks full descriptive detail—may be conditionally admissible. Furthermore, it is argued that the evolution of judicial processes and the recognition of partial evidence or clarification through procedural mechanisms (e.g., interrogation, testimony, or defendant’s admission) support a more flexible approach. This hypothesis does not negate the importance of clarity but challenges the absolutist interpretation that treats all vague claims as inherently defective. The research contends that when judicial review leads to incremental clarity, such claims may satisfy the epistemic and procedural standards required by Islamic jurisprudence. ‌ ∴ Methodology & Framework, if Applicable ∴ ‌This research employs a doctrinal and analytical methodology, grounded in the study of primary Islamic legal texts (including classical jurisprudential treatises), contemporary commentaries, and relevant statutory provisions in Iranian law. It engages in a comparative analysis between majority and minority positions among Shiite jurists, examining their textual evidences, reasoning patterns (taʿlīl), and interpretive strategies (ijtihād). ‌ ∴ Results & Discussion ∴ ‌This study critically examined the doctrinal positions of classical and contemporary Islamic jurists regarding the admissibility of vague claims. A thorough analysis of juristic texts revealed a clear doctrinal majority maintaining that clarity of the claim is a mandatory condition for judicial admissibility. According to this view, adjudication must be based on a clearly stated and identifiable claim; otherwise, the judgment itself lacks determinacy and becomes legally ineffective. This aligns with classical Islamic procedural principles that emphasize the necessity of al-ʿilm (knowledge) for both litigants and judges in rendering fair rulings. However, a minority of contemporary jurists—particularly those who emphasize maṣlaḥah (public interest) and procedural equity—challenge this rigid formulation. These scholars argue that substantive justice may require courts to consider vague claims, especially when they arise from genuine cases of real ignorance (jahl) rather than litigation misconduct or carelessness. The study shows that these minority jurists rely heavily on overarching Islamic legal maxims, such as lā ḍarar wa-lā ḍirār (no-harm principle) and the sīrah ʿuqalāʾ (conduct of the wise), as rational bases for softening procedural barriers. Empirical parallels from Iranian civil law, especially Articles 34, 56, 61, and 159 of the Constitution, were invoked to support the latter view. These articles frame the judiciary as a venue to actualize justice and affirm the unconditional right of all citizens to seek legal remedy. The study finds that these constitutional norms are conceptually compatible with the idea of hearing vague claims when the litigant can demonstrate certainty of harm or entitlement, even if they cannot describe the object or exact quantity in dispute. Moreover, it was noted that in many practical cases, vague claims gradually gain clarity during the litigation process. Cross-examination, defendant responses, and the use of circumstantial evidence often help reconstruct the necessary specifics. As such, immediate dismissal of vague claims not only inflicts procedural injustice but also deprives the plaintiff of their constitutional right to judicial review. The study also explores procedural tools that Islamic courts can deploy to resolve vague claims without compromising judicial integrity. These include invoking the defendant’s oath (yamīn), facilitating compulsory reconciliation (ṣulḥ), or ruling in favor of the least possible claim when ambiguity cannot be fully resolved. These mechanisms, found within traditional Islamic judicial practice, offer flexible responses that mitigate the harms of vagueness without undermining legal precision. In sum, the findings demonstrate that while classical Islamic jurisprudence was cautious toward vague claims, Islamic legal theory is not inherently averse to their consideration—especially when balanced against principles of harm avoidance and judicial obligation. This opens a legitimate path for context-sensitive interpretation within modern judicial frameworks that remain faithful to Islamic legal heritage. ‌ ∴ Conclusion ∴ ‌The prevailing doctrine among classical Islamic jurists affirms that vague claims are inadmissible, positing that the lack of specificity undermines both the judicial process and the enforceability of rulings. This view emphasizes that the judge’s mandate is to issue rulings based on well-defined claims. If the claim is vague, any resulting judgment is likewise ambiguous and legally defective. In contrast, this study has highlighted a compelling minority view—backed by rational and constitutional principles—that recognizes the admissibility of vague claims under specific circumstances. It argues that under Article 34 of Iran’s Constitution, every individual holds an unqualified right to judicial recourse, and judges are duty-bound to provide a hearing, even when the claim is imprecise. This interpretation is reinforced by the rational conduct of society (sīrah ʿuqalāʾ), which holds that claims based on real, non-malicious uncertainty still merit attention. When a plaintiff demonstrates certainty in the occurrence of a harm (e.g., theft or unreturned loan) but cannot specify the exact item due to the passage of time or memory lapse, denying their claim amounts to procedural injustice. To resolve such cases, Islamic jurisprudence already provides a suite of mechanisms—defendant oath, compulsory reconciliation, and minimal ruling—that permit the court to deliver equitable outcomes even amid evidentiary ambiguity. Accordingly, this study concludes that realistic and sincere vague claims should be admitted, especially when grounded in the plaintiff’s certainty and corroborated through procedural clarification. The assumption that all vague claims are inherently frivolous is both legally and morally untenable. Islamic jurisprudence, with its ethical and rational foundations, supports the judiciary’s proactive role in uncovering truth and securing justice—even when confronted with imperfect claims. Thus, vague claims stemming from real ignorance—particularly where the defendant is known and the harm is certain—should be deemed legally admissible and subject to full judicial process, rather than dismissed at the outset. https://ilr.isu.ac.ir/article_77810.html ‌Context & Objective: The dynamic nature of legal systems within Islamic societies demands a deeper engagement with the foundational principles of Islamic jurisprudence, particularly in contexts where temporal and spatial exigencies challenge rigid applications of traditional rulings. This article explores the scope and implications of utilizing explicit Islamic legal reasoning (ta‘līlāt manṣūṣ)—the textual rationales embedded in Islamic legal sources—to revitalize and adapt contemporary Islamic legal systems. The primary aim is to assess whether such textual reasons can serve not only to reinforce the authenticity of legal rulings but also to elevate the substantive objectives (maqāṣid) of Islamic law above the literal enforcement of its external forms. The study’s central research question asks: to what extent can the explicit rationales within Islamic legal texts be employed to promote jurisprudential dynamism and policy orientation, while safeguarding against interpretative deviations that compromise the integrity of the Sharia?Method & Approach: The research adopts a doctrinal methodology, grounded in analytical jurisprudence and the interpretive traditions of Islamic law. Through reasoned argumentation and interpretive scrutiny, the study engages in a critical textual analysis of jurisprudential sources, incorporating scriptural evidence alongside rational inquiry and behavioral precedents drawn from the conduct of the wise (ʿuqalāʾ). The methodological approach aims to clarify the epistemic status of textual rationales in Islamic legal discourse and evaluate their normative role in shaping legislative principles and policy frameworks.Findings: The analysis reveals two significant conclusions. First, the textual rationales related to harms and benefits (mafsada and maṣlaḥa) cited by the Islamic Lawgiver typically reflect partial wisdom (ḥikma) rather than constituting a complete and binding legal cause (ʿilla tāmma) for the associated rulings. These rationales only attain decisive legal authority when accompanied by clear and unequivocal textual or contextual indicators that necessitate such interpretation—mere suggestive evidence is insufficient. Second, the structured use of explicit legal reasoning allows for the extrapolation of the overarching aims and philosophical foundations of the Islamic legal system. Consequently, such reasoning serves as a conduit for aligning legal policies with the higher objectives of Islamic law, provided this alignment respects the doctrinal boundaries of Sharia and does not conflict with the principle of incomplete causality described in the first finding.Conclusion: This study advocates for a jurisprudential framework in which the explicit reasons embedded in Islamic legal texts are judiciously utilized to guide legal policy and institutional reform, ensuring both fidelity to the scriptural tradition and responsiveness to societal evolution. By distinguishing between partial wisdom and complete legal causality, the research safeguards against arbitrary interpretations while promoting the integration of the Lawgiver’s objectives into contemporary legal frameworks. Ultimately, the article underscores the necessity of a principled and intellectually rigorous engagement with Islamic legal reasoning to enhance the relevance, coherence, and legitimacy of modern Islamic legal systems. https://ilr.isu.ac.ir/article_77650.html ∴ Introduction ∴ ‌Criminal policy encompasses the strategies and measures adopted by governments to address behaviors that contravene social and legal norms. This policy is not limited to punitive measures but extends to preventive approaches, integrating economic, social, and cultural dimensions in crime control. As defined by the French scholar Madame Mireille Delmas-Marty, criminal policy includes "the set of methods through which society organizes its responses to criminal phenomena," highlighting both reactive and proactive strategies in crime prevention. In the Islamic Republic of Iran, legislative criminal policy is a critical aspect of the broader criminal policy framework, guiding the enactment of laws, classification of offenses, and establishment of punitive measures. This legislative function is not solely within the domain of the Islamic Consultative Assembly (Parliament) but involves other institutions, among which the Expediency Discernment Council holds a significant role. The Expediency Discernment Council functions as a pivotal institution in the Iranian legal and legislative system, with its primary responsibilities including the resolution of legislative conflicts between the Parliament and the Guardian Council and the formulation of general state policies. Given the Council’s authority to intervene in legislative matters, its influence on the formulation and implementation of criminal policy is substantial. By analyzing the extent of the Council’s role in shaping legislative criminal policy, this study seeks to assess its effectiveness in formulating systematic and coherent crime-control strategies. ‌ ∴ Research Question ∴ ‌This study seeks to address the following key research question: What is the role of the Expediency Discernment Council in the formulation and implementation of legislative criminal policy in the Islamic Republic of Iran? This central inquiry is further broken down into sub-questions: To what extent does the Council directly influence legislative criminal policy through its intervention in lawmaking processes? How does the Council’s role in resolving legislative disputes affect the consistency and coherence of criminal laws? Does the Council’s involvement contribute to the effectiveness of crime prevention strategies in Iran? ‌ ∴ Research Hypothesis ∴ ‌The study is based on the following hypothesis: The Expediency Discernment Council serves two primary functions in Iran’s legislative criminal policy: legislative and supervisory. This hypothesis is derived from an analysis of the Iranian Constitution and the Council’s official functions. The legislative role of the Council is evident in its authority to propose and influence state policies and to resolve conflicts between the Parliament and the Guardian Council. Meanwhile, its supervisory role is reflected in its oversight of legislative developments to ensure alignment with broader national interests. Given these two functions, the study hypothesizes that the Council’s involvement in legislative criminal policy enhances the coherence and efficiency of crime-related laws while simultaneously acting as a regulatory body that ensures legislative decisions align with the broader interests of the state. However, the extent of its effectiveness remains an area for critical analysis. ‌ ∴ Methodology & Framework, if Applicable ∴ ‌This research adopts a descriptive-analytical approach combined with a doctrinal research method to examine the role of the Expediency Discernment Council in legislative criminal policy. The study relies on legal analysis, constitutional provisions, statutory laws, and relevant legal documents to evaluate the Council’s functions within the Iranian legislative system. ‌ ∴ Results & Discussion ∴ ‌The findings of this study highlight the pivotal role of the Expediency Discernment Council in shaping legislative criminal policy in the Islamic Republic of Iran. The Council’s contributions extend beyond its primary function of resolving disputes between the Parliament and the Guardian Council, encompassing broader legislative and supervisory responsibilities that influence Iran’s approach to crime prevention, punishment, and legal reform. One of the most significant aspects of the Council’s role is its power to propose general state policies, which serve as legislative frameworks guiding criminal lawmaking. The policies formulated by the Council include major directives on criminalization, decriminalization, prison reform, and crime prevention, which have provided a foundation for legislative initiatives in Parliament. By issuing such guidelines, the Council effectively shapes Iran’s legislative response to evolving social and legal challenges. Additionally, the Council’s legislative interventions have resulted in the enactment of key legal instruments addressing criminal phenomena. Notable examples include the Anti-Narcotics Law, which outlines Iran’s strict approach to drug-related offenses, and the Law on Aggravated Punishment for Embezzlement, Bribery, and Fraud, which demonstrates the Council’s efforts in combating financial crimes. These laws illustrate how the Council's arbitration function not only resolves legislative impasses but also contributes to the development of comprehensive legal strategies to address criminal behavior. Beyond legislation, the Council plays a supervisory role in ensuring that enacted laws align with the overarching policies of the system. This supervision is conducted through substantive and procedural reviews: Substantive Review: The Council assesses whether laws passed by Parliament conform to Iran’s general state policies. This review includes examining whether legislative acts contradict overarching governance principles or deviate from the pre-established criminal policy guidelines. Procedural Review: The Council ensures that laws enacted in accordance with system policies are effectively implemented by judicial and executive bodies. This oversight mechanism helps maintain consistency in legislative application and prevents deviations in enforcement. Despite its significant influence, the Council’s role in legislative criminal policy is not without challenges. One major concern is the potential overreach of legislative authority, as the Iranian legal system primarily assigns lawmaking responsibilities to Parliament. While the Council's interventions may be necessary in cases of legislative deadlocks, clear and transparent criteria are needed to define the extent of its involvement in the legislative process. Furthermore, the effectiveness of criminal policy formulation would benefit from a more structured engagement with experts in criminology and legal reform, ensuring that legislative decisions are informed by empirical research and international best practices. ‌ ∴ Conclusion ∴ ‌The Expediency Discernment Council serves as a crucial institution in shaping legislative criminal policy in Iran. Its dual role—legislative and supervisory—grants it significant authority in defining legal responses to criminal phenomena. Through its policy recommendations, dispute resolution, and regulatory oversight, the Council has contributed to the formation and refinement of Iran’s criminal legal framework. However, certain limitations must be addressed to enhance the Council’s effectiveness in legislative criminal policymaking. Given that lawmaking is fundamentally the responsibility of Parliament, the Council’s intervention should be reserved for exceptional cases where legislative impasses threaten the coherence of the legal system. Establishing clear procedural criteria for intervention would help balance the legislative powers between the Council and Parliament. Additionally, strengthening the Council’s engagement with criminologists and legal experts would improve the quality of its legislative contributions, ensuring that Iran’s criminal policy framework is both systematic and adaptable to contemporary challenges. Furthermore, greater emphasis on developmental prevention policies, particularly in education and social reform, could help shift the focus of criminal policy from punitive measures to proactive crime prevention. https://ilr.isu.ac.ir/article_77717.html Context & Objective: The question of whether denial can be proven and whether evidence can be presented to support such denial is a matter of significant legal and theoretical importance. Despite its practical implications in judicial proceedings, this issue has not been systematically explored in either Islamic jurisprudence or Iranian legal doctrine. Traditionally, Islamic jurisprudence—especially in its Shi'a interpretation—maintains that the presentation of Bayyina (evidence through the testimony of two just men) is a procedural right exclusive to the plaintiff. However, this exclusivity has been challenged by some scholars. The purpose of this research is to evaluate the legitimacy and scope of the defendant’s right to present evidence in support of a denial, and to assess whether Iranian civil law is in alignment or conflict with Islamic jurisprudential principles. The central research question is whether the current position of Iranian law regarding the proof of denial and the right of the defendant to submit evidence is compatible with established Islamic legal thought.Method & Approach: The study employs a doctrinal methodology, relying on a detailed examination of primary legal texts and jurisprudential sources. An inductive approach is adopted to analyze legal principles derived from Islamic jurists’ writings and statutory provisions in Iranian law. By comparing doctrinal positions in Shi'a jurisprudence with the contents of the Iranian Civil Code and Code of Civil Procedure, the study identifies areas of alignment and divergence.Findings: The analysis reveals that, contrary to the dominant view in Islamic jurisprudence that restricts Bayyina to the claimant, Iranian law allows the defendant to offer evidence to disprove the claimant’s assertions. This is evident from multiple provisions in the Iranian Code of Civil Procedure, as well as the explicit wording of Article 1328 of the Civil Code, which permits the defendant to avoid taking an oath by proving the falsity of the plaintiff’s claim. These findings highlight a divergence between Iranian statutory law and traditional juristic interpretations, particularly regarding the procedural rights of defendants.Conclusion: Although Iranian law departs from the classical Shi'a jurisprudential position on the exclusivity of presenting Bayyina, this divergence does not constitute a violation of Islamic legal principles. The study concludes that the Iranian legal system’s recognition of the defendant’s right to present evidence in denial cases reflects a legitimate development within the scope of Islamic jurisprudence. Thus, the current legal framework in Iran, while not strictly aligned with traditional opinions, remains within the interpretive flexibility permitted by Islamic legal theory. https://ilr.isu.ac.ir/article_77808.html ‌Context & Objective: The most significant challenge which Artificial Intelligence (AI) poses for jurists is concerning the attribution of liability for the use of such systems and plugging the existing "liability gap." This research seeks to provide a solution to the issue of AI liability by harnessing the promise of the doctrine of vicarious liability. The primary aim of this research is to explain why this doctrine is being applied to deployers (principals) of intelligent systems. After explaining the application of the theory to AI, it discusses how possible it is to establish the substantive components of the doctrine despite the unique characteristics of AI. Method & Approach: The paper adopts a doctrinal method and a descriptive-analytical approach, relying on library resources, including books, articles, and court cases. The economic, risk-based, operational, and control-based principles of the doctrine have been extracted. The principles are compared with analogous principles in Islamic law, such as the rule of "man lahu al-ghunm faʿalayhi al-ghurm" (he who enjoys the benefits of a thing must also bear its losses), and are applied to the case of an AI deployer. Subsequently, the existence of the substantive elements of vicarious liability—i.e., "the existence of a relationship" and "the connection of the wrongful act to that relationship"—is examined in the context of AI and its deployer. To establish a legal relationship between the AI system and the principal and link the wrongful act to that relationship, the "relationship akin to employment" test and the "close connection test" are proposed. Findings: Analysis of the justifications of vicarious liability establishes its extension to deployers of AI as fully justified on the basis of: 1) The superior economic capacity of the principal to compensate for injuries and take on risk (deep pockets); 2) The legal-economic principle of risk creation by the party benefiting from it and the necessity of internalization of the costs its commercial venture causes; 3) The instrumental nature of AI and incorporation of its operation into the core business of the enterprise and value generation for it; and 4) Control by the principal over establishing or re-establishing objectives, training data, and monitoring of the intelligent system, as well as their ability to, in effect, "pull the plug." The article confirms that when an organization deploys an AI (for instance, a self-driving taxi) and harm is caused through the AI, the "relationship akin to employment" test, which has been adopted in common law, can effectively establish the legal relationship between the organization and the AI because the AI is "hired" for the fulfillment of the organization's objectives. In addition, the "close connection test" is able to determine the connection between the wrongful act of the system and its link with the company, since the harm resulting is usually the realization of an inherent risk connected with the very activity that is undertaken by the principal who has gained and profited by using the AI. By adopting such principles and such requirements, the responsibility is placed on the firm, whereas traditional rules of law are faced with challenges in attributing responsibility due to, for example, the autonomous action of AI, its black-box nature, and the complexity of the causal chain. Conclusion: The study concludes that the doctrine of vicarious liability, through its flexible tests such as the "relationship akin to employment" and the "close connection" test, provides a coherent, justifiable, and practicable foundation for attributing liability to AI deployers and can effectively fill in the existing liability gap. By applying this doctrine to AI, the responsibility is on the one who controls and also benefits from the technology. The proposed model is aligned with acknowledged axioms of Islamic law, such as the axiom of "man lahu al-ghunm faʿalayhi al-ghurm" (he who enjoys the benefits of a thing must also bear its losses), and can be employed by the legislator for developing clear-cut rules in the field of artificial intelligence. https://ilr.isu.ac.ir/article_78137.html https://ilr.isu.ac.ir/article_77723.html ‌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. https://ilr.isu.ac.ir/article_78138.html https://ilr.isu.ac.ir/article_77797.html Context & Objective: The formation of a marital relationship entails not only legal obligations—such as the duty of fidelity—but also deep emotional and psychological connections between spouses. An extramarital affair by one party, therefore, represents not only a violation of this legal duty but also a source of emotional distress for the other spouse, potentially giving rise to civil liability. This article aims to explore the possibility and legal basis for compensating such non-material harm, focusing specifically on a comparative analysis of Iranian law and the common law system. The central research question is whether and how legal systems recognize and address claims for damages arising from extramarital affairs within the framework of marital life.Method & Approach: This study employs a doctrinal and comparative legal methodology. It systematically analyzes primary and secondary legal sources in both Iranian and common law contexts to identify the principles, mechanisms, and limitations related to civil liability for emotional harm caused by infidelity. By comparing these two legal traditions, the article seeks to uncover convergences and divergences in the treatment of such claims and the rationale behind each system’s approach.Findings: The research reveals that civil liability for damages caused by extramarital affairs depends on the existence of a valid marital bond and the occurrence of the extramarital act. A criminal conviction of the offending spouse is not necessary to establish liability; however, a criminal acquittal based on insufficient evidence of the affair negates the possibility of civil compensation. The damages typically pertain to non-pecuniary (moral) harm, and their assessment involves several factors: the emotional impact on the injured spouse, the level of emotional attachment they had toward the unfaithful partner, their own performance of marital duties, societal and cultural norms, and their personal and social standing.Conclusion: The comparative analysis indicates that while both Iranian law and the common law system recognize the potential for civil liability in the context of extramarital affairs, they approach it from different doctrinal and procedural angles. Nevertheless, both systems emphasize the seriousness of the emotional harm inflicted on the injured spouse and allow for compensation based on moral and contextual criteria. The study underscores the evolving recognition of emotional injury within marital relationships as a legitimate ground for civil remedy. https://ilr.isu.ac.ir/article_77809.html ‌Context & Objective: In Shia Islamic jurisprudence, the agency contract [Wakalah] is traditionally considered a revocable contract, subject to automatic termination upon the death of the principal or agent. This prevailing interpretation rests on the rationale that the agent’s authority is derived directly from the principal’s personal will, which ceases to exist upon death. However, contemporary developments in Islamic legal thought and Iranian statutory law have prompted re-evaluation of this principle. This article aims to challenge the dominant consensus by exploring theoretical and legislative grounds for agency continuity. The central research question explores whether, and under what conditions, the continuity of agency after the principal’s death can be legitimized within Shia jurisprudence and Iranian legal practice.Method & Approach: This study employs a doctrinal legal methodology, grounded in analytical and interpretative examination of primary religious texts—the Qur'an and the Sunnah—alongside juristic commentaries, logical reasoning, and statutory provisions. Through this method, traditional and contemporary juristic opinions are critically assessed, with particular attention to the structure of revocable contracts and their legal implications in post-mortem contexts. Iranian civil legislation is also analyzed to identify provisions and legal precedents that may support the survival of agency beyond the principal’s death, especially in cases involving continuous obligations or transferability of authorization.Findings: The study finds that the dominant juristic view—automatic termination of agency upon the principal’s death—is not binding nor fully substantiated by scriptural or logical reasoning. It reveals significant inadequacies in the conventional arguments, including reliance on juristic consensus, presumptions about revoked permissions, and assumptions concerning the immediate transfer of the principal's rights to heirs. By contrast, this research identifies legal scenarios—such as agencies embedded in transferable rights or those related to enduring obligations—where continuation post-mortem is both logically coherent and jurisprudentially defensible. Furthermore, the Iranian Civil Code provides implicit legislative support for such exceptions, indicating a potential pathway for reconciling traditional jurisprudence with contemporary legal needs.Conclusion: The conclusion drawn from this inquiry is that the rule of automatic termination of agency upon the death of the principal is not absolute within Shia jurisprudence. Instead, a nuanced and conditional approach is warranted, recognizing that agency may validly continue in certain circumstances. This has important implications for legal reform, suggesting that both Islamic jurisprudence and Iranian civil law can accommodate the survival of agency in well-defined contexts. The findings advocate for a reconsideration of the prevailing legal doctrine and offer a framework for future legislative revisions in Iran and similarly structured Islamic legal systems. https://ilr.isu.ac.ir/article_77824.html ‌Context & Objective: In industrial property law, the issuance of a registration certificate grants the holder exclusive rights. However, because of the potential for error by the registration authority in evaluating substantive conditions, such certificates cannot be presumed definitively valid. This raises a critical legal question: can a judicial authority, in the context of adjudicating infringement claims, independently evaluate the substantive validity of a registration certificate without a formal action for invalidation? In recent years, Iranian criminal courts have adopted a practice of assessing certificate validity through expert opinions during infringement proceedings, leading to rulings of non-prosecution when registration conditions were deemed unfulfilled. This judicial approach has garnered support from segments of Iranian legal scholarship. In contrast, the 2024 enactment of Article 133 in the Industrial Property Protection Act mandates that upon a defense challenging the certificate’s validity, courts must stay proceedings and refrain from direct evaluation of substantive validity. This article seeks to examine the extent to which this legislative development aligns with the fundamental nature of global registration systems, the core requirements of industrial property law, and the legal doctrine governing the stay of proceedings.Method & Approach: The article employs a doctrinal research methodology to conduct a critical analysis of both judicial practice and the legislative position embedded in Article 133. It scrutinizes relevant statutory texts, judicial decisions, and academic commentaries to assess the theoretical and practical consistency of prior court practices with established legal principles.Findings: The analysis reveals that the prior judicial approach, which permitted courts to engage in substantive evaluation of registration certificates during infringement proceedings, lacked a solid foundation in the structure of registration-based legal systems. It also presented challenges to the predictability and coherence of industrial property rights. Conversely, the new legislative directive to stay proceedings and defer substantive validity assessments to separate invalidation actions aligns with international norms and reinforces the systemic reliability of the registration framework. The requirement to channel validity challenges through distinct procedural mechanisms ensures procedural regularity and legal certainty for stakeholders.Conclusion: The study concludes that Article 133 of the 2024 Industrial Property Protection Act represents a legally sound and functionally necessary departure from prior judicial practices. By prohibiting courts from directly assessing certificate validity and mandating a stay of proceedings in the face of substantive challenges, the legislature has affirmed the structural integrity of the registration system, upheld essential principles of industrial property law, and harmonized domestic legal practice with globally recognized procedural standards. https://ilr.isu.ac.ir/article_77807.html Context & Objective: In Shia Islamic jurisprudence, legal acts are traditionally classified strictly as either contracts (ʿaqd) or unilateral acts (iqāʿ), each possessing distinct legal implications. However, categorizing certain acts within this binary classification remains contentious among scholars. Guarantee (ḍamān) exemplifies such ambiguity, as Shia jurists are divided regarding whether it must strictly constitute a contract or can also be recognized as a unilateral act. While most jurists advocate for its exclusive contractual nature, a minority supports its validity as a unilateral act. The purpose of this research is to analyze critically and systematically these divergent viewpoints and determine whether ḍamān inherently belongs to a specific legal category or whether its classification depends on contextual factors. Specifically, the research addresses the question: Is the classification of ḍamān necessarily confined to a contractual form, or can it legitimately function as a unilateral act under specific conditions?Method & Approach: Employing a doctrinal research methodology, this study conducts a comprehensive analytical review of primary sources and scholarly arguments within Imāmī jurisprudence. The study systematically investigates foundational theoretical justifications supporting both dominant (contractualist) and minority (unilateralist) perspectives.Findings: The research reveals substantial limitations in the prevailing argument that confines guarantee (ḍamān) exclusively to a contractual form. Critical analysis demonstrates that the jurisprudential justifications presented by contractualists do not convincingly preclude the legitimacy of guarantee as a unilateral act. Rather, the findings indicate that both conceptual frameworks—contractual and unilateral—are jurisprudentially plausible and internally consistent within Shia legal theory. The authors' hypothesis is thus affirmed, emphasizing the conditionality and flexibility in classifying ḍamān based on the specific nature of the parties' expressions and intentions.Conclusion: The study concludes that the classification of guarantee (ḍamān) within Shia Islamic jurisprudence should not be rigidly restricted to a single category. Instead, its form is contingent upon the practical and intentional context in which it occurs. When mutual consent and explicit bilateral agreement are evident, ḍamān properly takes the form of a contract. Conversely, when initiated independently by one party without requiring acceptance, it legitimately constitutes a unilateral act. This conclusion not only resolves the theoretical ambiguity surrounding ḍamān but also aligns jurisprudential interpretation with practical legal realities, thereby enriching and diversifying the conceptual understanding of legal acts within Shia jurisprudence. https://ilr.isu.ac.ir/article_77715.html ‌Context & Objective: The construction sector in Iran is entangled in numerous legal complications, particularly concerning unauthorized developments and structural safety. Article 100 of the Iranian Municipal Law lacks a criminal enforcement framework, and the National Building Regulations suffer from weak compliance mechanisms. These legal shortcomings have resulted in a widespread failure of municipalities to prevent illegal construction, further exacerbated by financial motivations tied to violation fines, creating an institutional conflict of interest. These deficiencies significantly contribute to incidents involving building collapses. This article aims to investigate the jurisprudential foundations and the civil liability of municipalities in such events. The core research question explores the nature and scope of municipal civil liability in light of Islamic legal principles and Iranian legal practice. Method & Approach: This study employs a doctrinal methodology combined with an inductive analytical approach. It systematically examines Islamic jurisprudential sources, statutory provisions, and judicial precedents in Iran to identify the normative and legal bases for municipal responsibility. Findings: The analysis indicates that fragmented legislation, weak enforcement mechanisms, and insufficient regulatory clarity are pivotal factors in the failure of key stakeholders—including property owners, contractors, and municipal bodies—to meet their legal and regulatory responsibilities. These issues create conditions conducive to misconduct and neglect. Moreover, traditional defenses such as the non-liability of trustees and public interest arguments do not hold uniformly in cases involving municipal inaction or misconduct. Instead, principles like la-zarar (no harm), itlaf (destruction), and tasbib (causation) are more directly applicable in holding municipalities accountable. Conclusion: The study concludes that municipalities, by virtue of their regulatory role and legal identity, bear civil liability for damages resulting from building collapses when their failure to enforce construction laws contributes to such events. Relying on Islamic jurisprudential doctrines such as wilayat al-hakim (governmental guardianship), public order, and foundational principles of justice and equity, the research asserts that municipal entities cannot evade liability under the guise of public function. Rather, they are legally and morally obliged to provide redress for harms resulting from their regulatory failures. https://ilr.isu.ac.ir/article_77724.html ‌Context & Objective: Recent rapid advancements in artificial intelligence (AI) have exposed significant limitations in the traditional intellectual property (IP) rights framework. Notably, copyright and patent laws, which are inherently designed around human creators, fail to adequately protect AI-generated products. This study explores whether the trade secrets regime can offer protection for AI-generated intellectual products and address the ownership rights of relevant parties. The research aims to evaluate the viability of trade secrets as a protective mechanism and answer the question: Can AI intellectual products be effectively safeguarded under trade secrets law?Method & Approach: The study employs a doctrinal legal research method combined with comparative analysis of key principles in trade secrets law. It critically examines existing scholarly opinions advocating for the application of trade secrets protection to AI-generated works and inventions.Findings: The analysis finds that protecting AI-generated intellectual products under the trade secrets framework is possible but inherently fragile. While trade secrets can provide some level of protection, they fall short in guaranteeing moral rights linked to these creations.Conclusion: Although trade secrets protection is not a comprehensive remedy for AI-generated intellectual property, it represents a provisional legal tool that can fill existing gaps. Without substantial changes to IP legislation, the trade secrets regime may serve as the primary means to protect AI intellectual products, despite its limitations in fully safeguarding associated moral rights. https://ilr.isu.ac.ir/article_77743.html ‌Context & Objective: The inclusion of Article 499-bis in the Islamic Penal Code of Iran, added in 2020, marks a significant development in Iranian criminal law. This provision criminalizes insulting Iranian ethnicities, divine religions, and Islamic sects recognized by the Iranian Constitution, categorizing such actions as offenses against national security. This legal framework aims to bolster national unity and prevent actions that could harm it. The purpose of this research is to critically analyze the criminalization of such insults, with a focus on the unique legal structure introduced by this article. The primary research question is to explore the differences between this new provision and similar offenses in the Iranian Penal Code as well as Western hate crime laws.Method & Approach: This research employs a doctrinal method and an inductive approach, relying on a wide range of authoritative criminal law sources. The study also incorporates detailed records from the Iranian Parliament (Majlis) and the Guardian Council to provide a comprehensive examination of the article’s legal context. The analysis delves into the key components of the criminal offense defined in this article, examining the interpretive challenges and ambiguities present in the text and the judicial practices surrounding its implementation.Findings: The research reveals that Article 499-bis establishes two distinct criminal categories—those "result-oriented" and "not result-oriented." It also highlights that the law requires a specific intent to create societal violence or tension in the perpetrators, distinguishing it from hate crimes, where the motive is central. Additionally, the study points out the lack of relevance of the perpetrator's motive in the commission of this crime, contrasting it with the approach in hate crime legislation. These findings underscore the unique legal framework established by this provision and its implications for the Iranian criminal justice system.Conclusion: The study concludes that the analysis of Article 499-bis provides valuable insights into the criminalization of insulting ethnicities and religious minorities in Iran. It offers a clearer understanding of the Iranian legislator's intent and the structural elements that differentiate this crime from other legal frameworks, such as hate crimes. These findings have significant implications for interpreting the law in judicial practice and for comparative legal studies, potentially contributing to a more precise application of the law and fostering a deeper understanding of its broader social and legal impacts. https://ilr.isu.ac.ir/article_77775.html ‌Context & Objective: In Islamic jurisprudence, Taʿzir encompasses discretionary punishments assigned by judges or rulers for offenses lacking explicit penalties within the Qur'an or Hadith. The Iranian legislature, informed by these principles, has predominantly established Qisas (retaliation) for intentional bodily offenses and Diyya (blood money) for unintentional offenses. However, supplementary Taʿzir punishments have been inconsistently incorporated. This study critically examines Iran’s criminal policy concerning Taʿzir sanctions for bodily offenses short of homicide, aiming to identify legislative coherence, proportionality, and adequacy. It specifically addresses whether current policies effectively prevent impunity and appropriately apply Islamic Fiqh capacities.Method & Approach: This research employs a doctrinal methodology complemented by content analysis, focusing explicitly on legislative texts from various periods post-Islamic Revolution. Laws from successive Iranian legislative periods, particularly the Islamic Penal Code of 2013 (1392 SH), are thoroughly examined to assess consistency, proportionality, and comprehensiveness in Taʿzir punishments.Findings: The analysis reveals significant inconsistencies and fundamental deficiencies within the existing legal framework. Notably, sanctions are absent for certain intentional bodily offenses when Qisas is either not applicable or waived. Moreover, Article 401 of the 2013 Islamic Penal Code demonstrates evident disproportionality between specific crimes and their corresponding Taʿzir penalties. Additionally, legislative measures for unintentional bodily offenses unjustifiably limit Taʿzir sanctions exclusively to traffic-related injuries, neglecting broader scenarios of similar non-intentional conduct.Conclusion: Iran’s current criminal policy regarding Taʿzir punishments for bodily offenses exhibits fundamental flaws, particularly concerning coherence, proportionality, and legislative comprehensiveness. To ensure effectiveness and prevent impunity, revisions are necessary to address existing gaps and inconsistencies. A refined, systematic approach aligning more accurately with Islamic jurisprudential principles and practical demands is essential for the future of Islamic criminal justice system. https://ilr.isu.ac.ir/article_77742.html Context & Objective: The Islamic Republic of Iran's legislator has established specific criteria for determining the eligibility of candidates running for the Islamic Consultative Assembly (Majlis). Among these criteria, the "criminal history records" of candidates play a pivotal role in the registration process and the assessment of their qualifications. Despite the existence of regulations regarding criminal history records, significant ambiguity remains in both their definition and the extent of their impact on the electoral process. This ambiguity has led to inconsistent interpretations among the relevant authorities and bodies responsible for determining candidate eligibility. The primary objective of this study is to explore and clarify the influence of criminal history records on the registration process for Majlis candidates and to examine the legal implications of such records in the electoral framework. The research aims to answer the question of how criminal history records impact the registration process and the determination of eligibility for candidacy in Iranian parliamentary elections.Method & Approach: This study adopts a doctrinal approach, focusing on an in-depth analysis of the relevant laws and regulations related to criminal history records and their influence on the registration of candidates for the Majlis. The authors conduct a detailed review of the legal framework, including criminal and electoral laws in Iran, and provide a new classification of the impact of criminal history records on the electoral process.Findings: The study reveals that the redefinition of criminal history records within Iranian criminal and electoral laws plays a critical role in shaping the registration process for candidates. It finds that criminal history records, depending on their nature, can temporarily or permanently disqualify an individual from running for the Majlis during the registration phase. This finding highlights the significant impact of criminal history on candidates' ability to stand for election and the need for clearer legal definitions regarding criminal history records in the context of Iranian elections.Conclusion: In conclusion, the study emphasizes the importance of redefining criminal history records in Iranian law to ensure greater clarity and consistency in the registration process for Majlis candidates. By providing a more precise legal framework, the study advocates for the establishment of a clear and transparent system for assessing the impact of criminal history on candidacy. The findings underline the need for further legal reforms to address the ambiguity surrounding criminal history records and their effect on the electoral process, contributing to a more just and equitable electoral system. https://ilr.isu.ac.ir/article_77786.html Context & Objective: The smuggling of goods and currency is categorized as an economic crime under Iranian law, where ownership plays a pivotal role in shaping legislative criminal policy. The Law on Combating the Smuggling of Goods and Currency emphasizes identifying the owners of smuggled goods; however, challenges arise when ownership remains unclear. This article explores the dual impact of ownership status on the legislative criminal policy of the Islamic Republic of Iran and, conversely, how this policy influences the treatment of smuggled goods in terms of ownership. The central research question is whether the legislative approach toward categorizing certain goods as “ownerless,” “unclaimed,” or “fugitive-owned” aligns with Islamic jurisprudential standards and supports effective anti-smuggling policy.Method & Approach: The article employs a doctrinal legal research methodology, focusing on statutory interpretation and critical analysis of legal texts. It adopts a critical approach to examine the alignment of Iran’s legislative criminal policy with Islamic jurisprudence, particularly the principles derived from Shi'a Fiqh and the opinions of prominent jurists such as Imam Khomeini. The research involves a close reading of legislative texts and related jurisprudential sources to evaluate the conceptual clarity and legal soundness of the categorizations used for smuggled goods with ambiguous ownership.Findings: The study finds that the Iranian legislature, by introducing terms such as “ownerless” and “fugitive-owned” alongside “goods of unknown ownership,” has arguably expanded the legal definition of Majhūl al-Mālik goods beyond traditional Islamic jurisprudential boundaries. This broadening appears to conflict with established jurisprudential principles and contradicts the otherwise strict criminal policy the legislature applies to smuggling offenses. Additionally, the research highlights a systemic issue wherein enforcement bodies and adjudicators show limited initiative in identifying the true owners of smuggled goods, partly due to the complexities inherent in white-collar smuggling and the institutional incentives tied to unclaimed property.Conclusion: The article concludes that the legislative treatment of smuggled goods with ambiguous ownership suffers from conceptual overreach and legal ambiguity. This misalignment with Islamic legal standards not only raises jurisprudential concerns but also weakens the effectiveness of Iran’s anti-smuggling criminal policy. By enabling both offenders and enforcement actors to benefit from unclear ownership, the current approach inadvertently undermines deterrence and legal accountability. The study recommends revisiting and refining the legislative definitions and enforcement practices to ensure both legal coherence and policy efficacy. https://ilr.isu.ac.ir/article_77716.html Context & Objective: In Iranian legal practice, when a sale is invalidated due to the object of sale not belonging to the seller, the buyer is legally entitled to recover the paid price and receive compensation for the diminished value of the currency, based on item-specific inflation. This right has been affirmed by Uniform Judicial Decisions Nos. 733 and 811 of the General Assembly of the Supreme Court of Iran, which are binding across all courts. Nonetheless, a recurring legal issue arises when there is a significant delay between the issuance of a final judgment and the enforcement of the ruling. Such delays can result in further economic loss for the buyer, particularly in unauthorized transactions [fuḍūlī]. The legal principle of res judicata restricts revisiting judicial findings post-judgment, yet practical consequences of delayed enforcement remain unresolved. This study aims to address the research question: How can Iranian law ensure full compensation to the buyer when a final judgment is delayed in its enforcement?Method & Approach: This research employs a doctrinal legal methodology, relying on comprehensive analysis of statutory law, authoritative judicial precedents, and scholarly interpretations within the Iranian legal system. The study particularly examines the interpretive function of item-specific versus general inflation indices in judicial remedies and investigates how these concepts can be applied in sequential stages—before and after judgment issuance—to close the compensation gap in delayed enforcement scenarios.Findings: The study finds that while item-specific inflation is the appropriate measure for calculating loss in purchasing power up to the date of final judgment, it becomes inadequate once a ruling has been issued. For the period following the judgment until its enforcement, using the general inflation index released by the Central Bank of Iran emerges as a legally and practically viable method to ensure fair compensation. This adjustment not only upholds the economic interests of the buyer but also provides clarity and consistency for enforcement authorities, mitigating the ambiguity often associated with post-judgment compensation enforcement.Conclusion: To maintain the effectiveness and finality of judicial rulings while safeguarding the buyer’s financial interests, Iranian courts should adopt a dual-inflation approach: apply item-specific inflation for pre-judgment losses and general inflation for the post-judgment enforcement delay. This model balances doctrinal consistency with practical fairness, enhancing both the legitimacy and enforceability of court decisions in cases involving unauthorized sales. https://ilr.isu.ac.ir/article_77825.html ‌Context & Objective: Islamic family law jurisprudence is based on foundational propositions that guide the development of legal norms in matters of spousal relations. The Qur’anic text, particularly Sūrat al-Aḥzāb, plays a significant role in shaping these principles. This study seeks to identify and formulate the jurisprudential rules derived from this surah, examining their role in classical Islamic legal theory and their reflection in contemporary statutory frameworks. The central question is how Sūrat al-Aḥzāb provides a jurisprudential basis for regulating marital relations within both traditional and modern legal systems.Method & Approach: This research employs a doctrinal method with an analytical approach, focusing on textual interpretation of verses from Sūrat al-Aḥzāb. Authoritative juristic sources are examined to support the interpretive conclusions, and jurisprudential rules are extracted through systematic reasoning (istinbāṭ al-aḥkām). The study also conducts a comparative legal analysis to trace the manifestation of these rules within the Iranian Civil Code, highlighting the continuity and transformation of Islamic legal norms in a modern legal context.Findings: The analysis identifies four core jurisprudential rules grounded in Sūrat al-Aḥzāb: (1) the wife's lack of unilateral authority to dissolve the marriage except in defined cases [ʿadamُ t̤akhyīrِ az-zawjah fī inḥilālِ an-nikāḥِ binafsihā illā fī mawārid khaṣṣah]; (2) the requirement for a divorce to be conducted in a fair and graceful manner [sirāḥun jamīl]; (3) the permissibility of a permanent marriage contract without stipulating a dowry [ʿadamُ ishtirāṭِ wujūdِ al-mahrِ fī al-ʿaqdِ ad-dāʾim]; and (4) the obligation of justice in the division of marital rights among multiple wives [wujūbُ al-ʿadlِ fī al-qismِ bayna az-zawjāt]. These rules are not only embedded in the Qur’anic text but are also substantiated by juristic consensus and interpretive tradition across major schools of Islamic law. Their presence in the Iranian Civil Code confirms the active role of Qur’anic jurisprudence in shaping statutory law and guiding judicial decisions in cases where explicit legislation is lacking.Conclusion: The study demonstrates that the formulation of jurisprudential rules based on Sūrat al-Aḥzāb contributes to the systematic development of Islamic family law. By connecting traditional exegesis with the structural requirements of contemporary legal systems, particularly in the context of Iranian legislation, these rules serve both doctrinal and practical functions. Their codification fosters legal coherence and offers a basis for judicial consistency in areas where written statutes may be silent or ambiguous. https://ilr.isu.ac.ir/article_77806.html ‌Context & Objective: In legislative discourse, it is common for multiple rulings or general statements to be followed by a qualifier or exception, either for rhetorical elegance or necessity. When such a restriction is introduced after several rulings, ambiguity may arise: does the restriction apply solely to the final ruling, or to all the preceding ones? In the absence of any contextual indicator (qarīnah) to resolve this ambiguity, legal interpretation becomes problematic. This article explores how scholars of Uṣūl al-Fiqh (principles of Islamic jurisprudence) have addressed this issue, particularly within the framework of linguistic rules such as ʿām (general) and khāṣṣ (specific). The research aims to clarify whether such ambiguities should be resolved through verbal principles (uṣūl lafẓiyyah) or through procedural principles (uṣūl ʿamaliyyah), thus contributing to broader jurisprudential methodology.Method & Approach: This study adopts a doctrinal and critical approach, analyzing classical and contemporary views within the Shi‘i uṣūl tradition. It systematically reviews the arguments and methodologies employed by legal theorists when confronting linguistic ambiguity in legal texts, particularly where multiple rulings are followed by a single restriction. The study distinguishes between different interpretive strategies and evaluates their consistency and adequacy in addressing cases lacking explicit contextual clues.Findings: Although the issue may initially appear to fall under linguistic interpretation, the analysis reveals that verbal principles alone do not provide a conclusive resolution. The common assumption that the restriction applies only to the final clause—on the basis of avoiding redundancy—is insufficient in many cases. Instead, the study finds that ambiguity in such legal formulations often reflects deeper uncertainty not resolved by verbal rules. Consequently, the recourse to procedural principles becomes not only relevant but necessary in the absence of a definitive linguistic guideline.Conclusion: The article concludes that resolving ambiguity arising from post-positional restrictions in legal propositions should not be confined to verbal principles. Given the indeterminate nature of such cases and in line with established Shi‘i jurisprudential practice, procedural principles (uṣūl ʿamaliyyah) offer a more reliable and coherent method for resolving uncertainty. This approach ensures consistency in legal interpretation and aligns with the broader objectives of Islamic legal methodology in dealing with ambiguous or doubtful matters. https://ilr.isu.ac.ir/article_77776.html ‌Context & Objective: Children's economic rights are a critical dimension of human rights, requiring focused legal protection across various jurisdictions and international frameworks. This article explores and compares the legislative approaches toward children's economic rights in Iran, the United States of America, and relevant international instruments. The review addresses the scope and comprehensiveness of these rights, examining whether current legal frameworks sufficiently protect children's economic welfare. The research aims to identify strengths, weaknesses, and areas requiring legislative enhancement.Method & Approach: The study adopts a comparative and doctrinal approach, systematically analyzing and contrasting the legislation and relevant instruments concerning children's economic rights in Iran, the United States, and international frameworks. Key legal documents reviewed include Iranian legislation such as the Law on the Protection of Children and Adolescents and the Labor Law, U.S. legislation including the Child Protection and Prevention of Child Abuse Act and social security laws, and international instruments like the Convention on the Rights of the Child.Findings: The analysis reveals that in Iran, children's economic rights are recognized through specific legal provisions prohibiting child labor, mandating maintenance (Nafaqah), and providing protections for working children. In contrast, the United States offers broader legislative coverage through multiple statutes addressing child protection, welfare, health insurance, adoption assistance, and labor regulations. International instruments, especially the Convention on the Rights of the Child, provide a comprehensive, rights-based framework emphasizing survival, development, education, and protection against economic exploitation. However, each jurisdiction faces challenges including legislative gaps, enforcement inefficiencies, poverty, and discrimination.Conclusion: Although differences exist among the studied jurisdictions, all recognize the critical importance of safeguarding children's economic welfare. However, to enhance protection, particularly within the Iranian legal context, the article recommends adopting additional legislative measures and strengthening enforcement mechanisms. Addressing these issues is vital to ensure the comprehensive protection and realization of children's economic rights across jurisdictions. https://ilr.isu.ac.ir/article_77823.html ‌Context & Objective: This article addresses the concept, validity, and general conditions governing electronic contracts in the legal systems of Iran and the United Arab Emirates, situating the analysis within the jurisprudential traditions of Islamic schools of thought. The study responds to the growing significance of electronic contracts in an era of expanding digital commerce and transnational transactions. Despite the enactment of Iran’s Electronic Commerce Law in 2003, the jurisprudential basis for the legitimacy of such contracts remains underexplored. The central research question concerns how Iranian and Emirati law, grounded in Shia and other Islamic jurisprudential schools, conceptualize and regulate electronic contracts, and to what extent these frameworks align or diverge in theory and practice.Method & Approach: The study employs a doctrinal research methodology combined with a comparative legal approach. It reviews the foundational principles of contract law in both Iran and the UAE, assessing their applicability to electronic contracts. Through comparative analysis, the article examines statutory frameworks alongside jurisprudential reasoning derived from Shia and other Islamic schools, with the aim of clarifying the scope, requirements, and legal recognition of electronic contracts in the two systems.Findings: The analysis reveals that Iranian and Emirati legal systems share a common foundation regarding the general conditions of contractual validity, such as consent, legal capacity, lawful subject matter, and compliance with formal requirements. Nevertheless, the adaptation of these conditions to electronic contracts introduces notable distinctions in application, particularly concerning modes of expression and evidentiary standards. The findings also demonstrate that Islamic jurisprudential principles exhibit a degree of flexibility, enabling them to accommodate modern mechanisms of contract formation, including electronic data exchanges and digital platforms, without undermining their doctrinal integrity.Conclusion: The study concludes that the convergence of Islamic jurisprudential principles with contemporary legal requirements facilitates the effective regulation of electronic contracts within Iranian and Emirati legal systems. While both frameworks recognize the legitimacy of such contracts, their practical implementation reflects nuanced differences in interpretation and procedure. This alignment between traditional jurisprudence and modern commerce contributes to the evolution of regulatory and legislative models in Islamic countries, enhancing the capacity of legal systems to address the demands of digital economies. https://ilr.isu.ac.ir/article_77757.html ‌Context & Objective: The concept of criminal duress in Iranian law is briefly addressed in Article 151 of the 2013 Islamic Penal Code, which refers only to “unbearable duress” without detailing its elements or conditions. This legal gap raises questions about what qualifies a threat as sufficient to establish duress in criminal cases. The literature in Islamic jurisprudence—across both Shi’a and Sunni schools—contains scattered discussions on various conditions for a threat to be considered coercive, such as its severity, unlawfulness, and immediacy. The aim of this study is to systematically analyze these diverse views and determine which interpretations provide the most coherent and applicable framework. The central research question is: What are the essential conditions that a threat must meet to constitute valid duress in Islamic criminal law?Method & Approach: This research adopts a doctrinal approach, focusing on the comparative analysis of Shi’a and Sunni jurisprudential sources. Through an interpretive review of classical and contemporary legal texts, the study identifies and evaluates different scholarly opinions on the conditions necessary for the realization of a valid threat in cases of duress. The analysis seeks to reconcile varying perspectives and extract a practical legal doctrine aligned with both jurisprudential principles and modern criminal justice needs.Findings: The study reveals that, for a threat to establish criminal duress, it must fulfill multiple criteria. These include being unlawful (even if not criminally punishable), serious in nature, and either actual or imminent. Furthermore, the threat must create a genuine sense of fear in the coerced individual at the time of compliance. Notably, the study finds that threats concerning future actions can still be valid if the fear persists and influences the coerced action. It also recognizes the legitimacy of self-directed threats under certain specific circumstances.Conclusion: The research concludes that a comprehensive understanding of criminal duress in Islamic jurisprudence requires recognition of nuanced and context-specific conditions. The unlawfulness of the threat is a critical criterion, and the presence of fear at the time of action is pivotal—even if the threat pertains to a future event. By integrating selected juristic interpretations from both Shi’a and Sunni traditions, the study offers a more precise legal standard for evaluating duress in criminal law, thus contributing to both doctrinal clarity and legal reform in Islamic penal systems. https://ilr.isu.ac.ir/article_77800.html Context & Objective: The Deed of Gift (Aqd-e Hiba) is addressed in only a limited number of provisions within the Iranian Civil Code, which leaves significant interpretative space for the role of ʿUrf (custom) in regulating its application. This legal gap presents challenges in various aspects of gift transactions, such as determining the conditions for possession, revocation, valuation, and ownership stability. The article outlines a discussion on how ʿUrf fills these legislative voids and governs critical aspects of gift contracts under Islamic jurisprudence and Iranian law. The primary objective of the research is to explore how custom functions as a legal mechanism in the absence of detailed statutory guidance, and to answer the central question: To what extent does ʿUrf influence the interpretation and enforcement of Hiba under Iranian and Islamic legal frameworks.Method & Approach: This study adopts a doctrinal legal research method, relying on the analysis of statutory texts, jurisprudential doctrines, and judicial practices in Iran. The approach involves systematically categorizing cases where ʿUrf is invoked to interpret or supplement the legal provisions related to Hiba.Findings: The research finds that ʿUrf plays a pivotal role in numerous aspects of the Deed of Gift, including determining whether possession has legally occurred (constructive or implied), evaluating whether gifts are conditional or revocable, distinguishing between compensated and uncompensated gifts, assessing the materiality of mistakes, and handling cases where the gifted object is altered or destroyed. It also reveals that judicial reliance on custom varies and often leads to inconsistent outcomes due to the diversity of customs and lack of statutory specificity.Conclusion: The article concludes that although ʿUrf provides necessary flexibility in interpreting and applying Hiba-related provisions, its inconsistent application may lead to legal uncertainty and dispute. Therefore, the study recommends that the Iranian legislature enact clearer regulations in areas prone to ambiguity, such as defining constructive possession, establishing criteria for identifying the nature and value of consideration, and addressing liability for latent defects in dangerous gifts or the gifting of claims. These reforms would enhance legal clarity and uniformity in the application of the law governing Deeds of Gift. https://ilr.isu.ac.ir/article_78058.html Context & Objective: Market making has emerged as a pivotal regulatory instrument within capital markets to ensure liquidity, mitigate price volatility, and maintain transaction equilibrium. Despite the rapid expansion of Islamic capital markets, the jurisprudential characterization of market making remains insufficiently explored within the Islamic legal and financial framework. This research addresses the fundamental question of the legal nature of market-making contracts under Islamic law and seeks to determine their validity relative to established doctrinal categories. The objective is to define the legal nature of this financial institution, establish its Shari'ah legitimacy, and identify the jurisprudential requirements necessary for its operation.Method & Approach: The study utilizes a fundamental doctrinal research method with an Islamic legal approach. Data collection is library-based and documentary, drawing from Iranian capital market regulations, civil law principles, and Shi’a jurisprudential sources. The methodology involves a comparative analysis of market making against classical nominate contracts—including Ju’alah, Wakalah, Mudarabah, and Ijarah al-A’mal—to discern its distinct legal features. The research further evaluates the legitimacy of the contract through primary Islamic sources such as the Quran and Sunnah as well as rational principles including the No-Harm (La-Darar) rule and the principle of contractual freedom.Findings: The research demonstrates that the market-making contract does not strictly conform to any classical nominate contract because it requires continuous commitment, the employment of personal capital, and the inherent acceptance of market risk. Consequently, market making is characterized as an innominate (Aqd-e-Nāmo’ayyan) and emerging rational contract. Its legitimacy is supported by the Quranic mandates to fulfill all contracts and trade by mutual consent, alongside the legal principle that the default state of contracts is validity. The findings indicate that the validity of these contracts depends on adherence to fundamental Islamic financial prohibitions, including the ban on Riba, Gharar, and Maysir. Furthermore, legitimate market making must involve actual risk-sharing and must be backed by real assets rather than purely speculative or fixed-return mechanisms.Conclusion: The research concludes that market making is a legitimate and binding institution within Islamic jurisprudence that facilitates market stability and prevents excessive uncertainty. It serves as a practical application of the No-Harm rule by preventing destructive fluctuations and market illiquidity. The study recommends a hybrid market-making model that combines designated obligations with competitive incentives. Policy recommendations include the formulation of specific Shari'ah standards by regulatory bodies, the implementation of continuous Shari'ah supervision, and the restructuring of market-maker rewards to be based on actual performance and risk-taking rather than guaranteed fixed fees. Such a framework ensures that the market-making institution remains consistent with the ethical and legal pillars of the Islamic financial system. https://ilr.isu.ac.ir/article_77861.html ‌Context & Objective: In the contemporary era, the advancement of cognition-oriented technologies like neuroscience and mental data-mining has blurred the traditional boundary between "thought" and "action," raising novel legal and ethical questions about the ownership and sanctity of the human mind. This article explores the concepts of “cognitive privacy” and “cognitive ownership” by examining them within the frameworks of Islamic jurisprudence (Fiqh), Iranian domestic law, and international human rights law. The research seeks to answer several central questions: Can the human mind be considered a protected and ownable domain? To what extent can Islamic jurisprudence—through principles like the prohibition of unwarranted intrusion [ḥurmat al-tajassus], the no-harm rule [qāʿidat lā ḍarar], and the imperative of preserving human dignity—safeguard this right? And how are cognitive rights conceptualized in contemporary human rights frameworks?Method & Approach: The study employs a doctrinal method combined with a comparative approach, drawing upon Islamic jurisprudential sources, comparative legal doctrine, and international instruments. It also adopts an interdisciplinary and foresight-oriented perspective to analyze the subject matter.Findings: The findings indicate that the mind, as the core locus of personal privacy and a vital cognitive asset, is both ownable and protectable. The research identifies significant legal lacunae in Iran’s domestic system, other legal orders, and international instruments, which underscores the urgent need for new protective frameworks. Furthermore, the study finds that Islamic jurisprudence is a rich and dynamic source with the adaptability and interpretive resources required to derive cognitive rights, and it could serve as a basis for issuing supportive Fatwas concerning cognitive technologies.Conclusion: This study underscores the critical need for drafting both national and international charters of cognitive rights and for forging a jurisprudential-legal consensus to safeguard the sanctity of the mind. It also proposes specific recommendations for the development of cognitive rights in Iran. https://ilr.isu.ac.ir/article_77857.html ‌Context & Objective: The principle of the sovereignty of intention and contractual freedom plays a significant role in Iranian positive law, notably referenced in Article 10 of the Iranian Civil Code. The rule "al-'uqūd tābi‘ah lil-quṣūd" (contracts are subject to the intentions) is frequently discussed within Shi'a Islamic jurisprudence as an embodiment of this principle. While this rule appears to reflect the centrality of intention in contract formation, the key issue arises in determining the extent to which the intentions of the contracting parties are recognized within Iranian law as the foundation for the validity of contracts. This study investigates the weight given to the intentions of the parties under Iranian law and explores the perspectives of Sayyid Mir Abd al-Fattah Maraghi (d. 1834), a jurist who advocated for individual freedom in rational contract formation.Method & Approach: The authors employed a doctrinal approach, analyzing Islamic jurisprudential works alongside Iranian legal doctrine. By examining the views of Maraghi and other jurists, the study delves into the application of the principle of the sovereignty of intention in Shiite jurisprudence and its impact on Iranian legal practices, particularly concerning contract validity and the legal consequences tied to contractual declarations.Findings: The study found that in the Iranian legal system, the intention of the contracting parties is crucial for determining the legal nature of a contract. However, it is ultimately the intention of the Islamic legislator [Sha're] that underpins the obligation and validity of the contract. Additionally, the research highlighted two primary consequences of this legal framework: first, that the legal consequences of a contract can apply solely based on its declaration, without necessitating an independent intention from the parties involved, and second, that the principle of no harm and the negation of hardship takes precedence over other contractual principles—a viewpoint shared by Maraghi.Conclusion: The research concludes that while the sovereignty of intention is recognized in Iranian law, it is balanced by the overarching authority of the Islamic legislator's intent. This highlights a nuanced approach to contractual freedom in Iranian jurisprudence, where party intention influences the legal status of contracts but does not solely determine their validity. Maraghi's perspective aligns with this framework, emphasizing the protection of individual freedom within the boundaries set by Islamic law. https://ilr.isu.ac.ir/article_77887.html ‌Context & Objective: The classical conception of property (malikiyyah), defined primarily as an absolute individual right based on the owner's dominion and liberty, has faced critical re-evaluation in modern legal systems, especially within the United States. In response to this, the Human Flourishing Theory (HFT) has emerged as a novel approach, attempting to place the institution of property outside the exclusive domain of liberal individualism and redefining it to serve the broader purpose of human flourishing. This theory moves beyond focusing solely on individual interests to emphasize concepts such as capabilities and social commitment, asserting that property is an institution with inherent social and ethical capacity that must operate in alignment with human excellence and social sa'ādah (felicity). The present research aims to conduct a comparative analysis of HFT in U.S. property law with the perspectives found in Islamic Law (Fiqh). The core purpose is to determine the possibility of congruence between these two legal systems in the realm of property rights and to explore whether the central HFT concept of social obligation can be identified within Islamic legal institutions. The analysis seeks to clarify the role of property as an instrument for the advancement of both individual and communal good.Method & Approach: This study employs a comparative and theoretical analysis method. The concepts and data utilized were systematically gathered through the investigation of philosophical theories, legal interpretations, and jurisprudential (Fiqhī) sources, and subsequently evaluated using a doctrinal approach. The research addresses a noticeable gap in existing scholarship by providing an analytical comparative comparison of foundational concepts in property law between the Western legal system (specifically the U.S.) and the Islamic legal system. The analytical trajectory involves establishing the conceptual foundation of HFT in U.S. law by scrutinizing its primary elements: Property, Flourishing, Social Obligation, and Social Interdependence. Following this, an attempt is made to map these HFT concepts onto analogous concepts and principles present within Islamic Law, thereby clarifying the relationship between these two intellectual systems regarding the regulation of property.Findings: The analysis reveals that although property is traditionally recognized as a respected and absolute right in U.S. law, mechanisms exist through which property operates under the norm of social obligation (ta'ahhud ijtimā'ī). HFT’s core components are manifested in U.S. law through mechanisms such as Eminent Domain (compulsory acquisition), historical preservation regulations, and environmental regulations, which act as intrinsic limitations on property rights rather than external impositions, justifying state intervention for public welfare and human flourishing. Conversely, Islamic Law views property as a right inherently coupled with social and religious duties (takālif shar'ī). The ultimate goal of property in the Islamic intellectual system is the realization of human sa'ādah (felicity), an overarching concept recognized in Islamic philosophy that parallels HFT. While property may be viewed from a fiqhī perspective as a sovereign right, it is continuously constrained by the oversight of the sharī'ah. Crucial Islamic principles supporting this social orientation include the foundational doctrine of vicegerency (khilāfah), which posits that human ownership is fiduciary or representative; the principle of cooperation (ta'āwun); and mandatory financial obligations such as alms (zakāt) and one-fifth tax (khums), alongside the prohibition of monopolistic practices (iḥtikār). These mechanisms collectively provide a framework for property to be directed toward the common good.Conclusion: HFT attempts to shift the paradigm of property from a purely individualistic right to a social institution geared toward the advancement of human flourishing, grounded in the necessity of recognizing social interdependence and mutual responsibility. Although HFT requires a significant conceptual redefinition of property's traditional nature, Islamic Law achieves a similar outcome—guiding property toward social and ethical excellence—without needing to fundamentally change the essence of the right itself. Instead, Islamic Law utilizes pre-existing religious mandates (such as zakāt and khums) and ethical principles (khilāfah and ta'āwun) to ensure that private property is managed in a way that respects public interest (maṣāliḥ 'umūmī) and prevents the accumulation of wealth in the hands of a few. The common thread linking both the American theory and Islamic principles is the emphasis on balance between individual rights and social obligations. This comparative analysis confirms the theoretical capacity within both systems to develop a balanced approach to property that transforms it from a simple individual right into an ethical and social commitment, thereby reinforcing its role as an instrument for both individual and communal sa'ādah and flourishing. https://ilr.isu.ac.ir/article_77872.html Context & Objective: The conversion of Sharia (Islamic law) into codified modern law has long been a subject of debate among thinkers and policymakers in Muslim-majority societies, a challenge that persists today. As modern states in these nations feel obligated to implement Sharia, they face the complex task of drafting legislation that is either derived from or not in conflict with Islamic principles. To navigate this, various legislative models have been developed. This article focuses on the "Takhyeer and Talfiq" pattern. "Takhyeer" is defined as the discretion to select a legal ruling on an issue from the various Fatwas (Juristic Opinions) available within Islamic schools of thought, while "Talfiq" refers to the practice of combining elements from different Fatwas to form a single, composite ruling. This model was primarily theorized and implemented in some Sunni schools of thought. The purpose of this research is to re-examine this legislative model, addressing a significant gap in the existing literature, which has largely overlooked its application from a Shia perspective. The article's innovation lies in its assessment of the model's religious authority [Hujjiyyah] within Imami (Shia) jurisprudence. Accordingly, the central research question is: What are the concept and applications of the Takhyeer and Talfiq pattern, and how can it be validly and effectively utilized within the legislative system of the Islamic Republic of Iran, which is founded on Shia jurisprudence?Method & Approach: The research is conducted using a doctrinal method. It relies on documentary tools for the collection of materials. The article's argument is structured in three main sections. The first section provides a conceptual analysis of the "Takhyeer" and "Talfiq" model. The second section examines concrete examples (applications) of this model in various legal systems. Finally, the third section assesses the model's religious authority and legitimacy within the legal system of Iran, aiming to clarify the benefits it could offer the country's legislative framework.Findings: The research finds that the Takhyeer and Talfiq model is a mechanism for creatively adapting Islamic laws to contemporary societal needs, operating within the paradigm of Sharia's inherent flexibility. This pattern is particularly prevalent in legal systems based on Sunni jurisprudence, with applications in personal status laws and modern economic matters. However, the study determines that the application of this model as practiced in Sunni-based systems—which may involve selecting from non-Shia Fatwas—is not permissible within the framework of Shia jurisprudence. According to Imami jurisprudence, a Fatwa must be issued by a fully qualified Twelver Shia jurist to be considered a valid source for legislation in Iran. The appropriate approach for Iran, therefore, is to select an efficient and suitable Fatwa from the diverse opinions existing among qualified Shia jurists. This ensures that laws are both Sharia-compliant and effective, while also preventing the uncritical adoption of Western legal principles that have no connection to Sharia. An analysis of legislative practice in Iran reveals that this Shia-compliant version of the model is already an accepted norm in legislative custom, with numerous examples in major statutes like the Civil Code and the Islamic Penal Code.Conclusion: The article concludes that a systematically regulated use of the Takhyeer and Talfiq model, confined to the Fatwas of Shia jurists, is preferable to abandoning Sharia rulings entirely when legislative alternatives are needed. The implementation of this model, however, must be subject to strict constraints. It should be limited to matters that are open to juristic reasoning [Ijtihad] and must not be applied to the undisputed fundamentals of Sharia, such as the obligation of prayer or the prohibition of alcohol. Its use should also be minimal, akin to other secondary rulings, to ensure the dynamism of Islamic jurisprudence in modern law-making without creating a pretext for altering divine religion or neglecting established Sharia rulings. The application of the model will necessarily differ across legal systems, depending on the foundational school of law each system follows. Finally, considering the model's importance and its existing de facto use, the article recommends that the Iranian legislator officially adopt Talfiq as a formal legislative model and articulate its regulations in a transparent manner. https://ilr.isu.ac.ir/article_78077.html Context & Objective: The will is a fundamental legal institution in Islamic law for regulating financial and non-financial affairs after death. While jurists traditionally view the will as a recommended act the principle that a closer relative excludes a more remote one often deprives grandchildren of an inheritance when their parent dies before the grandparent. This article investigates the concept of the Obligatory Bequest which is inspired by the Zahiri school and has been adopted by various Islamic countries. The primary research objective is to explore the legal and jurisprudential prospects of incorporating this institution into the Iranian legal order which currently does not recognize it. The research question focuses on whether religious texts and the rule of justice provide sufficient grounds for legislative reform to protect orphaned descendants.Method & Approach: This study employs a doctrinal research method to analyze religious and legal texts. The approach involves a critical re-examination of Quranic verses and prophetic traditions related to bequests. The researcher examines the divergent views of Muslim scholars including the Imami school and the Zahiri perspectives of Ibn Hazm (D. 1064). Furthermore, the study evaluates the existing legal structures in Islamic nations and Iranian civil law to determine the feasibility of adopting mandatory wills. This analytical framework assesses the linguistic interpretations of mandatory language in Sharia sources to establish a basis for legal change.Findings: The research identifies two main jurisprudential theories regarding the obligation to make a will. The majority view denies the legal obligation and interprets the Quranic phrase "a right upon the God-fearing" (Surah al-Baqarah, V. 180: Ḥaqqan ʿalā al-Muttaqīn) as a moral recommendation for the pious. However, another significant theory supports the obligation by citing the mandatory expression "it is prescribed for you" (Kutiba ʿalaykum) in Surah al-Baqarah which is identical to the language used to mandate fasting. The findings suggest that an obligatory bequest can effectively allocate a portion of the estate to grandchildren to represent the share of their deceased parent. Additionally, the rule of justice and equity supports this institution because it prevents the unfair impoverishment of grandchildren whose parents may have contributed to the family wealth.Conclusion: The Obligatory Bequest serves as an essential tool for achieving justice and equity within the Islamic inheritance system. While not yet recognized in Iran the study concludes that there are solid religious foundations and valid jurisprudential interpretations to support its legislation. Implementing this reform would fill a significant gap in the legal system and prevent social resentment caused by the exclusion of vulnerable heirs. The article finally recommends that the Iranian legislature should adopt this institution to harmonize traditional inheritance rules with modern social needs and religious principles of mercy. https://ilr.isu.ac.ir/article_78007.html Context & Objective: The flexibility of the Islamic legal system allows for complex transactional structures such as the combination of sale and lease contracts within a single creation. While Shia jurisprudence generally accepts the validity of combining two independent contracts based on general principles of contract law and consensus a fundamental tension arises when such combinations intersect with mandatory rules like the prohibition of usury or riba. This article investigates the legal nature of combined contracts to determine whether a lease component can serve as a riba-nullifying supplement for a concurrently executed sale. The research specifically addresses whether the formal legality of combining contracts can substantively override the prohibition of riba in cases where the sale portion involves usurious elements.Method & Approach: This study utilizes a doctrinal research methodology to dissect the jurisprudential foundations of combined contracts and the conditions under which a supplement effectively nullifies riba. The analysis employs the theory of dissolution which posits that a single expression of will can be analytically decomposed into multiple independent legal entities. Furthermore, the research applies the rule of price apportionment to demonstrate how a unified consideration is distributed among contract components based on market value. To validate the inherent independence of these components the study uses the argument of multiple owners as a logical test to distinguish between formal and substantive joinder.Findings: The research identifies a fundamental distinction between a commodity supplement (joining property to property) and a contractual supplement (joining one contract to another). A commodity supplement effectively changes the subject of sale into a composite item thereby removing the transaction from the scope of riba rules. Conversely a contractual supplement such as a lease remains inherently independent and fails to modify the subject matter of the sale portion. The findings demonstrate that because the lease and sale maintain distinct legal identities the lease cannot function as a riba-nullifying agent. Moreover, legal instruments like price apportionment ensure that mandatory rules such as the requirement for immediate possession in certain sales or the prohibition of riba are applied strictly to the relevant component without being diluted by the accompanying contract.Conclusion: Ultimately the study concludes that adding a secondary contract to a primary one does not alter the essential legal identity or the application of mandatory religious prohibitions. In the event that the sale portion of a combined contract is found to be usurious the presence of a lease contract cannot render the transaction valid. These findings highlight a broader jurisprudential priority of substantive legal content over contractual form within Imami law. Practically this distinction provides a critical framework for evaluating modern Islamic banking and finance instruments ensuring that complex financial structures represent genuine asset-based transactions rather than mere formal covers for usurious debt. https://ilr.isu.ac.ir/article_78017.html Context & Objective: The determination of blood money (diyah) for the paralysis (shallal) of body parts is a fundamental issue in Islamic jurisprudence and the Iranian Islamic Penal Code of 2013. Article 564 of this code stipulates that paralyzing any organ with a fixed diyah requires the payment of two-thirds of its full value. This article aims to critically analyze the jurisprudential foundations of this rule and evaluate whether a uniform two-thirds rule is supported by primary religious sources or if a more categorized approach is necessary. The discussion explores the linguistic and technical definitions of paralysis—defined as the loss of an organ's primary function due to injury—and investigates the divergence between the prominent Imami view and alternative Sunni or contemporary Shiite perspectives.Method & Approach: The research adopts a doctrinal approach based on classical and contemporary jurisprudential texts. It evaluates the linguistic roots of paralysis to establish its legal scope as the total loss of an organ's primary benefit. The methodology involves a comparative analysis of primary religious evidence including the Sahih of Fudayl ibn Yasar and the narrations of Yunus and Zarif. Furthermore, the study scrutinizes the validity of the alleged consensus (ijma) and the principle of Tanqih al-Manat to determine if the rules governing hands and feet can be generalized to all other bodily members.Findings: The findings indicate that the two-thirds rule in Article 564 is largely derived from specific narrations regarding the fingers but has been inappropriately extended to all organs. While the prominent view supports fractional compensation religious evidence suggests that paralysis resulting in the total loss of an organ's primary function—such as in the eyes ears or tongue—warrants a full diyah. The analysis reveals that the current legislative framework creates ambiguity and lacks proportionality. Specifically, the study finds that for many bodily members where no specific fixed diyah is mandated the law should rely on Arsh which is an unfixed compensatory amount determined by expert opinion and forensic medical assessment rather than a fixed legislative fraction.Conclusion: The study concludes that the generalized application of the two-thirds rule in Article 564 of the Islamic Penal Code is jurisprudentially inconsistent and requires reform. The author proposes a quadruple categorization for legal clarity: two-thirds diyah for the paralysis of fingers; full diyah for the paralysis of hands and feet based on specialized narrations; full diyah for major sensory and functional organs where paralysis equals total loss of utility; and Arsh (the non-fixed blood money determined by experts) for all other members not explicitly covered by religious texts. Such amendments would ensure the law aligns with the principles of justice and the detailed requirements of Islamic legal tradition. https://ilr.isu.ac.ir/article_78073.html Context & Objective: The concept of ‘conflict of interest management’ has emerged as a significant achievement in professional ethics within the realm of social philosophy arising primarily from liberal and neoliberal frameworks. While international organizations have standardized definitions and nations such as Iran have recently pursued similar legal frameworks through legislative initiatives the uncritical adoption of these foreign models poses significant theoretical and practical challenges. This research aims to explore the underlying philosophical foundations of conflict of interest management to facilitate its necessary localization based on domestic values and social realities. The central research question seeks to identify the core theoretical components of this thought within the sphere of public administration and examine the fundamental criticisms directed at its liberal origins.Method & Approach: This study utilizes a descriptive-analytical method combined with a doctrinal approach to investigate the subject matter. The analysis specifically focuses on three primary pillars of liberal social philosophy that define the modern understanding of conflict of interest management: proceduralism, neutrality, and utilitarianism. By examining these specific components, the article evaluates the theoretical consistency of the current framework and identifies the inherent limitations of applying these concepts within different cultural and legal contexts.Findings: The research identifies that conflict of interest management acts as a manifestation of proceduralism by reducing complex moral judgments into technical checklists and institutional protocols which may inadvertently weaken internal moral reasoning and prioritize formal compliance over substantive ethics. Regarding neutrality the study finds that the liberal ideal of the state remaining indifferent to specific conceptions of the "good life" is practically unattainable as every policy choice inherently reflects a preference and often masks the influence of dominant power groups. Furthermore, the theory is deeply rooted in utilitarianism viewing humans as self-interested actors whose behavior must be managed to maximize aggregate social utility through a "greatest happiness" logic. This perspective leads to a mechanical view of administration where public officials are treated as untrustworthy subjects requiring constant monitoring through transparent glass-like structures. These findings suggest that the current global framework prioritizes procedural goals and formal rules over the inherent value of the actions themselves.Conclusion: The paper concludes that the conventional model of conflict of interest management is fundamentally a response to the self-interested behavior promoted by neoliberal economic thought. Because its foundations in proceduralism and liberal neutrality contain inherent contradictions and practical limitations they cannot be effectively integrated into the legal system of the Islamic Republic of Iran without significant modification. The study highlights that a successful domestic framework requires redesigning and reformulating the philosophical foundations of this thought to ensure it aligns with indigenous social and religious values. Consequently, future research must focus on the specific nature of these required revisions and the practical steps for their implementation. https://ilr.isu.ac.ir/article_77925.html Context & Objective: Specialized dictionaries and legal encyclopedias are fundamental instruments for advancing legal knowledge and enhancing the quality of a nation's legal system. Mastery of specialized vocabulary is crucial for achieving a deeper understanding of any field of science, which is a primary motivation for compiling specialized dictionaries, ensuring clear comprehension of terminology and facilitating the analysis of specialized texts. However, despite noticeable progress in lexicography in Iran over recent decades, specialized legal dictionaries currently face structural challenges, including non-compliance with international standards, deficiencies in scholarly rigor, and a lack of effective teamwork in their compilation. The present research aims to conduct a qualitative analysis of the current state of specialized legal dictionaries in Iran. The research seeks to identify their scope and variety, uncover existing weaknesses and shortcomings, and ultimately propose strategies to reform the structure of legal lexicography in Iran. Key research questions guiding this inquiry include determining the factors influencing the compilation of these works (such as the impact of ruling ideologies, jurisprudential texts, or foreign adaptations), identifying the scientific branches of law addressed by these publications, and evaluating their mode of production (whether they are the result of independent research, adaptation, or translation).Method & Approach: This study employs a qualitative meta-analysis method. Meta-analysis was utilized to systematically and critically review the body of work related to specialized lexicography in Iran. The statistical population encompassed all specialized dictionaries, encyclopedias, and even mobile applications related to law that have been written or translated in Iran since the establishment of the legal discipline. Data were collected using library methods and the analysis of documents. In total, the study reviewed and screened over 150 specialized titles, eventually selecting 135 cases (comprising dictionaries, encyclopedias, and specialized texts) for detailed meta-analysis. The qualitative analysis focused on several criteria, including the subject matter addressed, the nature of the work (authored or translated), the publishers involved, and, crucially, the degree of group participation in their creation.Findings: Analysis of the more than 150 reviewed titles reveals significant structural and quality deficits in Iranian legal lexicography. A core finding is the overwhelming reliance on individual effort: over 77% of the specialized dictionaries examined were compiled by a single person, with only 19.6% involving two authors, and a meager 3.2% being developed collaboratively. This lack of teamwork is identified as a major obstacle, as specialized dictionary compilation necessitates collective expertise. Furthermore, the study determined that key obstacles include limited participation from prominent legal professors and doctrine, inappropriate or superficial translations, a lack of interdisciplinary perspective, and a failure to align works with current scientific and executive needs. Precision in applying professional lexicographical standards is often lacking, especially in bilingual dictionaries. Consequently, many existing dictionaries fail to serve as efficient or authoritative reference sources. The titles analyzed were categorized, showing that encyclopedias constituted 17%, bilingual dictionaries 15.6%, and specialized legal texts 11.7%. Thematic distribution showed that Public Law accounted for 22.7% of the works, and Criminal Law and Criminology accounted for 11%.Conclusion: The research concludes that specialized legal dictionaries in Iran, while essential, suffer from fundamental weaknesses, including poor scientific processing, outdated content, inadequate use of modern technologies (such as integrated databases), limited involvement of seasoned legal specialists, and a pronounced absence of collaborative, interdisciplinary work. This failure to adhere to professional standards and incorporate contemporary practices compromises their functionality and academic utility. To enhance the applicability and quality of legal dictionaries in Iran, the research offers several solutions: implementing specialized lexicography software, increasing crucial interdisciplinary cooperation between legal experts and linguists, developing international scientific collaboration, and establishing defined framework standards for compilation. The study also recommends forming a dedicated committee ("Language, Concepts, and Legal Vocabulary") to standardize Persian legal terminology and calls for the continuous revision and updating of specialized dictionaries, ideally every two or three years. Implementing these strategies is necessary to elevate the quality of legal reference materials to meet the complex needs of the country’s legal community. https://ilr.isu.ac.ir/article_78076.html Context & Objective: Upon a person's death the estate's ownership transfers to the heirs under Islamic and Iranian law yet Article 868 of the Civil Code stipulates that this ownership remains unsettled until the decedent’s debts are paid. This article explores the status of transactions conducted by heirs regarding estate assets before such settlement. The research focuses on whether these dispositions are void unratified or valid under a specific legal condition known as Mora’a. The primary objective is to clarify the jurisprudential and legal framework surrounding these transactions to resolve ambiguities within Imami jurisprudence and the Iranian legal system.Method & Approach: The study employs a doctrinal legal methodology characterized by a comprehensive analysis of classical and contemporary Islamic legal texts and Iranian statutes. The researcher examines the opinions of prominent Imami jurists and legal scholars through a descriptive-analytical approach. The discussion is structured to evaluate the nature of heirs' ownership before debt settlement followed by an analysis of the validity and legal effects of their dispositions through a critical review of existing theories such as suspended non-ratification and Mora’a status.Findings: The research finds that heirs’ ownership is immediate upon death but remains in a state of Mora’a or instability. It critiques the theory of suspended non-ratification (Mowquf) by noting that debt payment automatically validates the contract without requiring further permission from creditors. Furthermore, the article rejects the notion that Mora’a is an independent legal status between validity and voidness. Instead, the findings suggest that transactions by heirs are initially valid but remain subject to the creditors’ prior rights which act as a potential legal barrier. The article demonstrates that Unification Judgment No. 832 of the Supreme Court of Iran supports the validity and immediate legal effect of such conditional transactions.Conclusion: The article concludes that transactions by heirs regarding the estate before debt settlement are valid but subject to automatic dissolution (Inifisakh) if creditors exercise their rights. If the debt is paid or waived the transaction remains fully effective. However, if the debt exceeds the estate and covers its benefits the dissolution is retroactive whereas it is prospective if the estate assets are sufficient to cover liabilities. This legal interpretation is grounded in the Rule of No Harm (La Darar) the principle of implicit constructive conditions and the legal succession of the transferee. This approach balances the interests of heirs creditors and bona fide third-party purchasers while promoting the efficient circulation of wealth. https://ilr.isu.ac.ir/article_77912.html Context & Objective: The institution of marriage (Nikāḥ) is fundamentally designed by the Islamic Lawgiver (Shāri‘) to achieve tranquility for the spouses. Although Islamic jurisprudence (Fiqh) permits a husband to simultaneously contract up to four permanent marriages, the subsequent marriage of the husband, while the first marital bond subsists, is conventionally understood in contemporary societies to cause distress to the first wife, thereby undermining this foundational goal. To safeguard this marital objective, it is a frequent practice in Iran that the wife includes an ancillary stipulation requiring the husband to abstain from taking another spouse. The research acknowledges a vacuum in comprehensive legal scholarship that offers a principled and existentially focused solution consistent with the national legal framework. Therefore, the central research purpose is to identify the necessary consequential legal effect of this specific stipulation on the legal status of the husband’s subsequent marriage. The primary research question is: Assuming the validity of the condition, what is the legal status of the subsequent marriage when the husband commits a breach? The authors proceed with the hypothesis that, upon the breach of the stipulation of abstinence from remarriage, the husband’s subsequent marriage is subject to nullity (Buṭlān). The discussion outlines a three-part structure: first, validating the stipulation; second, analyzing the competing theories regarding the legal guarantee of the breach; and third, justifying the selection of the nullity theory based on core criteria.Method & Approach: This study employs a doctrinal methodology coupled with a descriptive-analytical approach, drawing upon authoritative library resources in Islamic jurisprudence and Iranian law. As a necessary prerequisite, the study first addressed the question of the stipulation's validity (Siḥḥat). Arguments claiming the stipulation is void—such as those asserting it constitutes the prohibition of a permissible act (Taḥrīm Halāl) or represents the outright forfeiture of the right to marry (prohibited by Iranian Civil Code Article 959)—were systematically evaluated and rebutted as being legally insufficient. Accordingly, the validity of the condition was established and affirmed in light of the presumption of validity of stipulations (Aṣalat al-Siḥḥa). Following this determination, the analytical phase critically examined three principal jurisprudential theories concerning the consequential effect of the breach on the subsequent marriage: the Theory of Validity, the Theory of Ineffectuality (Adam Nufūdh), and the Theory of Nullity.Findings: The primary finding validates the hypothesis: the husband’s subsequent marriage, contracted in violation of the stipulation of abstinence, is subject to nullity (Buṭlān). This conclusion rests upon the convergence of two foundational criteria. The first criterion is the analysis of the common intent of the stipulating parties. The study posits that the conventional understanding (‘Urf) and the true intention of the wife in demanding abstinence is to prevent the husband’s subsequent marriage from ever gaining legal existence in the realm of consideration. Therefore, although structured as a stipulation of abstaining from a juridical act, its actual effect is equivalent to a negative Condition of Outcome, resulting in the Waiver of the Right to Marry. Nullity is also independently supported by the jurisprudential principle of the forfeiture of legitimate capacity (Suleb-i Qudrat Shar‘ī), whereby the husband is deemed to have forfeited the capacity to validly execute the conflicting legal act by virtue of the preceding condition. The second criterion is the conformity of the selected theory with Islamic jurisprudence and the Iranian legal system. By analyzing various provisions of the Civil Code (specifically Articles 454, 455, 474, and 679), the study extracts a general rule demonstrating that the Lawgiver treats the violation of a stipulation to abstain from a juridical act as resulting in the nullity of the subsequent conflicting legal act.Conclusion: In summary, the stipulation requiring the husband to abstain from subsequent marriage is legally valid. The breach of this condition necessitates the adoption of the Theory of Nullity for the subsequent marriage, a result justified by the common intent of the parties and confirmed by analogous legal rules embedded within the Iranian Civil Code. While this result provides a robust and principled legal guarantee, the nullity of the marriage carries serious potential negative social ramifications, primarily concerning the instability of the second wife's legal status and the potential deprivation of rights for children born of the void marriage. To mitigate these consequences, the research recommends a set of necessary complementary protective measures. These include the explicit legislative codification of nullity as the definitive legal guarantee; imposing a duty on registrars to warn parties of the nullity consequence; implementing technical checks (e.g., electronic inquiry) to prevent the registration of a void subsequent marriage; establishing special legal protections and civil compensation for the second wife who married in good faith and ignorance; and resolving the issue of inheritance for children. To protect children while respecting theological rulings, the recommendation is to mandate that the natural father’s estate owes the child a civil debt equivalent to the legitimate share of inheritance, thereby preventing complete deprivation. Through these comprehensive civil and protective mechanisms, the Theory of Nullity can be established as the most principled and effective legal guarantee. https://ilr.isu.ac.ir/article_78074.html Context & Objective: Non-consensual deepfake pornography presents a significant challenge to human dignity and digital governance due to its rapid dissemination and the inherent difficulty of attribution and evidence preservation. This research evaluates the efficacy of current legislative frameworks in Iran specifically Articles 14 through 16 of the Computer Crimes Law and the European Union focusing on the Artificial Intelligence Act and the Digital Services Act. The study outlines the transition from theoretical norms to practical deterrence by examining the intersection of legal standards digital evidence and enforcement mechanisms. The primary research question seeks to identify an integrated model of norm evidence and execution that provides an effective response to deepfake pornography in Iran while determining which components of the European Union regulatory framework are suitable for selective adaptation within the Iranian legal context.Method & Approach: The study employs a doctrinal research method and a comparative legislative approach based on a comprehensive analysis of library sources legislative texts and selected judicial precedents. The analysis is structured around a three-level framework comprising the normative framework practical guarantees of execution and judicial challenges. This methodology allows for a systematic comparison between the risk-based regulatory environment of the European Union and the criminal justice-oriented approach of Iran specifically evaluating how technical forensic findings are translated into judicial proof within different legal systems.Findings: The analysis reveals that the European Union reliance on risk classification and transparency requirements is insufficient without robust standards for proving origin and multi-signatory expert reporting to curb the cycle of redistribution. In the Iranian legal system deterrence is undermined by an over-reliance on customary interpretations of obscenity the absence of a narrow legal definition for deepfakes and a lack of specific operational protocols for online platforms regarding evidence preservation and content removal. Furthermore, the findings indicate that current penalties in both jurisdictions often fail to account for the economic logic of digital networks as fixed fines and short-term imprisonment do not adequately offset the illicit profits generated by systematic distribution.Conclusion: The research concludes that an effective legal response requires a legally testable definition of deepfakes based on noticeable resemblance reliable attribution and the lack of valid consent. Recommendations include the establishment of a national standard for expert forensic reports that clarifies decision thresholds and error margins alongside the alignment of criminal penalties with the economic scale of the offense through the restitution of illegitimate interests. Moreover, online platforms must be legally mandated to implement timely removals and search for essentially equivalent versions of harmful content to prevent viral reproduction. By selectively adapting European elements such as platform accountability and risk-based mitigation while harmonizing them with the Iranian legal structure the legal response can be elevated from a declaratory state to an effective protective and deterrent mechanism. https://ilr.isu.ac.ir/article_78060.html Context & Objective: International economic development has created a global interdependent system where the World Trade Organization (WTO) serves as a primary framework for multilateralism against unilateralism. The Islamic Republic of Iran has faced extensive unilateral trade sanctions for over fifty years which have severely impacted its economic indices and human development. This research outlines the legal capacities of the WTO including its executive mechanisms and enforcement guarantees to evaluate how membership might serve as a strategic opportunity for sanctioned states. The primary research objective is to identify specific legal tools within the WTO framework that can challenge or lift unilateral trade barriers. The central question explores whether joining this multilateral organization offers a viable legal solution for Iran to escape the constraints of international unilateralism.Method & Approach: This article utilizes a doctrinal research method to examine the legal landscape of the WTO. The study analyzes foundational documents including the Marrakesh Agreement and various multilateral trade agreements to describe the organization's legal capacities. The approach involves a descriptive analysis of treaty-based deterrents and a review of specific case studies where member states challenged unilateral actions through the WTO's institutional framework. Furthermore the research evaluates these mechanisms strictly from the perspective of international economic law focusing on the feasibility of countering power-oriented political actions through rule-based legal instruments.Findings: The research finds that the Most-Favored-Nation (MFN) principle serves as a vital legal tool to prevent trade discrimination and secondary sanctions. The Dispute Settlement System (DSS) provides compulsory and exclusive jurisdiction ensuring that any member accused of a violation must enter into mandatory negotiations or face a judicial panel. Specific provisions such as Article 11 of the GATT 1994 prohibit non-tariff trade barriers while agreements on agriculture and health protect essential rights like food security and human life from unilateral interference. Case law analysis including disputes like DS38 and DS353 illustrates that the WTO can effectively compel respondents to reach settlements or authorize lawful retaliation to compensate for damages caused by unilateralism.Conclusion: The article concludes that although WTO membership does not grant absolute immunity from political sanctions it forces the sanctioning state to be legally accountable and responsive under international law. By joining the WTO Iran could utilize the organization's multilateral mechanisms to limit the expansion of unilateralism and seek compensation for legal violations. The mandatory nature of the WTO's dispute resolution processes and the requirement for members to align their national policies with treaty obligations provide a robust deterrent against arbitrary trade restrictions. Ultimately membership offers a strategic path for Iran to reduce the impact of sanctions and restore its position within the global free trade system. https://ilr.isu.ac.ir/article_78075.html Context & Objective: Forced marriage has recently gained prominence in international criminal law as a significant form of gender based violence within armed conflicts and repressive regimes. This research evaluates the performance of international criminal tribunals in recognizing and addressing the gendered dimensions of this phenomenon. The study outlines the evolution of forced marriage from a neglected harm to a prosecuted crime across various jurisdictions including the Special Court for Sierra Leone the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia and the International Criminal Court. The primary research purpose is to analyze the efficacy of the international criminal justice system in reflecting gendered realities within judicial processes while filling gaps in existing legal literature. The central research question asks whether existing mechanisms and legal interpretations are capable of capturing the multifaceted gendered nature of forced marriage or if structural biases continue to impede comprehensive justice for victims.Method & Approach: This study employs a doctrinal research methodology primarily through library and documentary analysis. The investigation involves a comprehensive review of international treaties conventions and the constitutive statutes of international tribunals. The approach includes a detailed examination of landmark judicial decisions and case law from the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda the Special Court for Sierra Leone the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia and the International Criminal Court. Additionally, the research synthesizes insights from prominent international law scholars and legal practitioners to evaluate the intersection of criminal justice and gender theory.Findings: The research finds that forced marriage is an inherently gendered crime rooted in patriarchal structures that target women based on socially constructed roles of domesticity and reproduction. While international jurisprudence has progressed by increasingly identifying forced marriage as an independent crime under the category of other inhumane acts rather than subsuming it strictly under sexual slavery significant challenges remain. The analysis reveals a lack of a unified approach across tribunals with varying characterizations including conjugal slavery and sexual slavery which often leads to legal ambiguity. Although the International Criminal Court decision in the Ongwen case marked a milestone by focusing on the imposition of marital status and the violation of relational autonomy findings indicate that structural gender biases still hinder a full understanding of systemic violence. Specifically judicial interpretations frequently rely on physical or objective criteria for coercion while neglecting the psychological and social pressures uniquely affecting female victims.Conclusion: The research concludes that formal recognition of forced marriage is insufficient to achieve substantive gender justice. Achieving a truly gender sensitive framework requires the explicit criminalization of forced marriage as a standalone offense within the Rome Statute. Legal definitions must be expanded to encompass physical structural and psychological coercion and the diverse gendered motivations behind such crimes including the control of reproduction and the enforcement of female subordination. Furthermore, the study recommends gender sensitive training for international judges and the development of specialized reparation mechanisms. Ultimately realizing justice for victims necessitates a paradigm shift in international criminal law discourse that moves beyond traditional masculine legal norms to fully integrate the lived experiences and socio-cultural realities of women. https://ilr.isu.ac.ir/article_77914.html Context & Objective: Corrupt interactions among judicial actors within the criminal justice system can severely undermine the system's legitimacy in guaranteeing the implementation of justice and combating crime. Judicial corruption is recognized as one of the most destructive forms of institutional corruption, bearing direct consequences on citizens' rights, the legitimacy of the justice framework, and the stability of democratic structures. When the judicial apparatus, intended to ensure justice, becomes entangled in corrupt practices, it ceases its primary function and transforms into an impediment to justice. Such interactions often involve two or more individuals agreeing to violate legal procedures for mutual benefit, frequently remaining concealed due to the participants' self-interest and lack of reporting. In Iran, prevalent judicial corruption instances involve immoral communications and financial corruption based on explicit agreement. This research sought to meticulously investigate the corrupt interactions and relationships established between authorized officials and beneficiaries during criminal proceedings. The primary objective was to analyze the most significant manifestations of these interactions across various criminal procedural stages, articulate their diversity, and identify the specific legal authorities and existing laws that enable the formation of such environments.Method & Approach: This study employed a qualitative research method focusing on the content analysis of documents and evidence. The documentary review included judicial and police rulings, discourse analysis of specific criminal justice officials, and content analysis of reports gathered from official domestic and foreign news agencies regarding publicized judicial corruption cases. Furthermore, the methodology incorporated deep, semi-structured interviews. The interview process continued until theoretical saturation was reached, involving a sample of 30 participants. Interviewees included 10 judicial authorities (judges, investigators, assistant prosecutors), 5 judicial enforcement officers, 10 bar association lawyers, and 5 judicial administrative staff. Interviews were conducted across various locations, including specialized complexes for government employees and economic crimes, and general prosecutor’s offices in Tehran and two provinces in the northwest of the country.Findings: The findings demonstrated that the manifestation and nature of corrupt interactions vary significantly depending on the stage of the criminal process and the specific powers granted to the officials involved. In the preliminary investigation stage (prosecution), corrupt interactions largely focus on avoiding the formation of a criminal case, eliminating evidence of the crime, issuing disproportionate or lenient criminal guarantee orders, or closing the case entirely. Examples include the abuse of authority to decline case formation by providing non-objective information or through collusion with judicial enforcement officers to alter official reports or destroy evidence. Officials, particularly prosecutors, utilize broad discretion in determining the legal grounds for initiating prosecution. In the trial stage, interactions aim to improve the defendant’s standing relative to the preliminary phase, leading to the rejection of prosecution decisions or evidence. Specific goals include securing acquittal, altering criminal guarantee orders, or ensuring conviction results in a more favorable or lenient sentence. Judges, possessing extensive discretion in sentencing and interpretation, may, for instance, refuse to record unfavorable statements from witnesses or experts or reduce the classification of the crime in the final ruling following corrupt agreements.Conclusion: The research confirms that the preliminary investigation and prosecution stage is the most vulnerable environment for widespread corrupt interactions, primarily due to the vast, unsupervised authority vested in officials regarding evidence collection and case trajectory. However, court judges maintain significant power to shift the legal status of the accused by conducting new investigations, rejecting previous evidence, or utilizing judicial mechanisms like commutation, conditional release, or suspended sentences to achieve corrupt outcomes. The analysis underscores that the legal provisions granting wide discretionary powers facilitate the conditions necessary for these interactions. Consequently, the findings emphasize the critical necessity of providing suitable accountability mechanisms within the context of legal authorities to curb judicial corruption and maintain the system's integrity. https://ilr.isu.ac.ir/article_77856.html Context & Objective: The concept of civil liability for employers, particularly in relation to damages caused to third parties by actions in the workplace, is a critical area of civil responsibility law globally. In Iran, Article 12 of the Civil Liability Law, enacted in 1960, holds employers accountable for damages caused by their workers and administrative staff. However, the prevailing judicial practice and legal doctrine in Iran limit this provision to the traditional employer-employee relationship, thereby excluding contractors from its scope. This article seeks to challenge this interpretation by reconsidering the legal boundaries of employer liability, focusing on whether contractors should be included under the existing legal framework. The primary research question addressed is whether the provisions of Article 12 should extend to include damages caused by contractors.Method & Approach: The article adopts a doctrinal approach to legal analysis, engaging with both Iranian legal theory and judicial practice. It compares the traditional distinctions between workers and contractors and explores the underlying legal justifications for employer liability. Additionally, the research includes comparative studies to highlight how other jurisdictions handle similar issues. The methodology focuses on analyzing legal texts, judicial decisions, and doctrinal interpretations to present a comprehensive examination of employer liability in the context of contractors.Findings: The findings suggest that the justifications for holding employers liable for damages caused by workers are equally applicable to contractors. Through a logical and purposive interpretation of Article 12, aligned with the original intent of the legislation, the research concludes that there is a basis for extending the scope of employer liability to cover damages caused by contractors. The comparative studies further support this conclusion, showing that other legal systems have adopted similar interpretations.Conclusion: The article concludes that the current limitations of Article 12 of the Iranian Civil Liability Law should be reconsidered. A broader interpretation that includes contractors would align the law with its intended purpose of ensuring fair compensation for third-party damages. This shift would enhance the consistency and comprehensiveness of the legal framework governing employer liability in Iran. https://ilr.isu.ac.ir/article_77980.html Context & Objective: The fundamental issue addressed is the ownership of accretions (Namāʾāt) derived from the subject matter of a sale (Mabīʿ) when that subject matter is destroyed before delivery (Qabḍ) to the buyer under Islamic law. The core conflict arises because while the contract of sale (Bāyʿ) is tmalīkī (possessory) meaning ownership transfers upon contract formation the governing legal rule dictates that if the Mabīʿ is destroyed before delivery the contract is annulled (Infisākh) and the loss is borne by the seller (Bāyiʿ). This situation complicates the application of primary legal principles such as “Al-Kharāj bi al-Ḍamān” (profits follow liability). The research purpose is to analyze the legal and jurisprudential effects of the rule “Talf al-Mabīʿ Qabla al-Qabḍ fa huwa min māl bā’i‘ih” particularly concerning its relationship with the possessory nature of the sale contract and to determine the correct rule governing the ownership of the associated accretions. The central research question asks whether the rule regarding destruction before delivery constitutes an exception to the primary legal rules of contract formation.Method & Approach: This article employs a doctrinal review and analysis of the jurists’ opinions and doctrine examining the concept scope and basis of the rule concerning the destruction of the subject matter before delivery. The methodology seeks to find a principle that is consistent with jurisprudential rules and aligns with customary fairness (Inṣāf) and transactional practice. The analysis delves into the three main theoretical positions concerning the compatibility or conflict between the possessory nature of the contract and the rule of destruction before delivery exploring concepts such as the role of delivery (Qabḍ) as a condition for the perfection (Kamāl) of ownership and the application of the rule “Al-Kharāj bi al-Ḍamān”.Findings: The analysis reveals that the rule of destruction before delivery places the liability (Ḍamān) for the lost asset on the seller. In the context of accretions, the rule "Al-Kharāj bi al-Ḍamān" which links profits to liability is found to be in complete harmony with the destruction rule. Since the seller bears the loss and is deemed the owner for the purposes of the rule the accretions (Namāʾāt) resulting from the asset between the contract date and annulment must logically belong to the seller. This outcome is further supported by referencing the principle of Muwāzanah (balance in commutative contracts) and the necessity of referring to the ‘operative sale’. The operative sale theory based on the primacy of existence in creditable affairs dictates that since the asset cannot be delivered the foundational exchange did not occur and the profits should revert to the seller to avoid the unjust enrichment of the buyer.Conclusion: The most logical and jurisprudentially sound conclusion consistent with custom and fairness is that the accretions (Namāʾāt) belong to the seller. The destruction of the Mabīʿ before delivery necessitates the annulment of the sale contract which results in the return of the subject matter and subsequently its profits to the seller who bore the liability. This principle is encapsulated in the juristic maxim that where restitution of the lost asset is impossible, the profits must still be restored to the seller. The rule “Talf al-Mabīʿ Qabla al-Qabḍ fa huwa min māl bā’i‘ih” effectively signals the seller’s implicit ownership thereby confirming that profits generated from the contract date until its dissolution belong to the seller. https://ilr.isu.ac.ir/article_77883.html ‌Context & Objective: Judicial delay stands as one of the most significant initial threats to the philosophical foundation of the judiciary and, consequently, to citizens’ rights. This enduring challenge, which limits access to justice and impedes the full realization of the right to petition/litigation (Article 34 of the Iranian Constitution), has persisted despite efforts to resolve it since the Islamic Revolution of 1979. Judicial delay directly impacts the stability and quality of the judiciary, inflicting substantial damage upon citizens' rights, including the foundational right to a fair trial. Furthermore, this phenomenon undermines the core duty of the judiciary, which is defined as handling grievances, resolving disputes, and issuing judgments (Article 156 of the Constitution). Recognizing the high volume of existing studies and data concerning judicial delay and its effect on citizens’ rights, the primary objective of this research is to comprehensively review these previous studies, classify their data, and analyze the causes and solutions from the perspective of citizens' rights. This process aims to achieve a deeper and more integrated understanding than prior research, facilitating the design of more efficient and functional legal remedies for both activists and researchers. The central research question guiding this investigation is: "How have the causes, the relationship between judicial delay and citizens' rights, and the relevant solutions been depicted in past research?".Method & Approach: The core analytical technique utilized is Meta-synthesis, a qualitative study approach designed to generate new, deeper, and more comprehensive knowledge by systematically combining the findings and concepts from multiple existing qualitative studies. This method focuses on qualitative synthesis, rather than the quantitative data aggregation of meta-analysis. The researchers applied this method to a statistical population comprising 33 relevant studies (including articles, theses, and conference papers) selected from reputable databases. These sources cover a 20-year period, specifically the solar years 1384 to 1404 (2005–2025), a span chosen because it aligns with the initial emergence of judicial development discourse. The process involved extracting and categorizing the main causes and prescribed solutions from these 33 sources, organizing them systematically into two principal categories: Human Factors and Non-Human Factors.Findings: The review of the 33 sources indicated that the largest proportion of studies (64.63%) focused explicitly on examining the causes and solutions for reducing judicial delay. A significant finding relates to the concentration of causes, with Human Factors accounting for over 70% of the identified sources. Within this category, issues related to Judges were the most frequently cited, appearing 68 times across 12 sub-factors. Key human causes of delay included judges' insufficient general experience and knowledge of procedures, inadequate opportunity for handling cases, lack of specialization, and insufficient financial and spiritual support/incentives. Among the Non-Human Factors, Laws and Regulations predominated, cited 26 times. Core non-human causes involved the complexity, multitude, and variety of criminal titles and laws, as well as a lack of attention to technical procedures and formalities during legislative drafting. The suggested solutions largely mirrored the causal analysis, focusing heavily on human resources and procedural reforms. Prominent solutions included extensive in-service training for judges (12 sources), simplifying and adapting procedural regulations (16 sources), and specialized judicial bodies (9 sources). Furthermore, a strong emphasis was placed on cultural and educational activities, especially expanding legal awareness and promoting alternative dispute resolution methods like mediation and arbitration (7 sources).Conclusion: Judicial delay is not merely a sign of judicial system inefficiency but a fundamental mechanism that undermines various guaranteed citizens' rights. The analysis demonstrates that delay is the product of a complex network involving structural, legal, and individual factors. Specifically, deficiencies at the agent level (low knowledge, experience, or motivation among judicial staff) combine with structural weaknesses (complex laws, incomplete processes, lack of technology) to reinforce a vicious cycle of delay. To effectively mitigate this issue and reinforce citizens' rights, the findings mandate a comprehensive strategy built upon three intersecting axes: "Empowering Human Resources" (e.g., rigorous training, specialized recruitment, appropriate career advancement and reward structures for judges), "Reforming Laws and Procedures" (e.g., comprehensive legislative review, simplification of rules, and utilizing technological advancements), and "Raising Public and Legal Awareness". The simultaneous and integrated implementation of these reforms is necessary, as relying solely on structural or human efforts is deemed insufficient to solve this complex, multi-faceted problem. Ultimately, sustained action on these fronts is essential for protecting the fundamental rights of citizens—the main victims of judicial delay—and for restoring public trust in the judicial system. https://ilr.isu.ac.ir/article_77878.html ‌Context & Objective: This research addresses the concept of Hajr (legal incapacity) within Shia jurisprudence and Iranian law, prompted by the complexities of modern economic life. In specialized fields like financial markets, individuals who are legally competent [Rashid] may still lack the specific expertise to identify and avoid detrimental transactions, raising the question of whether legal protection can be extended to them. This study explores the foundational possibility of establishing a form of "relative Hajr" [Hajr Nesbi], which would apply only to specific domains where an individual is vulnerable. The research aims to answer whether the concept of Hajr can be interpreted in an exemplary (non-exhaustive) manner and if the legally recognized causes of incapacity are strictly limited to those explicitly listed in legal and jurisprudential texts, or if new causes can be identified to meet contemporary needs.Method & Approach: The study employs a doctrinal and library-based methodology, utilizing a hermeneutic-analytical approach to examine primary sources. The research begins by establishing a conceptual framework through a lexical and terminological analysis of Hajr and its prerequisite, legal capacity [Ahliyyat]. It then critically assesses the definitions and causes of Hajr presented by both jurists [Fuqaha] and modern legal scholars, highlighting divergences between the broader jurisprudential understanding and the narrower interpretation often found in Iranian positive law, particularly concerning Article 1207 of the Civil Code. The paper contrasts these views, proposes a refined definition of Hajr, and briefly compares the concept with laws on legal incapacity in several U.S. states to demonstrate the viability of a more flexible approach in contemporary legal systems.Findings: The research finds a significant distinction between the definitions of Hajr in Iranian legal scholarship and Shia jurisprudence. While many legal scholars link Hajr to a lack of capacity for legal execution [Ahliyyat al-Istifa'], jurisprudential sources define it more fundamentally as a "prohibition" [Man'] imposed by the Lawgiver on a person's ability to dispose of their property, whether partially or totally. This jurisprudential view supports a more expansive application. Regarding its causes, the study argues that the common legal assumption of an exhaustive list (minority, insanity, and prodigality as per Article 1207) is a misinterpretation. Analysis of classical jurisprudential texts reveals that the enumerated causes were often considered exemplary or conventional for pedagogical purposes, not strictly exhaustive [Hasri]. Therefore, the findings suggest that any condition leading to a legally mandated prohibition on financial disposition, consistent with the Islamic Fiqh, can foundationally be recognized as a cause of Hajr.Conclusion: The study concludes that the restrictive interpretation of Hajr in Iranian positive law is not mandated by its Islamic jurisprudential foundations. Shia jurisprudence allows for a more flexible and expansive understanding, where the causes of legal incapacity are not exhaustively enumerated. Consequently, there is no fundamental jurisprudential barrier preventing the legislator from establishing new forms of Hajr, including "relative Hajr," to protect individuals in specific, complex situations, provided such measures align with a precise definition of the concept. While this research establishes the foundational possibility, it emphasizes that the actual implementation of such a law would require a comprehensive evaluation of competing principles, such as the freedom of contracts versus the protective aims of the law. This paper serves as a crucial first step, inviting further research into the practical and theoretical implications of modernizing the application of Hajr. https://ilr.isu.ac.ir/article_78059.html Context & Objective: Material multiplicity in criminal law often involves acts so intertwined that they form an inseparable unit known as interrelated offences. While legal systems in Egypt and Iraq have codified specific regulations for such situations Iran currently suffers from a legislative vacuum that leaves the treatment of these crimes to inconsistent judicial discretion. This research examines the distinctive features of interrelated offences compared to general material multiplicity and explores effective mechanisms for sentencing. The central objective is to determine whether the legal experiences of Egypt and Iraq can provide a framework to resolve the existing gaps in the Iranian penal system.Method & Approach: The research employs a doctrinal methodology and a comparative approach to evaluate the legal systems of the three nations. It involves a systematic review of statutory laws legal theories and judicial precedents to identify the essential elements of interrelated offences. The study specifically investigates objective criteria regarding the structural necessity of criminal acts and subjective criteria concerning the offender's intent and overall criminal plan.Findings: Findings indicate that Egyptian and Iraqi laws recognize interrelated offences based on the dual requirements of an indivisible connection and unity of purpose. Egypt treats these acts as a single legal unit applying only the most severe penalty while Iraq mandates separate sentences for each act but executes only the harshest one. Historically Iran recognized this doctrine in its 1925 General Penal Code but subsequent legislative changes moved toward a formalistic multiplicity rule that ignores the cohesion of a unified criminal project. Consequently, modern Iranian courts often produce contradictory rulings in similar cases such as those involving the possession and sale of illicit goods or threats leading to physical harm.Conclusion: The article concludes that the current legislative silence in Iran is incompatible with criminal justice and the principle of proportionate punishment. It argues that interrelated offences should be viewed as a single penal unit where the unity of the criminal goal overrides the plurality of material acts. To eliminate judicial inconsistency the study proposes a legislative amendment to the Islamic Penal Code. This proposed article would mandate that when multiple crimes are indivisibly linked by logic and a unified criminal plan the court must only impose the harshest punishment among them. https://ilr.isu.ac.ir/article_78083.html Context & Objective: The proliferation of digital gold trading platforms and the introduction of credit gold units have challenged traditional ownership models in Islamic law. This is particularly evident where a gap exists between electronic registration and physical delivery making the guarantee of ownership ambiguous. This research seeks to determine the jurisprudential foundations and civil law rules that can ensure the Sharia compliance and legal validity of these transactions while mitigating risks such as Gharar (legal uncertainty). The discussion outlines three potential legal frameworks for credit gold including objective ownership, undivided co-ownership of real reserves, and Personal Obligation. The primary research questions investigate the legal nature of these assets, the realization of constructive possession in digital environments, the impact of the 2025 Executive Regulation on Online Gold and Silver Trading, Adopted by the Council of Ministers of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and the status of asset segregation during platform insolvency.Method & Approach: This study utilizes a doctrinal methodology to analyze the intersection of Islamic Fiqh and Iranian civil law. The approach involves a comparative analysis of classical concepts such as the Sarf sale and Qabd (Possession) against the technical requirements of digital assets. The research evaluates the evolution of contractual freedom under Article 10 of the Civil Law in light of new mandatory regulations. Furthermore, it interprets contemporary jurisprudential opinions on digital credit and Qabd Hukmi (Constructive Possession) to bridge the gap between classical legal theory and modern financial technology.Findings: The findings indicate that the legal validity of credit gold transactions is best secured when assets are categorized as undivided co-ownership of physical gold rather than a Personal Obligation. Under the Personal Obligation model, the purchaser is merely a general creditor of the platform and lacks a real proprietary interest in specific reserves which creates high legal risk during insolvency. In contrast the undivided co-ownership model ensures that assets are segregable and reclaimable if a platform becomes insolvent. Constructive possession is effectively realized through electronic registration coupled with the customer's immediate ability to dispose of or claim the physical gold. Additionally, the Supervisor System established by the 2025 regulation serves as a critical safeguard that eliminates short-selling by mandating a one-to-one correspondence between digital units and physical inventory.Conclusion: In conclusion the legitimacy of credit gold transactions rests upon objective ownership via undivided shares, verifiable constructive possession, and the complete segregation of customer assets. The 2025 Executive Regulation represents a pivotal shift from private contractual autonomy toward a regulated framework that prioritizes public trust and systemic risk management. By aligning digital registration with the jurisprudential requirements of possession and the prohibition of uncertainty or Gharar this regulatory evolution provides a robust legal basis for gold-backed assets. Ultimately credit gold can function as a reliable tool in the digital financial system provided that platforms adhere to the requirements of physical backing and institutional oversight. https://ilr.isu.ac.ir/article_77913.html Context & Objective: The concept of "occupation" remains one of the most challenging topics within the International Law of Hostilities, particularly concerning territories such as Gaza and other occupied Islamic lands, including Palestine, Yemen, and Afghanistan, which have become pervasive issues for Muslim societies. This phenomenon necessitates a systematic and independent investigation from the perspective of Islamic Political Jurisprudence (Fiqh). Previous scholarly investigations into occupation have generally been fragmented or limited in scope, focusing only summarily on specific dimensions, leaving a substantial theoretical vacuum regarding the Sharī‘a's unified position. Therefore, the central research purpose is twofold: first, to clarify the fundamental nature of occupation within Islamic Fiqh, and second, to elucidate the practical stance prescribed by the Sharī‘a when confronting occupation. The core research question addressed by this article is: What is the authoritative and systematic position of Islamic Law when faced with the phenomenon of military occupation? The discussion outline involves identifying the core Fiqhī definitions of occupation, analyzing the two primary jurisprudential approaches—"Resistance" and "Compromise" —and rigorously examining the legal and theological evidence underpinning both.Method & Approach: The present research adopts a rigorous doctrinal methodology utilizing a descriptive-analytical approach. The analysis relies exclusively upon authentic library resources, including seminal works of Islamic jurisprudence (Fiqh), established narratives (Riwāyāt), and primary textual evidence from the Qur’an. Methodologically, the study first defines occupation in Islamic Law, noting its reflection in terms such as occupation (derived from the root meaning of descent and entrance) and its two essential components: the people of a land being subjected to oppression (Ẓulm), and the enemy gaining actual dominance (Istīlā) over all or part of the Islamic territory. The investigation further incorporates an analysis of the International Law paradigm on occupation, noting that International Law treats occupation as an unjust act accompanied by aggression, contingent upon the real exercise of authority and governance by the hostile force, as stipulated in instruments like Article 42 of the 1907 Hague Convention and the 1874 Brussels Declaration. Subsequently, the arguments of the two identified jurisprudential viewpoints—Resistance (primarily among Shia jurists and many Sunnī jurists) and Compromise (attributed to certain Sunnī jurists)—are critically examined and evaluated against the weight of transmitted and rational proofs.Findings: The central finding validates the research hypothesis, establishing the Theory of Resistance Against Occupation (Naẓarīyyah al-Muqāwamah) as the authentic and preferred position of Islamic Fiqh. The study demonstrates that the evidence supporting the Compromise view—which sometimes relies on weak narratives urging absolute obedience to even an oppressive ruler (e.g., Imām Ghāshūm khayr min fitnah tadūm)—is unsound and fundamentally contradicted by the definitive tradition of the Ahl al-Bayt (PBUH). Conversely, the requirement of resistance is firmly established by three categories of evidence: 1) Transmitted Proofs, including explicit Qur'anic permission for self-defense (e.g., sūrat al-Ḥajj, verse 39: "Permission [to fight] has been granted to those who are being fought, because they were wronged"). This is reinforced by the Sīra of Imam Ali (PBUH), who vehemently condemned the passive stance of the people of al-Anbār against Shāmī aggression, asserting that non-resistance leads to humiliation and conquest. 2) Rational Proofs, which dictate the ethical necessity (Ḥusn) of defending Islamic domain (the entirety of the Islamic community/territory) and the corresponding ethical repugnance (Qubḥ) of submission when resistance is feasible. 3) Consensus (Ijmā‘), as numerous jurists across both Imāmī (Shia) and Sunnī schools have declared the individual obligation (Wujūb ‘Aynī) of defending Islamic territory and existence when under external threat. Consequently, resistance is deemed the primary and essential principle in confronting occupation.Conclusion: In conclusion, the research establishes that Islamic Political Jurisprudence mandates Resistance as the principled and obligatory response to military occupation and aggression, particularly when the existence and integrity of the Islamic domain are threatened. The systematic invalidation of the Compromise viewpoint, coupled with the robust support from the Qur'an, established narratives, and rational principles, confirms the "Theory of Resistance" as the authentic paradigm within Islamic Military Thought. This finding provides a necessary and systematic jurisprudential basis for defending occupied Islamic territories. Given the compatibility of resistance with recognized international norms, specifically the Right to Self-Determination and the Right to Resist Occupation, the study recommends that future scholarly endeavors focus on the practical operationalization of the Jurisprudence of Resistance within the framework of contemporary international relations. Furthermore, Islamic governments are advised to collaborate in developing a coordinated "Defense and Security Cooperation Document" founded upon the tenets of this established Fiqhī paradigm. https://ilr.isu.ac.ir/article_78091.html Context & Objective: The April 2024 twelve-day Israeli armed intervention in Iran resulted in severe violations of international humanitarian law and the commission of war crimes against Iranian nationals. In the face of prevailing impunity, the Islamic Republic of Iran bears a fundamental obligation to employ all available domestic and transnational mechanisms to secure the right to truth and justice for the victims of these atrocities. Despite this imperative, international criminal litigation remains a glaringly absent component in the state’s legal response to the conflict. Consequently, this study aims to examine the legal necessity and feasibility of activating the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court over the crimes committed during this specific period.Method & Approach: Employing a doctrinal legal methodology, this research analyzes the provisions of the Rome Statute alongside the established jurisprudence of the International Criminal Court. Furthermore, it evaluates domestic legislative frameworks and broader human rights principles concerning victims’ rights, specifically examining the intersection of the right to justice and the right to reparation. By contextualizing these legal sources within the paradigm of strategic lawfare, the study constructs a comprehensive framework for non-State party engagement with international criminal tribunals.Findings: The analysis demonstrates that despite not being a State Party to the Rome Statute, Iran possesses the legal capacity to invoke the ad hoc jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court pursuant to Article 12 paragraph 3 of the Statute. By submitting a targeted declaration, Iran can subject the criminal conduct of Israeli forces perpetrated within Iranian sovereign territory to the Court’s scrutiny. Crucially, the research identifies that by strictly circumscribing the temporal and territorial boundaries of this jurisdictional acceptance to the parameters of the twelve-day international armed conflict, Iran can effectively pursue accountability while simultaneously safeguarding its broader national security interests and state sovereignty.Conclusion: Ultimately, triggering the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court is not merely a theoretical possibility but a distinct legal necessity essential for fulfilling the state’s obligations toward the victims of the conflict. By strategically utilizing ad hoc jurisdictional mechanisms, Iran can actively participate in global criminal justice processes, transitioning from a passive observer to a proactive participant in international lawfare. This approach effectively remedies the existing accountability deficit and establishes a robust precedent for prosecuting perpetrators of war crimes within targeted jurisdictional parameters without compromising national autonomy. https://ilr.isu.ac.ir/article_78062.html Context & Objective: The military aggression launched by Israel against Iran on June 13 2025 under the operation named Rising Lion represents a significant challenge to the principle of the prohibition of the use of force in international law. This article examines the background of these attacks which targeted Iranian military nuclear and civilian infrastructure resulting in substantial casualties and damage to essential services. The discussion outlines the legal justifications provided by Israeli officials who primarily invoked the doctrines of self-defense and preemptive defense. The research purpose is to evaluate the legitimacy of this military intervention against established international legal frameworks and judicial precedents. Specifically, the study addresses research questions regarding whether the attack constitutes a violation of Iranian territorial sovereignty and whether the claims of self-defense align with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter or the jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice.Method & Approach: The study employs a doctrinal research method combined with a descriptive-analytical approach to assess the legality of the military action. The analysis is based on primary international legal instruments including the United Nations Charter the four 1949 Geneva Conventions and relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions. Furthermore, the approach incorporates an extensive review of international jurisprudence notably the rulings of the International Court of Justice in the Nicaragua Oil Platforms and Palestinian Wall cases. Library-based research tools and documentary analysis are utilized to scrutinize the legal narratives presented by the involved parties and to weigh them against customary international law and treaty obligations.Findings: The investigation reveals that Israel violated the prohibition of the use of force enshrined in Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter. The findings indicate that the justification of preemptive self-defense is untenable as Israel failed to provide objective evidence of an imminent or certain armed attack by Iran. The analysis demonstrates that the military operations did not satisfy the cumulative criteria of necessity immediacy and proportionality required under Article 51. Moreover, the targeting of nuclear scientists and civilian infrastructure violated international humanitarian law principles of distinction and precaution. Evidence from the International Atomic Energy Agency confirms the peaceful nature of Iranian nuclear activities further invalidating the necessity of the strike. The study also identifies a contradiction in the legal defense which shifted between preemptive doctrine and the accumulation of events theory neither of which finds sufficient support in international legal standards for this specific aggression.Conclusion: The article concludes that the claim of self-defense serves as a pretext for violating the jus cogens norm prohibiting the use of force in international relations. Because the foundational requirement of a prior armed attack was not met the Israeli military intervention is classified as an act of aggression rather than a lawful defensive measure. Consequently, the study affirms that Iran maintains its inherent right to individual or collective self-defense as recognized under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. The persistent use of expansive interpretations of self-defense poses a grave threat to international peace and security by undermining the collective security system of the United Nations and establishing a dangerous precedent for unilateral military action. https://ilr.isu.ac.ir/article_78084.html Context & Objective: The systematic assassination of Iranian nuclear scientists between 2009 and 2020 represents a multifaceted assault on national sovereignty and scientific development. Despite the clear criminal nature of these targeted killings under international law, political obstacles within international institutions—including the structural limitations of the International Criminal Court and the veto power of state sponsors in the Security Council—have created a persistent culture of impunity. This research addresses a critical gap in legal literature by exploring the practical application of the principle of universal jurisdiction within the Iranian domestic legal system. The study seeks to answer whether activating such jurisdiction provides a viable judicial pathway for prosecuting the architects and perpetrators of these crimes and identifies the specific legal and operational hurdles involved in this process.Method & Approach: This article employs a doctrinal methodology to argue that the activation of universal jurisdiction is a legal necessity. The research draws upon a comprehensive range of sources including international treaties, customary international law, global judicial precedents, Islamic jurisprudential principles, and Iranian domestic statutes. By bridging the gap between theoretical universal jurisdiction and the practical prosecution of targeted assassinations, the study analyzes the transition from the ambiguous characterization of "terrorism" to more robust international criminal categories.Findings: The central finding of the research is that these assassinations satisfy the constituent elements of an organized attack against a civilian population, thereby qualifying as clear instances of crimes against humanity. This recharacterization provides a firm legal foundation for the exercise of universal jurisdiction under both customary international law and Islamic principles such as ifsād fi’l-arḍ (corruption on earth) and the doctrine of ḥifẓ bayḍat al-Islām (preservation of the Islamic political system). At the domestic level, the research identifies that Article 9 of the Islamic Penal Code establishes the necessary statutory capacity to exercise jurisdiction. Furthermore, the study determines that functional or occupational immunity does not shield perpetrators because the commission of international crimes cannot be classified as a legitimate official act protected by state immunity.Conclusion: Ultimately the article proposes a comprehensive judicial-legislative roadmap designed to terminate the culture of impunity within the Iranian legal system. It recommends the establishment of specialized judicial units for international crimes and the potential adoption of a comprehensive law to clarify absolute universal jurisdiction. The research concludes that while political and diplomatic challenges remain, the domestic pursuit of justice serves as a vital strategic tool for documenting state-sponsored crimes and asserting national sovereignty. By acting as a last bastion of justice, Iranian courts can contribute to the development of international law and ensure that perpetrators of grave crimes do not find a safe haven from accountability. https://ilr.isu.ac.ir/article_77922.html Context & Objective: Countermeasures, defined as actions taken by a state in response to another party’s illegal or hostile conduct to enforce cessation or reparations without being independently deemed illegal, are employed in domestic policy, international law, and diplomacy and are typically codified in national legislation. Given Israel’s historical perpetration of unprecedented crimes against Palestinians and countries in the Axis of Resistance, Iran, recognizing Israel as an illegitimate and hostile entity, has implemented various formal countermeasures. The necessity of evaluating the existing legal structure for these prescribed countermeasures has intensified due to the severity of Israel’s regional crimes. The main purpose of this research is to analyze the current legal structure and related statutes concerning countermeasures against Israel's crimes and assess their deficiencies relative to specialized legislative principles. Consequently, the primary research question asks: "What are the weaknesses in the legal and statutory structure of countermeasures against the crimes of Israel in the laws of the Islamic Republic of Iran?".Method & Approach: This study utilized a descriptive-analytical approach, gathering data through documentary (library-based) methods. The core analytical method involved the pathology (assessment of weaknesses) of laws based on general/formal and specialized/substantive principles of legislation applicable to countermeasures against Israel’s crimes. The process began by reviewing fundamental norms, including the Constitution and the system’s general policies, to identify explicit or implicit rules governing countermeasures. Subsequently, the study gathered, categorized, and analyzed the specific instances of countermeasures reflected in laws passed by the Islamic Consultative Assembly, searching key terms such as Israel, Palestine, and Gaza within official legislative databases. These statutory provisions were organized into two categories: Material Countermeasures and Non-Material Countermeasures, according to established conceptual definitions.Findings: The investigation identified legal provisions regarding countermeasures against Israel’s crimes in 18 statutory titles and over 50 valid legal articles. While the current structure exhibits certain strengths, such as a balance between material and non-material measures, diversity in non-material measures, and general adherence to constitutional principles, it is undermined by numerous deficiencies. The most significant weaknesses are classified into two categories: General and Formal and Substantive and Specialized. Formal weaknesses include the proliferation of laws, often passed as scattered, single-article statutes, leading to redundancy (e.g., repeated economic boycott rules) and an increased negative burden of regulations. Substantive weaknesses include the practice of inserting broad, abstract system policies into ordinary laws, which compromises the law's executive function and leads to ambiguity. Furthermore, there is a pervasive lack of specific or specialized enforcement guarantees (sanctions) or defined deadlines for most state-implementing bodies, with penalties generally limited to criminal sanctions for individuals. Finally, the structure suffers from a multiplicity and overlap of jurisdiction among executing authorities, with some laws broadly tasking "all executive bodies" without specifying clear duties, potentially delaying execution and causing conflicts.Conclusion: Countermeasures are essential tools used for political deterrence, aiming to force hostile parties, such as Israel, to bear costs and deter future unlawful behavior, often relying on non-military strategies. Although Iran's countermeasures are deeply rooted in religious and ideological convictions, past efforts have sometimes been confined to media and cultural rhetoric, failing to fully translate into specialized, technical legislation. The research concludes that the existing legal and statutory structure for countermeasures against Israel is significantly removed from an optimal, efficient, and specialized model due to the identified set of formal and substantive deficiencies. A comprehensive strengthening and revision of the legal framework, employing specialized legislative techniques, is necessary to increase the impact factor, enhance resource management, and ensure a more proportional and effective response to Israel’s crimes. https://ilr.isu.ac.ir/article_77785.html ‌Context & Objective: The concept of the right to boycott—defined as the refusal to engage in economic, cultural, or political relations with a particular entity—challenges prevailing assumptions that the private sphere is devoid of power dynamics. By politicizing individual and collective choices, boycotts serve as instruments of democratic expression and autonomy. Historically, boycotts have been used to influence state policies, including those supporting the Zionist regime. Yet, their normative legitimacy, particularly when directed at Israel, has provoked legal and political resistance in various jurisdictions. This article investigates the extent to which the right to boycott is recognized within the human rights framework and examines the procedural obstacles it encounters in the United States and the European Union. The research seeks to assess how Western legal systems interpret and respond to this form of political activism and to explore the broader implications for international solidarity movements and Palestinian rights advocacy.Method & Approach: This study employs a doctrinal and case-based analytical methodology, drawing on legal theory, human rights instruments, and judicial decisions from both the U.S. and the EU. By synthesizing legal texts and court rulings, the research evaluates how the right to boycott is conceptualized and regulated. The approach includes a comparative analysis to highlight convergences and divergences in the legal treatment of boycotts across jurisdictions. Emphasis is placed on interpretive frameworks used by courts, legislative bodies, and administrative authorities when addressing the balance between political expression and state interests.Findings: The analysis reveals that the right to boycott is grounded in several normative frameworks, including microeconomic theory, the responsibility to protect doctrine, the marketplace of ideas, and principles of self-governance. It intersects with fundamental rights such as freedom of expression, freedom of association, the right to petition, and personal autonomy. Despite these foundations, significant procedural challenges persist. In the European Union, while the right may enjoy legislative backing at the supranational level, member states often impose restrictive conditions. In the U.S., although the judiciary has occasionally recognized the boycott as a form of political expression, limitations arise from interpretations of the First Amendment, particularly when boycotts are not deemed “pure speech.” Other barriers include national security concerns, state sovereignty claims, and judicial classifications—such as France’s treatment of boycotts as incitement to hatred—that restrict the practical exercise of this right.Conclusion: The study concludes that while the right to boycott can be normatively justified within liberal democratic and human rights traditions, its procedural enforcement remains fragmented and contested in Western legal systems. These legal inconsistencies hinder the global development of a unified stance on political boycotts and undermine the capacity of international civil society to mobilize against state aggression, particularly concerning the Palestinian struggle. Therefore, greater legal clarity and judicial consistency are necessary to safeguard this right and affirm its legitimacy as a tool of peaceful political resistance.