https://jls.shirazu.ac.ir/ Journal of Legal Studies en daily 1 Mon, 22 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0330 Mon, 22 Jun 2026 00:00:00 +0330 https://jls.shirazu.ac.ir/article_8241.html IntroductionSelf-control, a pivotal construct in criminology, was first introduced by Gottfredson and Hirschi (1990) within the framework of their General Theory of Crime. In this theory, self-control is primarily conceptualized as the ability to inhibit impulses, and criminal behavior is presented as a consequence of the absence of this ability. This perspective emphasizes the conflict between the immediate gratification derived from crime and its long-term consequences, positing crime as a result of an individual's inability to resist instantaneous temptations for personal gain. Thus, self-control is proposed as "the ability to defer immediate gratification in favor of long-term goals."From an intervention standpoint, Gottfredson and Hirschi contend that the development of self-control is exclusively possible during the critical period of the first eight years of life. They propose a specific parenting style for parents, involving active supervision of the child, timely identification and punishment of deviant behaviors indicative of low self-control, thereby guiding the child towards independence in self-control. Although they emphasize outcomes such as enhanced consideration for others, individual autonomy, and peaceful conflict resolution skills, the precise mechanisms by which these outcomes are achieved are not transparently explained. This explanatory gap is considered one of the practical limitations of this theory.This theoretical framework also faces other significant criticisms. The definition of self-control provided is considered one-dimensional and reductionist, as it neglects dimensions such as conscious moral choice, normative commitments, neural plasticity, the role of individual agency, and the impact of unequal social contexts. Furthermore, this theory practically denies the possibility of cultivating and developing self-control after childhood.This research seeks to answer the central question of how, in order to address the shortcomings and limitations in Gottfredson and Hirschi's definition of self-control, crime prevention mechanisms at individual and social levels (family and school) can be enriched according to a more comprehensive paradigmatic model of moral self-control stemming from the processes of value internalization and cognitive-emotional commitment.The aim of this research is a critical re-evaluation of this theory and the presentation of a more comprehensive model that, by integrating ethical-psychological and criminological perspectives, will be more effective in explaining criminal behavior and provide a basis for proactive prevention programs. MethodsThis research was conducted using a qualitative content analysis method with a critical approach. Data were collected through library studies and systematic review of internal and external sources. This method was chosen due to the interdisciplinary nature of self-control and the need for its redefinition, considering moral agency. Data analysis focused on the strengths and weaknesses of classical theory and the identification of overlooked dimensions of self-control. FindingsDeficiencies of Classical Theory:a) Conceptual reductionism and inability to explain planned crimes (e.g., white-collar crimes) by disregarding the content of self-control's objective.b) Neglect of the role of individual moral agency in favor of socialization.c) Invalid claim of self-control stability after childhood, which contradicts neuroscience findings on the improvability of self-control through practice and training.Multidimensional Structure of Self-Control:Findings revealed that self-control consists of three key elements:a) Ability (including behavioral, emotional, and cognitive control)b) Motivation (desire to resist temptation)c) Goal (long-term moral and social values)Levels of Self-Control:Identification of three levels: external control, intermediate internal control, and moral self-governance, which represent the developmental path of self-control from dependence on social norms to moral autonomy.Strategies for Strengthening Self-Control:a) Cultivating critical thinking and correcting cognitive errors.b) Training in emotion management.c) Internalization of moral values through a rational authoritative parenting style. ConclusionsRedefining self-control as an internal ability to manage conflicts between short-term desires and long-term goals based on ethical principles offers a novel framework for crime prevention. By presenting a multi-dimensional model that includes the elements of ability, motivation, and purpose, and by considering different levels of self-control (from external control to self-governance based on internalized ethical principles), a more effective framework for crime prevention can be designed. This model moves beyond a passive view of self-control, emphasizing the individual's active role in conscious and responsible choice. The findings indicate that prevention programs should focus on simultaneously strengthening the cognitive, emotional, and moral dimensions of self-control. This approach can serve as a basis for designing educational interventions at the family, school, and community levels. https://jls.shirazu.ac.ir/article_7851.html Abstract: One of the most important questions raised in tax law is that if a taxpayer submits a return to the tax office, can he amend it or not? On 20/02/1402 , the Public Relations Office of the Tax Administration has stated in an announcement that "claims of errors or mistakes in completing and submitting the tax declaration form will not be heard in the tax authorities". There was a complaint about this announcement and finally, the Administrative Court of Justice violated the aforementioned circular and stated that Modi's claim in this regard is heard in the Tax Dispute Resolution Board. In this research, which has been done in a descriptive-analytical way, the question has been answered that, based on legal principles and tax regulations, the claim of error or mistake in the declaration is heard by the tax dispute resolution board or not? The findings of this research are based on the fact that the contents of the declaration after the expiration of its one-month deadline based on the tax law, are considered as a legal assumption and therefore cannot be changed. In addition to the opposite concept and the priority of the mentioned note, various articles of the Taxes Law confirm this point of view https://jls.shirazu.ac.ir/article_8208.html IntroductionEcocide refers to deliberate, widespread, and systematic environmental destruction that has undeniable detrimental impacts on ecosystems and human communities, particularly Indigenous populations. This phenomenon carries irreparable consequences for vulnerable peoples whose identity, culture, and livelihood are intrinsically linked to nature. As environmental crises—including climate change and natural resource depletion—continue to escalate, the necessity of addressing legal responsibilities regarding ecocide becomes increasingly urgent. Transitional justice mechanisms can serve as effective instruments for responding to intentional and large-scale environmental degradation. These mechanisms not only contribute to the rehabilitation of damaged ecosystems but also protect communities that have lived in direct connection with nature, especially vulnerable populations. This research aims to examine the application of transitional justice mechanisms in response to ecocide and the compensation for resulting damages, with particular emphasis on protecting vulnerable communities. MethodThis research employs a descriptive-analytical approach, utilizing library resources and international documents. Initially, the theoretical and conceptual foundations of ecocide and transitional justice are examined, followed by an analysis of the five transitional justice mechanisms—truth-seeking, justice, reparations, reconciliation, and guarantees of non-recurrence—in relation to addressing ecocide. Additionally, successful applications of these mechanisms in international cases—such as the Deepwater Horizon oil spill disaster, the Chevron case in Ecuador, and the Mariana mine disaster in Brazil—are studied. To elucidate the relationship between ecocide and the social death of Indigenous communities, case studies including the James Bay hydroelectric project in Canada, the Maralinga nuclear tests in Australia, and the destruction of the Amazon rainforests in Brazil are investigated. FindingsResearch findings indicate that the five transitional justice mechanisms, in combating ecocide, function not in isolation but in dynamic and complementary interaction. Each mechanism plays a distinct yet complementary role in the process of rebuilding and rehabilitating vulnerable communities. Truth-seeking, through the documentation and narration of environmental damages, establishes the groundwork for implementing justice. Justice, by establishing accountability, defines the legal framework necessary for compensation. Reparations, by remedying damages inflicted upon ecosystems, serve as prerequisites for sustainable reconciliation. Reconciliation, by rebuilding the damaged human–nature relationship, provides the foundation for structural changes. Guarantees of non-recurrence, through institutional reform, ensure the sustainability of achievements from the other pillars.Furthermore, the research identifies three fundamental challenges in applying transitional justice mechanisms to the domain of ecocide: the absence of a coherent legal framework, the lack of coordination between national and international mechanisms, and the marginalization of local communities and Indigenous knowledge. In response to these challenges, solutions such as developing an international framework for defining and criminalizing ecocide, establishing a specialized international environmental court, designing hybrid environmental tribunals, and implementing participatory truth-seeking systems are proposed.ConclusionThe analyses conducted in this study demonstrate that the concept of ecocide necessitates a fundamental revision of current legal and policy structures. Transitional justice, with its five mechanisms, can provide an appropriate and efficient framework for addressing this challenge. The integration of Indigenous knowledge with modern legal systems and the active participation of vulnerable communities in all decision-making stages are key elements of this approach. Additionally, coordination between national and international levels is essential for confronting the transboundary nature of environmental degradation. International experiences indicate the feasibility of this approach; however, its full realization requires redefining concepts such as victim, responsibility, and compensation in the environmental domain. In this redefinition, the environment must be recognized as an entity with inherent rights, and future generations must be incorporated into calculations of justice. Environmental transitional justice can facilitate the transition from a state of passivity to active participation in environmental protection by strengthening communities' sense of agency. This path not only leads to the remediation of past damages but also establishes a novel model of sustainable coexistence between humans and nature. https://jls.shirazu.ac.ir/article_8196.html International human rights standards owe much to the universal demand for the fuller realization of political and civil rights, reinforcing key concepts such as dignity, equality, freedom, and other fundamental human values. Examining the adoption process of pivotal instruments like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Convention Against Torture, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and national legislative and sub-legislative frameworks raises a critical question: Have these documents and regulations—particularly in areas such as prisoners' rights—been formulated in a gender-sensitive manner or in universally applicable terms? Since the foundational premise of human rights discourse encompasses all human beings, regardless of gender, it must address the needs of both men and women through an equity-driven approach, proposing gender-specific mechanisms to claim transformative progress. This analytical, document-based study seeks to answer how the evolution of prisoners' rights has been shaped by gender considerations and how the most essential human rights guarantees for female prisoners are evaluated under international instruments and relevant domestic regulations .The findings reveal that human rights documents pertaining to prisoners have shifted from a gender-neutral, universal stance to gender-differentiated standards. Notably, the "Bangkok Rules" emphasize the necessity of enhanced or reinforced protections for incarcerated women. https://jls.shirazu.ac.ir/article_8188.html IntroductionInternational law, unlike domestic legal systems, operates within a decentralized framework and, in particular, lacks a central legislative or executive body. In this international society, states interact with each other on a horizontal basis, one of the most significant consequences of which is the principle of sovereign equality—meaning that no state is subject to a higher authority from which it derives its legitimacy. Within this specific context, rule-making power is dispersed among members of the international community, and the formation of international norms occurs in a decentralized manner, drawing upon multiple and variable sources of international law. This institutional gap results in a pattern of norm production in which the state is both the creator and the primary addressee of rules. Consequently, unilateral acts of states can also carry important legal effects.Despite the legal significance of this phenomenon, there is no single, universally accepted definition of unilateral acts. Efforts to formalize unilateral acts as binding legal obligations in international law have faced obstacles. The absence of a precise definition in international law and the International Court of Justice’s (ICJ) reluctance to provide a clear definition of their nature have compounded the conceptual challenges. This study seeks to examine the nature and legal criteria for identifying unilateral acts of states in light of ICJ jurisprudence. A distinctive feature of this research is its focus on the evolution of unilateral acts as reflected in the Court’s recent decisions over the past decade. The ultimate aim is to clarify the ICJ’s approach to the nature and elements of unilateral acts and to highlight divergences in the Court’s practice in this area.  MethodsThis study adopts a descriptive-analytical methodology to examine the nature and legal criteria for identifying unilateral acts of states, with a focus on the jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice. It begins with a historical review of the emergence of unilateral acts, referring to the Monroe Doctrine as an early example. The core of the research involves an in-depth analysis of the development of the concept of unilateral acts in ICJ decisions, including an assessment of the Court’s criteria for determining their binding nature, the consistency of such criteria, and the challenges arising from the Court’s reasoning.  FindingsIn the post-United Nations era, unilateral acts of states came to be recognized as independent legal instruments, with the French Nuclear Tests cases marking the peak of this development. In these cases, the ICJ sought to define the principles governing the binding nature of such acts and to reduce legal ambiguities. The Court established that even oral statements by senior state officials could, under certain conditions, create obligations independently of the consent of other states. These obligations were deemed erga omnes, with two core elements: the intent to create a legal obligation and the independence of the act from external factors.However, the ICJ’s approach in the Nuclear Tests cases faced serious criticism—particularly the difficulty of identifying the actual intent of a state and the lack of objective criteria for doing so, as well as uncertainty in determining whether an act was truly independent. In the past decade, the ICJ has adopted a more structured and objective approach, requiring that intent be established solely based on the text, surrounding circumstances, and corroborating evidence. Moreover, in reassessing the principle of independence, the Court has made the effectiveness of unilateral acts conditional upon a degree of inter-state acknowledgment or acceptance, thus fundamentally challenging the concept of absolute independence. ConclusionsRecent ICJ judgments have made the legal effect of unilateral acts contingent on external and measurable factors. Today, a state’s mere will or intent is generally insufficient to create an international obligation; in practice, at least implicit confirmation from other international actors is often required for such acts to be legally recognized. Contemporary jurisprudence shows that although unilateral acts can theoretically be a source of legal obligations, their practical effectiveness depends on specific conditions and objective factors. This reality underscores the need for ongoing doctrinal and practical reassessment to establish clearer objective criteria, reduce theoretical ambiguities, and secure the place of unilateral acts within the international legal system. https://jls.shirazu.ac.ir/article_8339.html With the rapid advancement of technology and the expansion of cyber capabilities,data has emerged as a critical and indispensable asset—one upon which the functioning of essential societal infrastructures heavily depends.Consequently,the question of how data ought to be identified and protected has become one of the most contentious issues in contemporary legal discourse.Nevertheless,the absence of explicit treaty provisions and customary international law applicable to the cyber domain is evident.Most existing frameworks,which derive from the principles of distinction,proportionality,and precaution—principles designed to afford general protection to civilians and civilian objects in armed conflict—are limited in application to operations that fall within the definition of an “attack” under the concept articulated in international humanitarian law.Moreover,Article 52 of Additional Protocol I to the four Geneva Conventions expressly prohibits attacks against civilian objects.This gives rise to a fundamental question:under what conditions can data,notwithstanding its intangible nature,be recognized as an “object” entitled to protection under international humanitarian law?The authors contend that, given the vital role of data in ensuring the functionality of critical infrastructure and its implications for public security,data may,under specific circumstances,qualify as a civilian object and thereby enjoy the protections afforded by international humanitarian law.Accordingly,this article, employing a descriptive–analytical method and drawing upon library-based sources,seeks to examine the possibility of recognizing data as a civilian object under the rules and norms of international humanitarian law,through the analysis of legal instruments,state practice,and doctrinal perspectives.The findings suggest that the failure to recognize data as an object would result in a significant protection gap. https://jls.shirazu.ac.ir/article_8146.html IntroductionAlthough the private property of individuals is respected, in cases where a property possesses the characteristic of belonging to the public culture, the government may limit or even expropriate the private ownership of individuals. One instance of such property is the personal property of national luminaries (Mafakher). Luminaries (Mafakher) are those who have used their talent to create unique phenomena or perform admirable acts that shape the norms and values of society, or whose lifestyle, in the view of society, represents the attainment of perfection of a value. Luminaries of any society, due to their influence in various scientific, social, political, cultural, religious, and other fields, are considered a part of the culture and national identity of each country; consequently, their personal property can also be registered as national heritage under certain conditions. In the conflict between the private property of luminaries over their personal belongings and the public right to culture, this article seeks to explain the grounds and criteria for identifying the property of luminaries as national heritage and its legal requirements. MethodThe present article has been compiled using a descriptive-analytical method and by studying upstream documents and laws and regulations in the field of cultural heritage. Data collection has been carried out using library resources and reliable internet databases. In this research, by analyzing existing laws and regulations, the conflict between private property and the public right to culture in identifying the personal property of luminaries as national heritage has been examined, and its effect on the limitations imposed on the owner by the government, as well as compensation for damages inflicted upon this property, has been studied. FindingsThe personal property of luminaries can be registered as national heritage if it possesses one of the following characteristics: 1) It is the "cause of fame" of the luminary or "related to their fame" and in a way "recounts the influence of the luminary on the culture of a society"; 2) It has a spatial connection and dependency with the luminary; 3) It was gifted to them by virtue of the luminary's personality. The property of luminaries that is registered as national heritage is distinguished from other national heritage in terms of the conflict between private property and the right to culture, its connection to the right of publicity and personality of the luminary (rather than the inherent values of the property itself), and the necessity of preserving the private property of luminaries (except in exceptional cases); therefore, the system governing the identification and registration of this property must be different from other national heritage. In the authors' opinion, government intervention regarding the property of luminaries is in principle exceptional and limited to cases where this property is considered part of the public cultural values of the country and is at risk of destruction. Therefore, a voluntary registration system preserving the personal ownership of luminaries can assist in the protection of this property. The scope of government supervision over this property is very limited during the lifetime of the luminary and increases after their death in order to preserve the registered national heritage, unless the heirs protect these heritage items in a proper manner. The liability of the government may arise in two scenarios: "negligence in policy-making and legislation" or "negligence in performing legal duties and supervising national heritage." Furthermore, the fault of the owner (the luminary) himself in protecting the registered property, if it leads to damage to the spiritual and cultural values of the heritage, can also give rise to civil liability. ConclusionIn registering the property of luminaries as national heritage, we are faced with a conflict between two rights: on one hand, the proprietary right of luminaries over their property is respected, and on the other hand, the right of the public community to this property, which encompasses a part of a country's culture, is undeniable. Considering the distinguishing aspects between the registered property of luminaries and other national heritage, it seems that the registration of luminaries' property as national heritage should be voluntary and, during their lifetime, upon the request of the luminary, and after death, by testament or upon the request of the heirs. The registration of luminaries' property does not cause it to leave their ownership, and during their lifetime, the administration of this property rests with the luminary himself, and after death, if the heirs take appropriate action to preserve and maintain this property, the government has no right to intervene. Therefore, it can be said that the scope of government intervention for registering and preserving the personal property of luminaries is more limited than its intervention regarding other national heritage. In the event of damage to a national heritage, the owner, in terms of material and economic aspects (proprietary rights), and the government or the prosecutor, in terms of public aspects (the public right of the people to culture), may claim compensation for the damages incurred.  https://jls.shirazu.ac.ir/article_8358.html With the expansion of the digital space and the increasing role of the internet in facilitating communication and content dissemination, terrorist groups are increasingly using this platform to promote, recruit, and organize their activities. In response to these threats, the European Union has adopted Regulation 784/2021, which aims to effectively address the spread of terrorist content online. According to this regulation, hosting service providers are required to remove terrorist content from their platforms within a short period (maximum one hour), creating an unprecedented transnational legal framework to control the digital space. Therefore, the aim of this article is to explore the human rights challenges arising from the implementation of Regulation 784/2021 in the context of online terrorist content. The article seeks to answer the question, “To what extent is the EU's anti-terrorism legal regime capable of addressing the spread of terrorist content online while respecting human rights?” Using a descriptive-analytical method, the article analyzes these challenges and emphasizes that the findings indicate that while Regulation 784/2021 is an important step in combating online terrorism, it is essential to strike a balance between public security and fundamental individual rights in order to prevent unjustified violations of personal rights. https://jls.shirazu.ac.ir/article_8285.html IntroductionThe growing complexity of social, economic, and industrial relations in recent decades has presented judicial systems with multiple challenges in finding the truth and issuing a fair decision. One of the most important mechanisms in this regard is the institution of the Friend of the Court or Amicus Curiae, which originated in Roman law and later developed in common law and other legal systems. This institution enables courts to adopt more comprehensive and reality-based decisions by benefiting from the expert or social perspectives of third parties. In Iran, although the institution has not been explicitly provided for in legislation, certain provisions—particularly Article 50 of the Compulsory Insurance Act of 2016—indicate its implicit acceptance. Since the insurance industry plays a crucial role in managing damages and preventing frivolous claims, the key question arises: can insurers, in certain circumstances, be regarded as a Friend of the Court? The present study aims to examine this possibility and evaluate the conditions under which insurers may perform such a role.MethodsThis study adopts a descriptive–analytical approach, relying mainly on library sources, national legislation, and both domestic and comparative legal practices. First, the concept and historical development of the Amicus Curiae in Roman law, common law, and international law are analyzed, and its features in both traditional and modern senses are clarified. Subsequently, the role of insurers in Iranian litigation is examined, with a particular focus on Article 50 of the Compulsory Insurance Act of 2016, to assess the degree of compatibility between their supervisory function and the characteristics of the Amicus Curiae. FindingsThe findings reveal that insurers may occupy two distinct positions in litigation. First, as formal parties to the dispute, they have direct interests and the capacity for substantive defense, thereby losing the neutrality necessary for the role of a Friend of the Court. Second, as litigation observers and controllers of the proceedings, as permitted by Article 50 of the Compulsory Insurance Act, they can monitor the process, access case documents, and present technical opinions to the court without officially becoming parties to the dispute. This level of intervention, although driven by financial motives, has positive effects in terms of truth discovery, preventing frivolous claims, reducing insurance fraud, and improving the quality of judicial decisions.Comparative study demonstrates that in various legal systems, the concept of Friend of the Court has evolved from a purely advisory role into a broader institution, whereby even stakeholders may assist the court in the pursuit of justice. Within this framework, there are significant similarities between the supervisory role of insurers in Iranian litigation and the modern conception of the Amicus Curiae. Among the most notable similarities are assisting in the discovery of truth, reducing the judicial caseload, and indirectly influencing the outcome of cases. Nonetheless, challenges remain, including the insurer’s economic interests, the risk of shifting from observer to formal party, and the statutory limitations that restrict their role mainly to traffic accident cases. ConclusionThe study demonstrates that insurers cannot be equated with the traditional Friend of the Court, since the inherent neutrality of the institution conflicts with insurers’ private interests. However, in the broader and modern sense, insurers may be regarded as Friends of the Court, provided that their role remains limited to supervision and expert consultation and does not extend to formal participation in disputes. Such a role can promote judicial fairness, prevent contradictory judgments, and reduce unfounded claims. Accordingly, reforms in legislation and judicial practice are necessary to define the exact scope of insurers’ authority and to formalize their supervisory role, thereby enabling the insurance industry to contribute effectively to Iranian litigation.Overall, attention to this potential not only enhances consistency with international experiences but also strengthens public trust in the judiciary and improves its efficiency in dispute resolution. https://jls.shirazu.ac.ir/article_8411.html The Productive Credit Certificates (PCCs), known as “GAM” in Persian, were introduced in 2019 by a resolution of the Money and Credit Council to expand financing instruments for the production supply chain. These certificates are issued against a real and existing debt owed by the debtor to the applicant, with a financial institution acting as both agent and guarantor, undertaking payment at maturity. PCCs can be held until maturity, transferred along the supply chain, or traded on the capital market by the beneficiary. This study examines the legal nature of PCCs and the obligations of the parties involved, using a descriptive-analytical method. The Central Bank of Iran’s standardized “Agency and Guarantee Agreement” relies on Article 10 of the Civil Code; however, the concept of guarantee within this framework remains ambiguous, and existing interpretations fail to address its complexities. By analyzing the Central Bank’s directives and underlying legal principles, this paper argues that the notion of a “commitment to payment” better explains the legal nature of this guarantee type. It also justifies off-balance-sheet registration of PCCs and the principle that defenses arising from underlying contractual relationships cannot be raised against the holder. Determining the legal nature allows precise identification of governing rules, including registration of issuance and transfer in designated systems, the obligor’s payment obligation at maturity, compliance with statutory transfer restrictions, and mandatory cash sale of certificates. These findings resolve substantive and procedural ambiguities and strengthen legal and regulatory frameworks, thereby enhancing transparency and predictability in practice. https://jls.shirazu.ac.ir/article_8178.html IntroductionPositive law is a human construct that emerges from within society and is employed to regulate social relations. The deep connections between law and society raise questions about the practical effects of law on society. These effects aim to achieve the law's intended goals and fulfill its expected functions. One of the perceived objectives of the law is to realize social change and to transform longstanding customs in a given society. In fact, one of the fundamental questions of the sociology of law is to determine the relationship between concepts of law and social change, to reveal the active or passive role of law in these transformations. Indeed, viewing law as an active element towards changing the traditional customs of society creates the expectation that merely by legislating, society can be shaped differently Conversely, another viewpoint. Conversely, another viewpoint considers law as a passive element that is shaped by other social components, and any expectation of significant impact from it diminishes. In this context, the primary question of the current research is to reveal the relationship between law and social change from the perspectives proposed in the sociology of law. In this context, the study examines the granting of child custody rights to women under the Family Protection Law and its amendments in 1975. The selected theoretical framework of the research is also analyzed within this context. The reason for focusing on this particular law is its progressive nature relative to the society of that time and its explicit aim of bringing about social change. MethodThe present study, using a descriptive-analytical method and library research, examines the theories of legal sociology scholars regarding the relationship between law and social change. FindingsIn general, there are three theories regarding the relationship between law and social change. The initial perspective views law as a tool for social engineering, through which a planned social transformation can be shaped. The second theory holds that law is a dependent and marginal variable that emerges from the beliefs and general ideologies of society. A third viewpoint is also noteworthy and according to it, law plays a dual role in relation to the phenomenon of social change. While it can actively initiate changes, it also sometimes has no choice but to follow the changes brought about by other social factors. In essence, this view serves as a bridge between the first two theories, seeking a moderate and balanced approach between them. From the author's perspective, this view is closer to reality compared to the previous theories. ConclusionsLaw and social change are among the fundamental concepts in the sociology of law, and the relationship between them has raised many questions regarding the nature of their interaction. The connection between these two concepts has given rise to three major theories. The first theory, emphasizing the agency of law in initiating social change, views it as a powerful tool for driving planned transformations. In contrast, the second theory considers law a passive element whose role is limited to following the transformations brought about by other social components. From the author’s perspective, neither of these two theories fully succeeds in accurately describing the complex relationship between law and social change. Each, by overly emphasizing one aspect, fails to provide a comprehensive portrayal of the law’s role. This shortcoming gives rise to a third theory, which underscores the dual role of law—both in advancing desired social changes and in responding to existing traditions. In other words, proponents of this view regard law as an effective instrument for social change but reject its use without consideration for long-standing traditions and values. From the author’s standpoint, this third approach offers a more realistic interpretation of the relationship between law and social change. Its strength lies in its comprehensive nature and its ability to establish a bridge between the two previous theories, allowing for a more balanced and realistic analysis. A case study of the impact of granting child custody rights to women under the 1967 Family Protection Law and its subsequent amendments also supports the research findings. https://jls.shirazu.ac.ir/article_8434.html With the expansion of digital commercial platforms and their increasing role in the emergence of new forms of cybercrime, assessing and revising Iran's criminal policy toward this phenomenon has become an undeniable necessity. This study, using a descriptive-analytical method, examines Iran's legislative criminal policy regarding criminal activities conducted through information technology platforms. In this regard, the most relevant legal regulations—including the Computer Crimes Act, the Electronic Commerce Act, the Crime Prevention Act, and other specific laws—are analyzed. The findings indicate that Iran’s criminal policy in response to this type of criminality lacks coherence, modernity, and effectiveness. Key shortcomings include weak risk identification, absence of intelligent preventive measures, lack of regulations governing the criminal liability of platforms, and institutional fragmentation. Consequently, the study emphasizes the need to design an effective preventive criminal policy focused on soft regulation, platform accountability, the use of modern technologies, and public participation in order to prevent the proliferation of platform-based crime and the erosion of public trust. https://jls.shirazu.ac.ir/article_8179.html IntroductionComputer-related forgery is a modern crime and a challenging topic in criminal law. The conditions for establishing this offense, particularly the requirement of "admissibility" as mentioned by the legislator in Clause “A” of Article 734 of the Islamic Penal Code, are ambiguous. Legal scholars have proposed various interpretations of what constitutes "admissible" data. These include data with evidentiary value, legal significance, judicial weight, or admissibility in legal proceedings—whether in defense or claim. Still, some of the provided definitions are unclear and need further explanation, which can lead to different interpretations when applying them to real-world cases. This research aims to examine the concept and conditions for establishing computer-related forgery and to clarify the boundaries between this offense and other similar cases involving data creation or alteration. Method An analytical-descriptive approach was employed in this research. By reviewing related legislation including the Islamic Penal Code, the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Electronic Commerce Act, and the “Regulations on Collection and Admissibility of Electronic Evidence” enacted in 2014, legal concepts such as admissibility, undeniability, validity, and data integrity were analyzed. Additionally, scholars' opinions and practical examples were examined to enhance the understanding of computer-related forgery. FindingsArticle 685 of the Code of Criminal Procedure refers to three concepts related to data admissibility: “undeniability”, “validity,” and “integrity.” Considering these terms, which are also used in various parts of the Regulations on Electronic Evidence Collection and Admissibility(enacted 2014), and by taking into account the Electronic Commerce Act, the conditions for admissible data can be linked to the concept of “secure data messages” under the Electronic Commerce Act. According to Article 14 of the Electronic Commerce Act, data messages created and maintained securely are considered valid documents and “admissible” in judicial and legal authorities. Article 15 states that reliable data messages, electronic records, and electronic signatures are undeniable; one can only claim that the "message data" is forged or prove that the "message data" has been legally invalidated in some way. In other words, firstly, reliable message data is admissible according to the stipulation of Article 14 of the Electronic Commerce Law, and secondly, since reliable message data is undeniable according to Article 15 of the Electronic Commerce Law, and one of the characteristics of admissible data is that it is undeniable, it can be seen that admissible data is the same as reliable message data.If we reject the idea that admissible data must meet the criteria of a secure data message, then implementation of security protocols within the software or system where the forgery occurs becomes crucial. In this context, it is essential that the creation or alteration of the data can be reasonably attributed to someone other than the actual perpetrator. Legal value, the potential to mislead ordinary individuals, and actual or potential harm are additional conditions of computer-related forgery, deriving from the notions of admissibility, forgery concepts, traditional forgery conditions, and legal principles. The perpetrator’s intent to present the forged data to others or authorities as original, is essential for establishing the crime. ConclusionTo reduce existing ambiguities, it is necessary to revise the law and clearly define the conditions for establishing the crime of computer-related forgery. In any case, Admissible data can be regarded as equivalent to reliable data messages, or at least the implementation of security measures—such as proper authentication—should be regarded as a requirement of computer-related forgery. According to the mentioned conditions, actions like creating a receipt using receipt-generating software, producing and altering an image of a certificate, merely creating a social media account under someone else’s name and details, and sending messages without meaningful or legal content from another person’s SIM card cannot be classified as computer-related forgery. In contrast, cases such as intruding into secure banking systems and creating payment slips in the system's records, sending a message with a SIM card belonging to someone else that has legal value can be subject to the crime of computer-related forgery. https://jls.shirazu.ac.ir/article_8436.html Environmental disasters have increasingly emerged as one of the major global challenges, and this has led to a great deal of attention being paid to the impacts and consequences of these disasters beyond national borders. In the current era, understanding and analyzing the relationship between the environment and international law has gained particular importance, especially in the context of third-party state intervention in environmental crises and disasters. Such a situation creates a need to examine the conditions for legal intervention by states in response to environmental disasters. The aim of the present study, which is expressed in a descriptive-analytical manner, is to examine the conditions and legal frameworks in which states can intervene in response to environmental disasters in another country without the use of force. Given the various aspects of environmental disasters and their transnational impacts, the concept of common concern of humanity and the principle of do no harm are examined as key tools for addressing these challenges. The findings of the study show that the principle of do no harm and the concept of common concern of humanity can actually lead to a reduction in the scope of exclusive jurisdiction of states. The reduction of jurisdiction, especially in situations where environmental disasters have transboundary and threatening consequences, allows states to intervene in response to these situations. Based on these results, the actions of states in response to environmental disasters can be legitimate under the principle of non-intervention and will be justified not only from moral but also. https://jls.shirazu.ac.ir/article_8149.html IntroductionInflation, as a persistent yet unwelcome feature of Iranian society, has had significant consequences in the legal domain. Indeed, considering that the majority of existing legal institutions were developed within a low-inflation environment, it becomes evident that these institutions fail to perform their intended and anticipated functions under inflationary conditions. In the realm of civil liability—which was designed to safeguard the rights of injured parties—high inflation has resulted in the diminution or even nullification of compensatory mechanisms. Since most remedies in this area involve monetary damages, inflation erodes their real value. Furthermore, the variation in asset prices from the time of harm occurrence to the issuance of a judgment creates substantial challenges in the assessment of damages.Moreover, regarding future damages, inflation increases living costs, severely undermining the effectiveness of compensation. Accordingly, the principal question of this article is: how can the adverse impact of inflation on monetary compensation in civil liability be mitigated, through a novel and coherent legal analysis? MethodsThis study employs a descriptive-analytical approach, drawing on library-based research. Initially, it endeavors to study and compare the existing approaches to three key areas—damage assessment, reduction in the value of awarded compensation, and future damages—both within Iranian law and in comparative legal systems. Subsequently, through the critical evaluation of prevailing analyses, and by employing a rigorous legal methodology together with insights drawn from comparative law, this research aims to develop new analyses that would mitigate the detrimental effects of inflation on monetary compensation in civil liability and align existing legal institutions more closely with their fundamental philosophy. FindingsFollowing these steps, it is concluded that in the domain of damage assessment, the proper approach under Iranian law is to consider the date of trial as the valid point for damage valuation. In other words, among the possible temporal references—the date of injury, the date of trial, and the date of judgment enforcement—the date of injury is subject to criticism, both due to its inconsistency with the aims and philosophy of civil liability and its lack of conformity with Iranian legal sources. On the other hand, although considering the date of judgment enforcement (except in specific cases such as property loss due to criminal acts, where a special rule applies) would better align with the objectives of civil liability, it lacks sufficient support in Iranian legal doctrine.Furthermore, regarding the reduction in the value of monetary compensation, the study establishes that although the utilization of the late payment damages mechanism under Article 522 of the Civil Procedure Act is permissible in relation to debts arising from civil liability claims, a more effective compensation for the decrease in value can be achieved by exercising the broad judicial discretion explicitly granted to judges under Article 3 of the Civil Liability Act. Finally, in relation to the compensation of future damages, the study concludes that in order to account for the increase in the cost of living resulting from inflation, the most effective solution is the application of periodic payments based on Articles 3 and 4 of the Civil Liability Act, utilizing appropriate adjustment indices to maintain the real value of the sums awarded over time. Conclusions From the foregoing analysis, it is clear that examining the effects of inflation on monetary compensation in civil liability—particularly through a comparative lens—can lead to solutions that mitigate, as far as possible, the negative impact of inflation on legal relations, even when approaching law descriptively (as it is) rather than normatively (as it ought to be). Indeed, by adopting the date of judgment as the valid point for damage valuation, employing legal mechanisms such as late payment damages under Article 522 of the Civil Procedure Act, utilizing the broad judicial discretion granted under Article 3 of the Civil Liability Act to adjust reduction in the value of monetary compensation until enforcement, and finally resorting to indexed annuities (as authorized by Articles 3 and 4 of the Civil Liability Act), it becomes possible to achieve the desired objective: upholding the underlying principles of civil liability while adhering to a sound methodology of legal interpretation.  https://jls.shirazu.ac.ir/article_8475.html Today, artificial intelligence (AI) recommender systems are recognized as key tools in e-commerce, digital content delivery, and social media platforms. These systems analyze user behavior and process personal data to provide personalized recommendations, enhancing user experience while increasing organizational profitability. However, the widespread use of AI in recommendation processes raises significant legal and ethical challenges, highlighting the need for accountability and compliance with data protection regulations, particularly the GDPR. Among these challenges is the principle of algorithmic discrimination, which emphasizes the prevention of unfair and biased decisions in automated systems. This study, employing a descriptive-analytical method, examines the implications of data collection and analysis, behavioral profiling, and precise targeting of recommendations, analyzing issues such as privacy violations and insufficient transparency in automated decisions. The aim of the article is to propose legal solutions and accountability strategies to enhance transparency, fairness, and protection of users’ rights in AI recommender systems...... .. https://jls.shirazu.ac.ir/article_8297.html IntroductionArbitration is recognized as an effective tool for dispute resolution, offering a flexible and efficient alternative to judicial litigation. One of its primary strengths lies in granting the parties autonomy to determine procedural rules, select arbitrators, and design the framework governing evidence-taking. However, party autonomy also entails inherent limitations—particularly regarding access to evidence held by third parties, i.e., individuals or entities that are not party to the arbitration agreement but may possess crucial documents or information. Obtaining such evidence, especially in complex commercial arbitrations, has become a significant challenge.This article seeks to comprehensively examine the scope of an arbitral tribunal’s power to obtain evidence from third parties despite multiple theoretical and practical constraints. In doing so, it explores the limits and obstacles of arbitral jurisdiction, the potential role of national courts, and the interaction between different legal systems and international soft law instruments. The primary focus is on the legal systems of Iran, the United States, and the United Kingdom as leading jurisdictions in arbitration, as well as the 2020 IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence in International Arbitration. Methods The research method is descriptive-analytical, grounded in comparative analysis of statutory frameworks, case law, model laws, and doctrinal sources. The study reviews Iran’s legal position regarding the possibility of obtaining evidence from third parties, contrasting it with jurisdictions that explicitly provide mechanisms for this purpose, such as the United States and the United Kingdom. Furthermore, it examines the practical application of the IBA Rules in regulating evidence-taking from third parties, emphasizing their status as globally accepted but non-binding standards. FindingsThe findings reveal that Iran’s current stance on evidence-taking from third parties reflects reluctance to recognize such mechanisms. Nonetheless, the draft Comprehensive Arbitration Bill—which is yet to be enacted—expressly contemplates this possibility. In the United States, arbitral authority to compel third parties to produce evidence has been narrowly construed by courts. Under Section 7 of the Federal Arbitration Act, arbitrators may summon third parties only for testimony and document production at formal hearings, not during pre-hearing discovery. This restrictive interpretation has been affirmed in landmark decisions such as Comsat Corp. v. National Science Foundation (1999) and Hay Group v. EBS Acquisition (2004). However, Section 1782 of the U.S. Judicial Code authorizes federal courts to assist foreign or international tribunals in evidence-gathering, though its applicability to private arbitrations has been contentious, particularly following the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in ZF Automotive v. Luxshare (2022).By contrast, UK law offers a broader avenue for judicial assistance. Sections 43 and 44 of the Arbitration Act 1996 empower English courts, upon request of the tribunal or with party agreement, to order third parties to produce evidence, provided criteria such as specificity, relevance, and tribunal approval are met. This judicial authority is territorially limited to England and Wales. In the landmark A v. C (2020) decision, however, the English Court of Appeal held that courts may grant such assistance even in arbitrations seated outside England, provided the third party is within its jurisdiction.Alongside these national approaches, the IBA Rules on the Taking of Evidence provide a balanced framework for managing evidence-taking from third parties. Article 3(9) permits parties to request that the tribunal itself seek documents from third parties or authorize them to do so. Nevertheless, the enforcement of such requests ultimately depends on the cooperation of national courts and the enforceability of measures under the law of the arbitral seat. The Rules also introduce safeguards—including relevance, materiality, proportionality, efficiency, and avoidance of undue burden—to prevent misuse of the evidence-taking process. ConclusionAlthough party autonomy in arbitration is constrained by various limitations on tribunals’ authority to obtain evidence from third parties, rigid adherence to these restrictions risks undermining the truth-seeking function of arbitration. Accordingly, evidence-taking from third parties, when pursued through national and international rules with the assistance of national courts and subject to appropriate safeguards, is achievable to some extent. This approach not only enhances the efficiency of arbitration but also strengthens its ability to achieve truth and deliver justice.  https://jls.shirazu.ac.ir/article_8576.html What is clear is that, given the transnational nature of arbitration, the legal rules and regulations in the field of international commercial arbitration must be regulated in a way. However, there seems to be an obvious conflict in Article 31 of the new Arbitration Rules of the Iranian Chamber of Commerce. In this regard, in the case of “no choice of applicable law on contract”, Note 2 of Article 31 of the new Arbitration Rules of the Iranian Chamber of Commerce, contrary to Note 1 thereof, obliges arbitrators to apply “legal” measures that they have deemed appropriate based on the “rules of conflict of laws”. The absence of the phrase "legal rules", which is used in Note 1 of the aforementioned article next to the word "law" in these regulations, basically means that in the event of failure to select the applicable law on contract, arbitrators are not allowed to administer the contract based on Lex Mercatoria as a clear example of transnational legal rules, whereas, contrary to the position of the Iranian legislator, at the international level, case law in international commercial arbitration, Therefore, in response to the research question of why direct reliance on Lex Mercatoria is not permitted in the absence of a choice of applicable law on contract, the findings of this research show that in such a situation, Lex Mercatoria can be considered the most appropriate option for governing international commercial contracts. https://jls.shirazu.ac.ir/article_8191.html IntroductionIn modern societies, legislation can no longer be understood merely as a technical, procedural, or value-neutral enterprise. Law is not only an instrument for regulating social relations but also a reflection of the values, assumptions, and cultural beliefs of a given society. Consequently, law possesses semantic, ethical, and ideological dimensions. Contrary to the conventional view that conceives law as detached from ideology and grounded exclusively in objective rationality, this article argues that legislation devoid of an ideological foundation not only loses its normative legitimacy but also becomes a mechanism for reproducing hidden forms of domination and excluding marginalized social groups.Within this framework, ideology is not understood as a rigid system of dogmatic beliefs or political prejudices. Rather, it constitutes a normative framework through which society is interpreted, competing social interests are identified, and normative solutions are formulated. Drawing upon the theoretical contributions of scholars such as Louis Althusser, Pierre Bourdieu, and Jürgen Habermas, this study highlights the role of ideology in articulating social interests and facilitating democratic public deliberation. Accordingly, the central research question asks: How can ideology establish a meaningful, legitimate, and critically examinable relationship between diverse social interests and general legal norms, thereby providing the normative foundation for democratic and equitable legislation? Put differently, the article seeks to develop a model in which legislation is conceived not as the production of technical legal rules but as a participatory and ethical process embedded within an open and deliberative ideological framework. MethodsThis study adopts an analytical-critical approach to reconceptualize the legislative process beyond conventional legal doctrine through the lens of critical sociology and theories of power. Its conceptual framework draws upon the works of Jürgen Habermas (public deliberation), Pierre Bourdieu (the juridical field and symbolic violence), Louis Althusser (ideology as a mechanism for reproducing the social order), Antonio Gramsci (cultural hegemony), Christoph Möllers (the self-immunity of law), Nancy Fraser (recognition-based justice), and Michel Foucault (power/knowledge). The analysis employs key theoretical concepts—including ideological translation, the right to justification, symbolic violence, hegemonic translation, and structural silence—to demonstrate that legislative processes are, in practice, manifestations of ideological contestation rather than merely products of formal legal rationality. Through a systematic analysis of theoretical literature, illustrative examples, and core conceptual propositions, the article presents a coherent account of the active role of ideology in constructing a legitimate, inclusive, and adaptable legal order. FindingsThe primary finding of this study is that law is inherently ideological rather than ideologically neutral. Law is not simply a body of impartial rules designed to maintain social order; rather, it represents the translation of particular interests, narratives, and perspectives into universal legal concepts. Fundamental legal notions such as justice, order, security, equality, and the common good are transformed into legal language through ideological processes.From Bourdieu's perspective, law functions as a symbolic language through which the prevailing social order is institutionalized and reproduced. Likewise, Althusser conceptualizes law as part of the state's ideological apparatuses that legitimize and reproduce relations of domination. The article further argues that claims of legal neutrality frequently conceal conservative ideological assumptions. This tendency is particularly evident in societies characterized by entrenched gender, class, and ethnic inequalities, where the absence of an explicit and critically examined ideological framework results in the structural exclusion of marginalized experiences and perspectives.In this context, Rainer Forst's theory of the right to justification assumes particular significance. Law can be regarded as legitimate only when its normative foundations can be publicly justified through conditions of equal and inclusive deliberation—a requirement that cannot be fulfilled without a participatory ideological framework. The study also warns that within neoliberal governance, justice is frequently reduced to considerations of efficiency, accountability, and managerial performance. Such a development contributes to the technocratization of law while marginalizing its ethical, cultural, and social dimensions. Consequently, the experiences and claims of disadvantaged groups—including women, ethnic minorities, and lower socio-economic classes—can become part of legal discourse only when legal language is informed by an open, ethically grounded, and critically contestable ideological framework. ConclusionThis article concludes that legitimate and democratic legislation is possible only when it is grounded in a transparent, participatory, and rational ideological framework. The ideal model of legislation is one in which ideological assumptions are explicit and open to critical scrutiny, meaningful public participation is institutionalized throughout the legislative process, and the legal order remains continuously subject to reflection, revision, and reform. Accordingly, legislation without ideology is either normatively empty or inevitably becomes an instrument for reproducing concealed structures of domination. https://jls.shirazu.ac.ir/article_8577.html Debates about the effects of investment liberalization have intensified with the rapid growth of the international investment regime, in view of this, there is a fear that the investment protection regime, as a key driver of economic growth and development of countries, may undermine the sovereign right of the host state to regulate in the public interest, including sustainable development. The evolution of international investment arbitration law also shows that the fair and equitable treatment standard has become the main tool for foreign investors to file claims against host countries. Therefore, analyzing how the "fair and equitable treatment standard" and "sustainable development" interact and interact with each other plays a fundamental role in the conceptual foundation of this standard. The purpose of this research is to examine aspects of sustainable development as a criterion in interpreting the fair and equitable treatment standard in international investment arbitrations. The question that this research seeks to answer is how the analytical paradigm of arbitral tribunals regarding the interaction between the standard of fair and equitable treatment and sustainable development is formulated and applied.For thispurpose, an analysis of investment arbitration decisions related to sustainable development concerns and what was in line with the assessment of this issue has been carried out.This article concludes with the view that the breadth and at the same time flexibility of the conceptual structure of the fair and equitable treatment standard apparently provides sufficient opportunity to adopt a comprehensive approach in balancing the interests of investors and host countries. https://jls.shirazu.ac.ir/article_8206.html IntroductionEnsuring a balance between the rights of patent holders and economic actors, particularly third parties using registered technologies, is a fundamental goal of patent law in advanced systems, especially in the United States. A primary tool for achieving this balance is establishing an appropriate standard of proof for patent invalidity claims—one that prevents legal instability for inventors while allowing the removal of patents lacking legal requirements or genuine innovation. In the U.S., courts apply the "clear and convincing evidence" standard to prove patent invalidity. This standard is more stringent than the "preponderance of the evidence" standard and is designed to protect inventors and promote investment confidence in the technology market. However, critics argue that this standard may create significant barriers to challenging weak or non-innovative patents, with notable economic, competitive, and innovation-related consequences.Conversely, Iranian patent law lacks a clear statutory provision regarding the standard of proof in invalidity claims, highlighting the importance of examining foreign experiences and analyzing the effects of the U.S. standard. This study aims to analyze the role and impact of the "clear and convincing evidence" standard in the U.S. and compare it with the situation in Iran to suggest improvements for legal certainty and investment protection. MethodsThis research adopts a descriptive and analytical approach with comparative elements between the U.S. and Iranian legal systems. Initially, the fundamental concepts of evidentiary standards in U.S. law and their application in patent invalidity claims are examined, along with their legal, economic, and innovative implications. Using legal documents, landmark judicial decisions, and scholarly studies, the study evaluates the application of the "clear and convincing evidence" standard in the U.S. legal system. Subsequently, the situation in Iran is analyzed to identify legal and procedural gaps, as well as their consequences for legal stability and investment security. Finally, recommendations are proposed for improving the review process, clarifying the evidentiary standard, and enhancing the analytical role of judges while reducing overreliance on technical experts. FindingsThe findings indicate that the "clear and convincing evidence" standard in the United States plays a crucial role in protecting patent holders and ensuring that valid patents remain enforceable in the market. Nevertheless, this standard has, in certain cases, allowed weak or legally flawed patents to persist solely due to the difficulty of proving invalidity, preventing competitors from effectively challenging them. Administrative pathways, such as the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, which apply the less stringent "preponderance of the evidence" standard, offer a flexible, faster, and lower-cost mechanism for examining weak patents. In Iran, the absence of a defined standard has resulted in excessive reliance on technical experts, weakened judicial analytical assessment, and significant inconsistencies in court decisions. This situation reduces predictability, creates legal instability, undermines confidence among economic actors, and provides opportunities for abuse by certain parties, complicating and prolonging patent invalidation proceedings. Comparative analysis shows that adopting a structured evidentiary framework can both protect legitimate inventions and prevent weak patents from obstructing competition and innovation.  ConclusionsBased on these findings, the "clear and convincing evidence" standard in the United States, despite its challenges, is an effective tool for maintaining legal stability in patent rights and securing inventors’ investments. In contrast, the Iranian legal system requires substantial reform to establish a clear, predictable, and reliable standard of proof in patent invalidity claims. Legislators could draw on U.S. experiences to create a framework that ensures both the protection of patent holders and the possibility of invalidating improperly granted patents. Enhancing judges’ technical and legal expertise and reducing overreliance on experts can bring the review process closer to a coherent and balanced system. Moreover, implementing mechanisms such as issuing "golden patents" or improving administrative review procedures could increase investment security, maintain inventors’ rights, and strengthen the balance between patent holders and economic actors, while fostering healthy competition, innovation, and the development of a knowledge-based economy. This approach offers a model for harmonizing legal certainty, innovation promotion, and economic efficiency in patent systems. https://jls.shirazu.ac.ir/article_8579.html The transfer of the right of action is one of the manifestations of the transformation in the concept of property and the influence of financial rights in judicial relations, in such a way that the right to file a lawsuit is no longer merely a means of defending personal interests, , this institution remained as a limited and non-military exception and could only be interpreted in the form of transferor or succession of creditors. But with the revision of laws and the development of judicial analysis, the transfer of litigation rights was accepted as an independent institution; An institution that established a systematic balance between fundamental principles such as the freedom of contracts and the relativity of its effects. The basis of the acceptance of this institution in the French legislative policy was not merely the satisfaction of contracts, but its economic function in accelerating the collection of claims and reducing the delay of proceedings. In Iran's legal system, although an independent title for the transfer of litigation rights is not foreseen in the civil laws and procedure, The present study, with a comparative approach and descriptive-analytical method, while explaining the theoretical foundations of this institution in French law and its adaptation to Iranian law, shows that accepting the transfer of litigation rights is not only in conflict with the fundamental principles of contract law, but also strengthens judicial security, economic order and the realization of justice in fulfilling the rights of individuals. https://jls.shirazu.ac.ir/article_8598.html The issue of allocating repair and maintenance responsibilities for the leased property, particularly minor repairs, is a critical legal and practical challenge in tenancy relations, impacting economic stability and judicial predictability. This descriptive-analytical research examines the legal bases and instances of minor repair liability in Iranian law, French law, and Imami jurisprudence to clarify which party bears this responsibility under Iran's current legislation. Findings indicate that the Iranian Civil Code (Art. 486) and jurisprudential principles—such as the non-liability of the tenant for ordinary usage costs, the lessor's obligation for continuous provision of full usufruct, the fiduciary nature of the tenant’s possession, the rule of Man Lahul Ghurm Fa-Alayhil Ghurm, and the necessity of avoiding Gharar (risk/uncertainty)—all imply that, absent explicit agreement or specific custom, all repairs (major and minor), unless resulting from the tenant's transgression or negligence, are the lessor's responsibility. While the 1977 Landlord and Tenant Relations Act assigned minor repairs to the tenant, this rule is not generalizable to current relations governed by the 1997 Act and the Civil Code. In contrast, French law (the 1989 Law and the 1987 Decree), by precisely enumerating the instances, places minor repair responsibility on the tenant based on damages from normal use, routine maintenance, and practical considerations. This article argues that Iran's current judicial practice, which holds the tenant responsible for minor repairs, requires reconsideration and proposes solutions like the tenant performing repairs at the lessor's expense. This analysis will contribute to increased legal clarity and reduced disputes. https://jls.shirazu.ac.ir/article_8611.html Parallel litigation in international disputes occurs when identical or related cases are filed simultaneously in the courts of two or more countries. According to Article 971 of the 1928 Iranian Civil Code, Iranian courts are obligated not to decline jurisdiction even if the same case has already been filed and is being heard in a foreign court, and they must not relinquish their jurisdiction in favor of foreign courts. Studying the Iranian legislator’s approach to parallel litigation requires a thorough and comprehensive analysis of its various aspects. This study, employing a descriptive-analytical method, explains the definition of parallel litigation, its different types, conditions for occurrence, reasons, as well as its undesirable effects. Subsequently, the current stance of the Iranian legislator regarding parallel litigation is examined in detail. To that end, the paper highlights the consequences of this restrictive approach and the potential negative outcomes in practice, raising the important question of whether the legislator needs to reconsider and amend this approach. https://jls.shirazu.ac.ir/article_8318.html Introduction The Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan (the Taliban), as the current ruling regime in Afghanistan, has issued a series of legal texts and decrees across various domains, including criminal matters. The primary basis for adjudicating disputes and conducting criminal proceedings in this system is Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh), followed by the decrees issued by the Taliban’s supreme leader, which are treated as binding laws. In recent years, more than one hundred decrees and several legislative texts have been enacted under titles such as the “Law on Enjoining Good and Forbidding Evil,” the “Law on Hearing Complaints,” the “Judicial Procedures Charter,” and two judicial codes of conduct. The central question of this study is: What is the status of the principle of legality of crimes and punishments within the legal structure of the Islamic Emirate (Taliban)? The findings, derived through a  The Taliban’s Legislative Policy Toward the Principle of Legality … descriptive-analytical method, indicate that this principle has not been explicitly or systematically recognized in any of the Taliban’s legislative texts. However, in some instances, indirect acknowledgment of the principle can be inferred.   MethodThis study adopts a descriptive-analytical approach, based on library and documentary sources. The data consists of content analysis of laws and decrees issued by the Taliban during the leadership of Mullah Omar and Mullah Hibatullah. The research aims to assess the extent to which these legal instruments align with the principle of legality, drawing upon its theoretical foundations and the accepted standards of contemporary criminal law.     FindingsThe study reveals that the principle of legality of crimes and punishments—which had been explicitly enshrined in the Constitution and Penal Code during the era of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan—has lost its formal status following the Taliban’s return to power in 2021 (1400 AH). Under the legal framework of the Islamic Emirate, there exists no explicit or systematic legal provision affirming this principle. In only a few instances, limited implicit references can be inferred from vague expressions such as “against the law” or “without a court ruling.” The decrees issued by the Taliban leader and references to Islamic jurisprudential rulings have replaced formal statutory legislation. This is even though the principle of legality not only does not conflict with Islamic norms but is in fact supported by foundational jurisprudential rules such as “Qabḥ al-‘iqāb bilā bayān” (the reprehensibility of punishment without prior notice), “Dar’ al-ḥudūd bi-al-shubuhāt” (the avoidance of imposing ḥudūd punishments in cases of doubt), and the principle of permissibility (aṣālat al-ibāḥa). Nonetheless, the Taliban has not systematically utilized these jurisprudential capacities, and has instead adopted a dualistic and inconsistent approach. This reflects a clear deviation from the principle of legality, highlights the weakness of the legislative system, the lack of criminal clarity, and the resulting legal uncertainty. These issues stand in stark contrast to the principles of human rights, criminal justice, and separation of powers, and they pose serious challenges to the realization of fair trial standards. Volume 18, Issue 2, Summer 2026       ConclusionThe principle of legality of crimes and punishments—one of the foundational tenets of modern criminal law and a safeguard of individual liberties—does not hold a clear or institutionalized position within the legal framework of the Islamic Emirate (Taliban). Following the collapse of the Republic and the dismantling of conventional legislative structures, criminal decision-making has shifted primarily to Islamic jurisprudential sources and the decrees of the Taliban leadership. However, the official texts and issued decrees contain no explicit or systematic reference to the principle of legality. The Taliban’s legal approach is largely grounded in traditional interpretations of Sharia and the rulings of the Emir, which lack legal transparency, criminal predictability, and codified procedural safeguards. This situation reflects a regression from the standards of modern criminal justice and demonstrates that, rather than institutionalizing the principle of legality, the Taliban has prioritized a jurisprudence-based and decree-driven model of governance. This model stands in serious contradiction with the principles of criminal justice, the rule of law, and the structural guarantees of fair trial proceedings.   https://jls.shirazu.ac.ir/article_8618.html Despite its fundamental importance in the philosophy of criminal law, the harm principle has received less attention compared to the offense principle and has not been comprehensively examined in domestic and international legal literature. This article aims to clarify the concept and position of the offense principle as a basis for criminalization by analyzing and critiquing the theories of scholars such as Feinberg, von Hirsch, Simester, and others. Furthermore, through a comparative approach and analysis of legal examples, the role of this principle within Iran’s criminal justice system is evaluated, exploring both the potential and the limitations of its application in the country’s criminal policy. The findings indicate that, due to theoretical neglect and multiple limitations, the offense principle has often been marginalized in Iran and is rarely recognized as an independent foundation for criminalization. However, the analysis of legal provisions reveals that there are theoretical and practical grounds for expanding its use within the Iranian criminal justice framework. In conclusion, the study offers recommendations for reforming criminal law and policy based on the offense principle to better prevent harmful and disruptive behaviors. https://jls.shirazu.ac.ir/article_8619.html Risk-based justice theory in combating administrative corruption relies on calculability and efficiency indicators, focusing on enhancing productivity and reducing the operational costs of the criminal justice system. The enactment of the Administrative Health Promotion and Anti-Corruption Law in 2011 demonstrates the legislature’s recognition of the serious threat posed by financial and administrative corruption to the social and political system. Legally, provisions such as Article 3 of the 2011 law and its 2020 amendments emphasize transparency in financial and administrative processes, providing a solid foundation for implementing risk-based justice. This law, by stressing situational prevention of administrative and financial offenses, manifests the practical application of managerial criminology. However, operational challenges, such as discretionary interpretation of the law and lack of effective oversight, have reduced public trust and increased bureaucratic complexity. This study employs a library-based method and descriptive-analytical approach to examine the concept of risk-based justice and its functional role in preventing administrative corruption in Iran. Findings indicate that without localization and integration with cultural and social contexts, risk-based justice alone cannot effectively reduce administrative corruption. Strengthening the coherence between legal indicators, executive frameworks, and redefining justice criteria enhances its effectiveness in preventing administrative corruption. https://jls.shirazu.ac.ir/article_8354.html IntroductionIn the historical context of the present study, the concept of power and the conduct of powerful figures of the time function as fundamental tenets that have consistently cast a shadow over the minds and discourses of Iranian thinkers. For this very reason, they have paved the way for the sharing and transmission of elite experiences to audiences across human generations, through the creation of refined works in the eloquent, nuanced, and metaphor‑rich Persian language. In this regard, a review of the history of Persian prose literature—particularly from the 4th to the 8th centuries AH—clearly demonstrates that the creators of prose texts were reflections of the prevailing conception of power in their era and have left behind a valuable heritage. Nevertheless, the breadth and complexity of events during these four centuries compel the author to engage deeply with the political considerations of the time. The present paper seeks to identify samples of Persian prose texts in which the author adopts a pessimistic view of power The Conception of “Power” in Selected Persian Prose …and warns against the calamities of authoritarianism, as well as the fears, risks, and seductions inherent in power. According to this study, the primary approach adopted by the creators of literary works between the 4th and 8th centuries—which represents a small yet significant part of their intellectual system—is grounded in expressing and deploring the evils and corruptions of power. MethodsTo clarify the methodology of the present research, it should be noted that power is treated as an independent variable that plays a vital and determining role in state relations and in the way capabilities, tools, facilities, and resources are utilized in dealing with citizens—in other words, in the processing of the human being and his surrounding world. This holds true if we consider that addressing power and analysing its meaning, concept, background, theoretical considerations, and practical representations constitutes a vast domain in which numerous intellectual and cognitive fields—including political thought, the philosophies of politics, ethics, law, political sociology, public law, and human rights—converge upon a shared path and objective. The methodology of this research is as follows: in the first step, an excerpt of prose works from reputable sources between the 4th and 8th centuries (pre‑Mongol period) is examined; subsequently, the reflection of power perception and its consequences are navigated through the lens of thinkers in the 7th and 8th centuries (post‑Mongol period). FindingsAccording to the relevant findings, owing to the unfavourable historical background and experiences of power, the analysis and measurement of power have consistently been accompanied by pessimism. Hence, to recognize and mediate power relations between the state and citizens, the central question arises: “What should or can one do with power? Should one fight against it? Remain silent? Engage with it? Resolve it—or attempt to dissolve it?” and other similar inquiries. Apparently, the solution seems deceptively simple. Consequently, the proposed remedy is to avoid anything dependent on power, or to abstain from its glaring manifestations and symbols. This is, however, only one solution—albeit a conventional guideline repeatedly mentioned in the pages of many Persian prose texts from the 4th to the 8th centuries AH, which advocate for the disarmament of power and the renunciation of all its manifestations due to its inherently evil nature.   Volume 18, Issue 2, Summer 2026 ConclusionIn light of the above points, one may conclude that modern humanity has experienced tangible progress in terms of character and moral development, and, influenced by this progress, the modern individual has undergone a profound transformation in relation to the world and his surrounding environment. Whereas in the past, people interpreted political affairs and their outcomes purely through a rationality based on fortune and chance, in the modern world such beliefs are regarded as overly simplistic and short‑sighted. The modern human being is now distinguished by a critical and censorious attitude toward the world. In this manner, the findings gathered on the concept of power in the present study can pave the way for a deeper understanding of a specific period in Iranian literary and philosophical thought, as reflected in prose texts from the 4th to the 8th centuries AH. This can be seen as the first step toward initiating a critical approach to power and its calamities and decay, from the perspective of public law.  https://jls.shirazu.ac.ir/article_8620.html The four principles of medical ethics which include autonomy, beneficence, non-maleficence, and justice, are the cornerstone of the behavior of medical professionals in the field of treatment.In times of armed conflict, the application of these principles becomes more sensitive, Because in war, the situation is more complicated and Decision-making becomes more difficult for doctors and medical personnel due to political pressures, lack of resources, etc. The present study was written with the aim of explaining the position and binding nature of the medical ethics principles within the framework of the humanitarian law ; Using a descriptive-analytical method and utilizing library resources, international documents, judicial practice, and partly ,interpretations of the International Committee of the Red Cross, it examines the position of the mentioned principles in international humanitarian law. The results show ,that these principles are reflected in binding and soft documents in this field ,explicitly and implicitly, and judicial practice also shows that the violation of medical ethics Principles can be accompanied by legal consequences. The findings indicate that the principles of medical ethics have gone beyond the level of moral recommendations and have been institutionalized in the international legal system as binding norms that are aligned with the fundamental goals and principles of humanitarian law, namely humanity, impartiality, independence and non-discrimination, and their observance is mandatory for medical staff in situations of armed conflict. https://jls.shirazu.ac.ir/article_8630.html The Business Judgment Rule, as one of the fundamental principles of corporate law, plays a significant role in protecting managers during the process of making business decisions. This rule, aimed at reducing unnecessary judicial intervention and creating an environment conducive to managerial risk-taking, has been applied in various legal systems. However, the asymmetric application of this rule in companies with ownership structures comprising controlling and minority shareholders poses serious challenges to the rights of minority shareholders. This situation leads to reduced judicial protection for minorities, increased risks of self-dealing and managerial abuses, and weakens transparency and oversight. The present study analyzes the historical background, elements, and reasons for the adoption of the Business Judgment Rule, the harms resulting from its asymmetric application, and its impact on minority shareholders’ rights. The findings indicate that to maintain a balance between protecting managers and safeguarding minority rights, it is necessary to strengthen transparency, enforce stricter standards in cases of conflicts of interest, establish independent supervisory bodies, and expand shareholder exit rights. These measures can improve corporate governance and enhance the trust of minority shareholders. https://jls.shirazu.ac.ir/article_8631.html This Article Reconstructs Richard Rorty’s Democratic Outlook as an Integrated Constellation of Dialogue, Irony, and Solidarity. The Central Problem is How Political legitimacy and Social Cohesion can be Sustained Once Foundationalism and Timeless Standards of Truth are Rejected. Using a Descriptive–Analytical, Documentary Method, the Study First Examines Rorty’s Critique of Representationalism and his linguistic Turn, and then Traces their Implications for Ethics and Public law. The Findings Suggest that, in a Rortyan Framework, Truth is Displaced from Correspondence with Reality to Justification Within free Conversation; Irony—Understood as Awareness of the Historical Contingency of one’s “Final Vocabularies”—Supports Epistemic Humility and Social Tolerance; and Solidarity Functions as the Cultural Adhesive of Pluralistic Societies, Replacing the Foundation-Building Role Formerly Assigned to “Truth.” The Article Concludes that Rorty Offers less a Closed Institutional Blueprint than a Practical Criterion for Evaluating Democracy: the Degree of Dialogic Openness and Revisability. Accordingly, Democratic Stability Depends on Institutional Guarantees that Keep Conversation Viable, Especially Free Expression, Accountability, and Genuine Possibilities for Revision.Keywords: Democracy, Dialogue, Irony, Rorty, Solidarity. https://jls.shirazu.ac.ir/article_8648.html Deepfake technology, by collapsing the boundaries between truth and fabrication, confronts the legal system with a crisis in evidentiary authentication and the inefficacy of identifying anonymous perpetrators. The purpose of this study is to analyze the capacity of Iranian law to address these challenges and propose a new liability framework. The central question investigates how Islamic jurisprudential principles and comparative models can be employed to resolve the evidentiary obstacles and liability attribution issues regarding deepfakes. Adopting an analytical-comparative methodology , the article argues that deepfakes constitute "digital identity usurpation" rather than mere defamation, necessitating a shift from individual to systemic liability. The findings indicate that the traditional "fault-based" paradigm is insufficient due to the "Liar’s Dividend" phenomenon and the anonymity of users. Consequently, by applying the Islamic rules of Tasbib (Causation—specifically where the cause is stronger than the agent) and La Zarar (No Harm), the study concludes that digital platforms, as creators of risk and economic beneficiaries, must be held liable. Furthermore, to overcome evidentiary challenges and guarantee practical redress, “shifting the burden of proof in doubtful cases,” mandating platforms to “detect and label AI-generated content,” and establishing “cyber victim compensation funds” are essential for safeguarding justice in the AI era. https://jls.shirazu.ac.ir/article_8655.html In recent years, the unregulated foreign exchange market has become one of the most significant economic and security challenges in Iran. Despite the adoption of multiple regulations to organize this market, a considerable portion of currency transactions still occurs within the shadow economy, making it difficult to control exchange rates in the official market. This situation highlights the necessity of rethinking the criminal policy governing the foreign exchange sector. This study, using a descriptive–analytical method, examines the structural, institutional, and legislative challenges of Iran’s criminal policy in managing the unregulated foreign exchange market and proposes a conceptual model to enhance its effectiveness in controlling currency-related crimes. The findings indicate that the existing problem is not merely due to legal gaps or weak enforcement but stems from a lack of coordination among economic policymaking, institutional regulation, and penal intervention. The predominance of a repressive approach, combined with price gaps and conflicting policy signals, has reinforced criminogenic conditions and expanded the informal market. Accordingly, the study proposes an “Integrated Conceptual Model of Criminal Policy in the Foreign Exchange Market,” based on three pillars: reforming economic structures that generate deviant incentives, strengthening coordinated and data-driven regulation, and implementing targeted and minimal penal intervention. Within this framework, criminal responses complement the regulatory system, and by reducing structural rents and enhancing intelligent detection, the effectiveness of criminal policy in stabilizing the official market is increased. https://jls.shirazu.ac.ir/article_8665.html This article challenges the conventional dichotomy between annulment and nullification in Iranian legal doctrine and judicial practice. It questions the widely held assumption that annulment pertains only to official documents and nullification only to private ones. Based entirely on a detailed analysis of Iranian statutory provisions and judicial rulings, the research establishes that both remedies may apply to either type of document, depending on the nature of the legal defect involved. The annulment of a document does not imply that it was inherently void; rather, it addresses cases where a document, once apparently valid, is later declared ineffective through judicial action. In contrast, nullification arises in documents that, from inception, suffer from essential legal flaws such as forgery, mistake, coercion, or lack of legal capacity. This research introduces a novel classification of legal defects based not on the formal type of document but on substantive criteria derived from judicial reasoning. By separating the structural and procedural foundations of both actions, the study offers a new legal lens to more accurately navigate document-related disputes in Iranian civil law. https://jls.shirazu.ac.ir/article_8687.html Abstract The expansion of multinational corporate activity in conflict-affected areas, coupled with the role of extractive economies and natural resource trade in financing armed violence, has brought corporate accountability to the forefront of contemporary international criminal law debates. Nevertheless, under the Rome Statute the International Criminal Court lacks jurisdiction over legal persons, and its regime of criminal responsibility remains fundamentally individual-centered. Employing a doctrinal and interpretive approach, this article examines the Court’s jurisdictional framework and core principles of international criminal law in order to assess the extent to which corporate-related conduct may fall within the ICC’s reach. The analysis demonstrates that any attempt to attribute direct criminal responsibility to corporations conflicts with the Statute’s express limitation of personal jurisdiction and with the principle of legality (nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege), including the requirement of strict construction in criminal matters. At the same time, the article argues that a careful engagement with modes of liability under Article 25(3) of the Rome Statute particularly aiding and abetting and contribution to a common purpose can provide a viable pathway for assessing the criminal responsibility of corporate executives and decision-makers, even in the absence of their physical presence at the crime scene. The article concludes that narrowing the accountability gap requires reliance on individual criminal responsibility alongside complementary domestic and international mechanisms. https://jls.shirazu.ac.ir/article_8695.html Streaming technology enables the online transmission of audio-visual content without requiring the download or storage of a copy on the user’s device. However, the proliferation of this technology, while increasing legal access, has also spurred a critical surge in illegal uses, foregrounding the issue of creators’ rights infringement. This study addresses the central research question: which legal rules govern the protection of creators’ rights in streaming platforms, and what are the minimum standards of protection? To answer this, the research adopts a descriptive-analytical method alongside a comparative study of the legal systems in the European Union (EU), the United States (US), and Iran. The key conclusion is that creators’ rights in streaming services are protected under the Right of Communication to the Public. Due to its on-demand and user-initiated nature, this right is fundamentally distinguished from the right of reproduction and traditional broadcasting. This view is affirmed by significant rulings from the CJEU and the US Supreme Court. In Iran, the Law for the Protection of Authors, Composers, and Artists (1970) recognizes this right. Additionally, the E-Commerce Law (2004) supports the author’s exclusive rights, including reproduction, distribution, public performances, and the moral rights of integrity and attribution, within the framework of electronic transactions. The research outcome indicates that effective protection is possible under Iranian law. Nevertheless, to enhance its efficacy, the nature of streaming transmission and its demarcation from permanent reproduction and independent signaling must be addressed more precisely in legal interpretation, literature, and legislative policy. https://jls.shirazu.ac.ir/article_8710.html During the Ramadan War, intelligent targeting systems were deployed on a full scale for the first time. Relying on machine learning algorithms and big data analytics, these systems drastically shortened the process from target identification to attack authorization, reducing the human role from decision-maker to a ceremonial approver. This article analyzes the consequences of using such systems under international law. The central question is whether deploying intelligent targeting systems in this conflict complies with international humanitarian law (IHL) and international criminal law (ICL). The hypothesis is that using these systems—due to reliance on statistical correlations instead of conclusive evidence, predefined caps on civilian casualties, and reducing human confirmation time to mere seconds—has led to systematic violations of IHL and ICL. The research method is analytical-critical, based on technical documents and field reports. Findings show that algorithmic methods have replaced individualized distinction, quantification of civilian casualties undermines case-by-case proportionality assessment, turning human operators into rubber stamps erases precautionary measures, and by severing the causal chain, creates a systematic accountability gap in ICL. https://jls.shirazu.ac.ir/article_8712.html Clause "2" of Article 10 of the Administrative Justice Court Law had placed within the jurisdiction the Administrative Justice Court branches to review objections and complaints against final opinions and decisions of disciplinary boards and commissions such as tax commissions and labor dispute resolution boards. Apart from the persistent ambiguities regarding the criteria and examples of quasi-judicial bodies falling under this clause, with the addition of Notes "2" and "3" to Article 3 of the Court's law in 2023 and particularly the issuance of the unifying opinion No. ۱۴۰۴۳۱۳۹۰۰۰۱۰۳۶۱۸۴ dated 22/07/2024 by the General Board of the Administrative Justice Court, adjudicatory authorities were added to the entities covered by Clause "2" of Article 10 of the Administrative Justice Court Law. This descriptive-analytical research, while explaining the criteria and examples of quasi-judicial bodies covered by the mentioned clause, attempts to answer the question what extent does the extension of the scope of Clause "2" of Article 10 of the Administrative Justice Court Law to include adjudicatory authorities, in addition to quasi-judicial bodies, comply with legal principles and foundations? The findings of this research, identified the criteria and examples of quasi-judicial bodies covered by Clause "2" of Article 10 of the Court's law, consider the extension of this clause to authorities other than quasi-judicial bodies -especially commissions and boards with adjudicatory competence- to be fraught with numerous problems, which may, in some cases, infringe upon the right to litigation under Principle 34 of the Constitution and harm the system of administrative adjudication. https://jls.shirazu.ac.ir/article_8717.html Sovereign development funds are among the most important instruments of governments for attracting private and foreign investors. One of the primary objectives of these institutions is to strengthen investment in infrastructure and other strategic sectors of the national economy, while playing a key role in directing productive and sustainable capital. The National Development Fund of Iran (NDFI), as one of these institutions, pursues the objective of attracting and supporting investors. The aim of this research is to propose strategies for optimizing the investment mechanisms of the NDFI and enhancing its role in attracting domestic and foreign capital. This research adopts a descriptive–analytical approach and employs a library-based method for data collection. The findings indicate that profit-and-loss sharing–based investments can reduce investment risks, enhance the alignment of interests, and provide the groundwork for increasing trust and attracting private and foreign investors. To this end, similar funds often operate through the establishment of operational entities and joint financing with other investors. In this regard, the joint investment model implemented through operational entities in the form of Sherkat Mokhtalet Gheyr Sahami (comparable to the limited partnership model in international practice) constitutes a suitable structure for organizing the NDFI’s investments—one that, while improving efficiency, also addresses the current challenges of the Fund’s investment structure. https://jls.shirazu.ac.ir/article_8719.html The concept of right and its different implications are among the most important categories that have transformed the face of modern governments and the lives of citizens.In order to better understand the different interpretations of the concept of right in Iran, this research, using the method of implicational research, has gone to the first legal portal, namely the Constitutional Era, and intellectuals such as Malkom Khan, Akhundzadeh, Aga Khan Kermani, and Talibov.The main question of the research is what implications did the theoretical foundations of individualism and collectivism have on the works and opinions of these intellectuals? Contrary to simplistic classifications, the findings show that the thought of these four intellectuals cannot be placed solely in one of the two individualist or collectivist traditions.Despite emphasizing “right based on essence” and “human ego” (individualistic components), Talibov gives priority to the collective at the normative-functional level and has a consensus view that can be called “collectivism with individualistic foundations. Although Akhundzadeh also aligns with Locke,he develops freedom in a more radical way and without Lockean restrictions. In contrast, Agha Khan Kermani and Malcolm Khan show greater affinity with Rousseau’s collectivist tradition and Lockean individualist tradition, respectively.The present study shows that the dichotomy of collectivism and individualism in the discussion of rights has been a determining factor in the formation of two distinct legal paths in contemporary Iranian history.Understanding these complexities reveals the historical roots of the long-standing debate between individual rights and collective rights and provides an analytical framework for current debates. https://jls.shirazu.ac.ir/article_8720.html In this paper, we seek to uncover the enigma of criminalization within Aristotle’s theory of natural law, raising the fundamental question of whether individual rights can be justified within an Aristotelian virtue-based framework. Our central claim is that Aristotle, by distinguishing between “the right to be” as a moral concept and “the right to have” as a morally neutral one, reveals an inherent capacity for safeguarding personal freedoms. Using an analytical and critical method, and drawing upon Aristotle’s notions of self-direction (autonomy) and moral pluralism, we argue that criminalization cannot extend into the realm of private vices, since human flourishing depends on autonomy and immunity from coercive interference. Accordingly, only public vices should be subject to criminalization, while interference with private vices contradicts natural right and the principle of self-direction. Thus, Aristotelian natural law philosophy should not be seen as a defender of moral authoritarianism, but rather as a teacher of dignity, liberty, and human flourishing. https://jls.shirazu.ac.ir/article_8668.html IntroductionSmart contracts, as one of the most significant applications of blockchain technology, have transformed contractual relations through features such as self-execution, immutability, and the elimination of intermediaries. Nevertheless, disputes arising from such contracts remain inevitable. These disputes may stem from coding errors, disagreements concerning contractual interpretation, issues related to the parties’ legal capacity, or the legal validity of smart contracts themselves. In response to this need, blockchain-based dispute resolution and arbitration mechanisms have emerged, among which the decentralized arbitration mechanism of Kleros is one of the most prominent examples. Kleros resolves disputes within a decentralized environment through collective voting, anonymous jurors, and token-based economic incentives. Despite the innovative nature of this mechanism, a fundamental question arises as to whether decisions rendered through such platforms can be recognized as "arbitral awards" in the legal sense and consequently be recognized and enforced before national courts, particularly under the 1958 New York Convention. This article aims to examine the structural and legal challenges of blockchain-based arbitration, especially within the Kleros mechanism, and to analyze the enforceability of awards rendered through this system in light of the New York Convention and Iranian law. MethodsThis research adopts a descriptive-analytical method with a comparative approach, relying on library resources, scholarly articles, and legal instruments. The study first examines the arbitration mechanism employed by Kleros and subsequently analyzes the fundamental principles of international arbitration, the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (New York Convention 1958), the UNCITRAL Model Law, and the Iranian International Commercial Arbitration Act. Practical examples of Kleros arbitration, including the Mexican lease dispute case, are also examined as case studies. FindingsThe findings demonstrate that blockchain-based arbitration faces multiple substantive and procedural challenges. The first challenge concerns the independence and impartiality of arbitrators. Kleros jurors operate under financial incentives based on game theory and Schelling point mechanisms, whereby jurors whose decisions fall within the minority lose their staked tokens. Furthermore, the anonymity of arbitrators makes it difficult to verify their identity, qualifications, and potential conflicts of interest. Another major issue is the absence of a seat of arbitration, which causes blockchain awards to be regarded as seatless, floating, or non-national awards. This creates tension with the territorial criterion emphasized by the New York Convention and Iran’s reciprocity reservation to the Convention. In addition, the encrypted form of both the arbitration agreement and the arbitral award raises questions concerning the fulfillment of the Convention’s writing requirement. Moreover, Kleros decisions are generally not accompanied by detailed legal reasoning and are rendered based on equity and fairness, which in many legal systems is permissible only upon explicit consent of the parties.On the other hand, the principle of party autonomy and the parties’ agreement to submit disputes to such platforms constitute the primary justification for the legitimacy of this form of arbitration. The parties’ voluntary and informed selection of blockchain arbitration may be interpreted as implicit acceptance of its unique characteristics, including anonymous jurors, equity-based decision-making, and limitations on judicial review.ConclusionsThe study concludes that although blockchain-based arbitration, particularly the Kleros mechanism, is founded upon party autonomy and offers advantages such as speed, efficiency, and decentralization, the recognition and enforcement of awards rendered through such mechanisms still face significant legal obstacles in many jurisdictions. The principal challenges include doubts concerning arbitrator independence and impartiality, the absence of a seat of arbitration, uncertainty regarding the legal nature of the award, and difficulties in satisfying the formal requirements of the New York Convention. Nevertheless, hybrid arbitration models, the explicit designation of the seat of arbitration and governing law, and the transformation of Kleros decisions into traditional written arbitral awards—as illustrated by the Mexican lease case—may substantially improve the enforceability of such awards. Ultimately, the recognition and enforcement of blockchain arbitral awards largely depend on the approach adopted by national courts toward the interpretation of arbitration rules and the acceptance of emerging technologies. https://jls.shirazu.ac.ir/article_8726.html Abstract In traditional civil liability systems, causation is recognized as the central criterion for attributing liability. This means that the obligation to compensate for damages is justified only when a causal link between the harmful act and the damage is established. However, this approach faces serious challenges in the context of modern technologies, environmental risks, and complex hazards, where absolute scientific certainty about the seriousness of damages is unavailable. In such domains, the traditional civil liability system proves less effective, as insisting on fully proving causation in cases characterized by high risks but ambiguous and multi-causal conditions may result in the denial of compensation. This article aims to weaken the concept of classical causation and demonstrate how civil liability can shift from the traditional causation-centric model toward a model grounded in uncertainty and risk. Employing a descriptive-analytical approach, this research has concluded that the traditional causation model falls short when addressing the structural uncertainties and risks of contemporary societies. Within this framework, civil liability should no longer solely rely on "causal certainty" but instead focus on the institutional management of uncertainty. By weakening the classical causation concept, uncertainty can emerge as a novel foundation for civil liability. https://jls.shirazu.ac.ir/article_8727.html In recent decades, populism has become a central concept in analyses of constitutional democracy crises. Yet its relationship with fundamental constitutional norms remains contested. This article examines how populism, by invoking “the will of the people,” can function both as a democratic critique of failures of representation and as a mechanism for weakening pluralism, limits on power, and fundamental rights. Using a conceptual-normative method and a comparative theoretical approach, it analyzes this relationship through a critical reading of two influential theories: Jan-Werner Müller’s account, which defines populism through anti-pluralism, exclusive representation, and the delegitimation of opponents; and Ernesto Laclau’s theory, which understands populism as a logic of constructing “the people” and repoliticizing excluded demands. The article argues that Müller’s approach is necessary for explaining the institutional dangers of populism, but does not fully capture its capacity to expose crises of representation. Conversely, Laclau highlights populism’s democratic potential, but offers no sufficient institutional criterion for distinguishing democratic representation from exclusive appropriation of the people. Accordingly, populism is not inherently anti-constitutional; it becomes corrosive when combined with denial of pluralism, the reduction of the people to a momentary majority, the weakening of intermediary institutions, and the instrumental use of constitutional law. https://jls.shirazu.ac.ir/article_8746.html China’s bilateral investment treaties (BITs) and derives practical lessons for reforming Iran’s international investment legal framework. It employs a qualitative-comparative content analysis of the full corpus of China’s BITs, from the first treaty with Sweden (1982) to the most recent agreements, supplemented by selected arbitral awards. The analysis focuses on treaty provisions governing the scope of arbitral jurisdiction, applicable law, arbitral institutions, sovereignty-based exceptions, limitation periods, and transparency requirements. The findings identify four distinct generations of Chinese BITs, each reflecting significant developments in ISDS design. This evolution has paralleled China’s transformation from a capital-importing to a capital-exporting State and demonstrates a deliberate effort to balance investor protection with the preservation of the State’s regulatory authority. Despite continuing criticism of its strategic dimensions, the Chinese model provides persuasive evidence that revising the ISDS provisions of Iran’s investment treaties to strengthen reciprocal investment protection while safeguarding regulatory autonomy is both feasible and institutionally viable. Moreover, China’s evolving treaty practice reveals an increasing willingness to incorporate more balanced and cooperative ISDS mechanisms into its investment agreements. These developments offer valuable guidance for future treaty reform in Iran and support the inclusion of provisions that better reconcile investor protection with the host State’s sovereign right to regulate in pursuit of legitimate public policy objectives. https://jls.shirazu.ac.ir/article_8747.html The tax authority may sometimes collect more than the amount lawfully due. This makes it necessary for the legal system to provide rules for refunding overpaid tax. These rules, however, are not always clear or unified. Some are found in statutes, some in by-laws and administrative regulations, some have developed through judicial practice, and others are derived from principles of legal interpretation. By identifying and analysing these rules, legal scholars can help bring coherence to scattered provisions and clarify both taxpayers’ rights and the limits of the tax authority’s powers. This article uses a descriptive-analytical method and an inductive review of the relevant principles, rules, and regulations to examine the rules governing tax refunds in the Iranian legal system. The findings show that some refund rules are general, while others are specific to direct taxes or value-added tax (VAT). These rules are not formed solely by legislation; some have emerged through statutory interpretation and judicial limits placed on the tax authority. This matters for taxpayers because it strengthens their ability to reclaim overpaid tax and prevents the tax authority from expanding its powers to their detriment. https://jls.shirazu.ac.ir/article_8756.html This article aims to identify and explain the mental patterns governing clan peace and reconciliation and its relationship with the black figure of crime in the border villages of Zahak County. The present study was conducted with a descriptive-analytical approach and the Q method in 1404. Data collected through field surveys were judged by the sample method and examined using exploratory factor analysis. The findings show that seven main factors explain a total of 96.77 percent of the cumulative variance of the respondents' mental patterns. The first factor, titled the dominance of the customary system and with an eigenvalue of 6.34, has the highest share among them. The inferential findings of factor analyses show that the preference for customary dispute resolution reduces referrals to formal criminal justice institutions and, by socially redefining crime, paves the way for the expansion of the black figure and the continuation of non-criminal patterns. Accordingly, rethinking indigenous-based criminal policies, strengthening institutional trust, and enhancing interaction between formal law and customary systems in border areas seem essential for the country's future criminal policymaking. https://jls.shirazu.ac.ir/article_8770.html Accountability and transparency are fundamental pillars of the rule of law in public institutions, and their significance in the field of national security is even greater due to the sensitivity of security decisions and their direct impact on citizens rights and freedoms. The main issue of this research is to examine the extent to which accountability and transparency of the Supreme National Security Council can be realized within the framework of the rule of law and to identify the existing obstacles in this regard. The purpose of this article is to explain the legal framework of accountability and transparency of the Council and to propose legal mechanisms for strengthening them. The central research question is whether it is possible to design effective mechanisms for enhancing accountability and transparency without undermining national security requirements. The hypothesis of the study is that, despite security limitations, accountability and transparency of the Council can be achieved through controlled, institutionalized, and public law based mechanisms. The research adopts a descriptive analytical method based on the Constitution, general principles of public law, and reliable domestic and foreign sources. The findings indicate that ambiguity in the legal nature of certain resolutions, limitations of external oversight, and the dominance of internal supervision contribute to the formation of a legal gray area, which may weaken institutional accountability and lead to the stabilization of long term restrictions on citizens rights. https://jls.shirazu.ac.ir/article_8778.html The central problematique of this research is the feasibility of privatizing "enforcement"—understood as the operation through which the legal order is translated into factual compliance in the material world. The objective is to analyze the fundamental question of whether the State can delegate enforcement to private actors, and whether the status of the agent (State employee or private person) makes a difference from the standpoint of legal theory. The method employed is a theoretical-foundational analysis grounded in principles of public law and concepts such as the legitimate monopoly of violence. The findings indicate that despite exaggerated claims for privatization—stemming from an overly formal definition of the public function—the provision of certain goods, most notably the enforcement of judgments, necessarily involves the potential use of coercive force. As the institution holding the legitimate monopoly on violence within political society, the State's responsibility in this domain is non-transferable; otherwise, it would undermine its very purpose and create a form of teleological contradiction. Furthermore, attribution of an act to the State requires both the primacy of public interest over private interest and the conscientious loyalty of the agent. Delegating enforcement to the private sector substitutes the profit motive for conscientious loyalty to public law, contradicting the modern State's foundations. https://jls.shirazu.ac.ir/article_8780.html Internet of things has a substantial role to increase productivity and decrease costs. However, decentralized and distributed nature of produced and collected personal data in this technological context has created some ambiguities in the field of commodification and domain of proprietary rights and caused Iranian legal system to encounter fundamental challenges. The fundamental question is whether personal data can be modified and be possessed according to traditional law of property. findings show that European Union in order to prevent exclusive control on personal data and elimination of unjustified limitations to access and enjoyment of them, has adopted the policy based on “right of access to data” instead of “right of ownership” approach. The Iranian legal system faces lack of comprehensive laws in protection of personal data, ambiguity in commidifying and ownership of data and absence of clear framework for governing legal system on them in the internet of thinga context. Accordingly, given the unique nature of personal data, the right of personal data cannot be clarified in context of traditional property law, but it must be recognized a “special property right” as a legal solution for its protection whereby the data subject is the primary entitled party to the personal data and is granted a bundle of rights including the right to be informed, restriction of processing, access, use, rectification and deletion of personal data under specified conditions and transfer of personal data shall only done with their explicit consent https://jls.shirazu.ac.ir/article_8790.html Conclusion: The integration of postmodern criminological concepts facilitates the identification of state crimes within criminal justice systems. Postmodern criminology, by rethinking crime and deconstructing the government constructed definition, enables the coexistence of the concepts of crime and government—once deemed contradictory—and positions the state as a criminal actor. In explaining the causation of state crime, postmodern criminology attributes such crimes to the interplay of power, knowledge, governmental narration, and mechanisms of criminal justice response. It reveals how power reinforces knowledge, how knowledge reciprocally supports power, and how narratives—significantly shaped by knowledge—serve governmental interests. Postmodern criminology of state crime even portrays legal structures as instruments of power designed to strip citizens of their rights, while criminal justice systems responses serve no purpose other than sustaining power. Consequently, state crime is perpetrated multilayered: softly, through deprivation of rights via legal, media, discursive, justificatory, and persuasive mechanisms; and harshly, through punitive criminal justice systems https://jls.shirazu.ac.ir/article_8817.html Contemporary Iranian society is constituted by intersecting cultural horizons, heterogeneous normative commitments, and coexisting worlds of meaning, creating a persistent tension between the generalising logic of legal order and the irreducible plurality of social life. Daryush Shayegan’s concepts of patchwork identity and nomadic thought offer a distinctive conceptual apparatus for theorising this condition without reducing plurality to normative relativism. Yet Iranian legal scholarship lacks a systematic account of its implications for adjudication. This article therefore asks how Shayegan’s thought may be reconstructed to theorise the judicial role within Iran’s plural social order. Employing interdisciplinary socio-legal inquiry, conceptual analysis, and theoretical inference, it examines Shayegan’s writings alongside legal materials and selected judicial practice. It argues that adjudication can mediate the law–society divide without either subordinating legal normativity to social facticity or insulating law from social transformation. Through context-sensitive and purposive interpretation, judges render social plurality juridically cognisable, translating socially situated claims into legally justifiable reasons while mediating between “is” and “ought,” individual rights and the common good, and liberty and security. The article’s principal contribution is the concept of the judge as a “boundary actor”: an institutionally constrained mediator, reconstructed from patchwork identity and nomadic thought, whose interpretive function enables controlled permeability between legal normativity and social reality while preserving law’s autonomy, coherence, and justificatory discipline. https://jls.shirazu.ac.ir/article_8915.html Public economic law, as the state's instrument for structuring and managing the economy, remains centralized in Iran despite extensive efforts. Given that a centralized public economic system is inefficient, the need to decentralize this system has been recognized in both legislation and the executive structure. A prerequisite for such decentralization is the identification of the institutional barriers to the decentralization of Iran’s public economic law, which constitutes the objective of this study. Accordingly, the research question is: “What institutional barriers hinder the decentralization of Iran’s public economic law?” The present study adopts a descriptive–analytical approach, and the data were collected through a library-based method by reviewing prior research and existing laws. The findings indicate that, despite efforts undertaken through the Constitution and ordinary legislation to establish local institutions, free zones, and provincial planning councils, the country’s public economic law has remained centralized. Centralization is identified as one of most fundamental challenges of public economic law and reveals three principal institutional barriers. First, at the legislative level, the predominance of national laws and regulations deprives local institutions of decision-making authority, while higher-order norms, such as the General Policies of the System, contain no explicit provisions in favor of decentralization. Second, the financial dependence of decentralized institutions on central government budgets limits their autonomy and effectively reduces them to executors of centralized rules. Third, the dominance of oversight by centralized bodies, such as the Administrative Justice Court, over public-economic regulation by local institutions has weakened opportunities for participation by decentralized private-sector actors. https://jls.shirazu.ac.ir/article_8917.html The computationalization of legal reasoning is considered one of the most challenging topics at the intersection of law and artificial intelligence.The present study aims to elucidate the substantive distinctions between the paradigms of legal reasoning and algorithmic reasoning, and to propose strategies for their integration.The core hypothesis of this research is that, despite serious obstacles to the complete computationalization of legal reasoning, it is possible to design intelligent decision-support platforms; platforms that preserve fundamental legal principles alongside utilizing technical capabilities.In this regard, employing a descriptive-analytical approach and a comparative method, the study investigates the nature and mechanism of algorithmic reasoning and compares it with legal reasoning.Findings indicate that the normative, interpretive, and contextual nature of legal reasoning, as opposed to the computational, often deterministic, and largely abstract character of algorithmic reasoning, creates fundamental barriers to the convergence of these two reasoning paradigms.These substantive distinctions give rise to challenges that are particularly intensified in the Iranian legal system due to the complex structure of Islamic jurisprudence (Fiqh), the multiplicity and occasional conflict of sources, the specific nature of legal interpretation, and the difficulty of aligning technological dynamism with jurisprudential foundations. Accordingly, the results suggest that addressing these challenges—moving beyond the rule-based reasoning and mathematical-probabilistic approaches that have been most widely used thus far—requires adopting more advanced approaches in intelligent systems.These include the deployment of tree-structured hierarchical agents to ensure the transparency of the reasoning path, as well as the use of hybrid models based on linking general rules to specific cases. https://jls.shirazu.ac.ir/article_8918.html Constitutional interpretation in public law systems constitutes the central arena for generating legal meaning and delineating the boundaries of governmental power, and interpreters are expected to adhere to the highest standards of neutrality and accuracy. However, contemporary research in cognitive psychology demonstrates that mental biases are structurally embedded even in specialized decision making and can subtly redirect the trajectory of legal reasoning. This study examines how cognitive biases disrupt the mechanisms of inference and the evaluation of evidence in constitutional interpretation and what consequences they produce for interpretive neutrality and accuracy. The research hypothesis posits that biases such as confirmation, availability, anchoring, and framing—by generating unconscious presuppositions—reinforce prior beliefs, diminish argumentative coherence, and weaken impartial assessment of competing constitutional principles. Employing an analytical–critical methodology, and drawing on interdisciplinary literature in cognitive psychology, constitutional interpretive theory, and case based interpretive analysis, the study explicates the mechanisms through which such biases exert influence. Findings indicate that cognitive biases undermine accuracy and neutrality through three primary pathways: selective data uptake, asymmetric weighting of principles, and schema driven interpretation. The study concludes that improving the quality of constitutional interpretation requires institutional and methodological reforms—such as increasing argumentative transparency, cross evaluation, managing cognitive presuppositions, and incorporating methodological constraints into the interpretive process—reforms that can strengthen public trust and enhance the legitimacy of constitutional adjudication. https://jls.shirazu.ac.ir/article_8919.html Legitimizing the acquisition and entitlements redistribution through voluntary exchange, is one of the fundamental challenges of the philosophy of contract law. In contract law, voluntary exchange of property and financial rights justifies the acquisition and entitlements distribution. This distribution through voluntary exchange derives its legitimacy from certain values, including procedural justice. Voluntary exchange, on the one hand, justified the distribution and redistribution of contractual entitlements and on the other hand, the premise of contract theory is procedural justice. The question is why does voluntary justifies the distribution and redistribution of entitlements contractual and how does the contract theory presuppose procedural justice? In this regard, three theories have been proposed in contractual procedural justice: pure, perfect, and imperfect. Pure theory, due to the inability to justify corrective interventions, and the perfect theory, which reduces justice to external welfare measures, are both flawed and only an imperfect theory can explain the theoretical and practical harmony of contract law. According to this view, institutions such as the option of lesion are not exceptions to the principle of free will, but rather part of the same procedural of voluntary exchange and the redistribution of entitlements contractual is in line with to be voluntary of transaction, not its violation. The justification for voluntary exchange is not absolute and its effectiveness in ensuring contractual justice is mostly found in the imperfect theory. https://jls.shirazu.ac.ir/article_8920.html In the age of globalization, foreign investment has assumed a decisive role as a vital pillar of economic growth. Countries capable of attracting international financial resources proceed along the path of development with greater acceleration. In this context, Public-Private Partnership (PPP) emerges as an innovative mechanism, providing a suitable platform for financing infrastructure projects. This mechanism not only reduces the financial burden on the government but also facilitates the transfer of technology and the utilization of private sector management expertise. Nevertheless, the success of this model is contingent upon the existence of a transparent and efficient legal framework. The present study aims at the legal feasibility assessment and the identification of challenges concerning foreign investment through Public-Private Partnerships within Iran's legal system. The main objective is to elucidate the governing laws, identify permissible areas for investment, and analyze the inhibitory legal obstacles that, despite supportive policies, practically impede the realization of these partnerships. This research seeks to answer the question of whether the current Iranian laws provide the necessary security and stability for long-term partnership contracts. https://jls.shirazu.ac.ir/article_8921.html Credit cards are a relatively new facility that banks provide to their customers under certain conditions. With this card, the holder can purchase goods or receive services and then repay the used credit at certain times (along with fees and other costs). Unlike a debit card, where the amount is withdrawn from the buyer's bank account and deposited into the seller's account, with credit cards, it is the bank or financial institution that pays the money to the cardholder (i. e, seller of goods and services). There have been some opinions about the legal nature of credit cards, However, the authors of this study, with a descriptive-analytical approach, emphasize the issue of the reward of debt payment. Among the advantages of this legal act is that to regulate the contractual relationship between the card issuer and its holder, there is no need for multiple contracts such as power of attorney, sale and transfer, or Article 10 of the Civil Code. Also, in this legal structure, unlike a guarantee or transfer contract, the holder's debt is not transferred to the issuer, but the issuer will only be obligated to pay. https://jls.shirazu.ac.ir/article_8922.html With the expansion of digital life, individuals increasingly possess a wide range of non-material assets, including data, user accounts, and digital property. After death, the transfer and legal protection of these digital assets and data face complex challenges, as they embody not only economic value but also dimensions related to privacy, personality rights, and contractual obligations imposed by digital service providers. The absence of comprehensive legal regulations concerning transfer mechanisms, the scope of heirs’ rights, the role of the deceased’s will, and the impact of platform terms of service creates significant legal uncertainty. Accordingly, this article analyzes the legal challenges surrounding the transfer and protection of digital assets and data after death by examining their legal nature, rules of intestate and testamentary succession, the role of the deceased’s intent, the conflict between privacy and heirs’ rights, and the contractual framework governing digital platforms. The study adopts a descriptive-analytical method combined with a comparative review of Iranian law and selected foreign legal systems. The findings indicate that digital assets and data possess a dual nature, encompassing both economic value and personal attributes, thereby requiring a specialized legal regime. Such a framework should ensure the execution of the deceased’s will while balancing heirs’ rights, privacy protection, and contractual obligations of digital platforms. Ultimately, establishing a coherent legal framework supported by technical and legal mechanisms can reduce disputes, safeguard stakeholders’ rights, and enhance legal certainty in post-mortem digital asset transfer. https://jls.shirazu.ac.ir/article_8923.html This study asks whether reserve-based financing can be aligned with Iran’s legal and contractual petroleum framework. It uses a descriptive-analytical method and a comparative approach. Its principal hypothesis is that, in Iran, owing to the State’s public ownership of hydrocarbon resources, the prohibition on pledging reservoirs as collateral, the limitations arising from service contracts, the risk of sovereign immunity, and foreign exchange constraints, the direct use of the classical reserve-based financing model is, in practice, not feasible. Accordingly, the realistic path lies not in the full reproduction of the conventional model, but in its redesign on the basis of revenue- and receivables-based structures. The article demonstrates that the assignment of contractual receivables as collateral, escrow accounts, payment undertaking certificates, and export prepayment arrangements can constitute the core of an alternative and bankable model within Iran’s legal framework. In the comparative section, through an examination of the experience of Iraq, Mexico, and Brazil, it is further shown that the success of such structures depends less on the financial instrument as such than on the transparency of the security regime, the ability to control cash flows, and the enforceability of obligations against governmental entities. https://jls.shirazu.ac.ir/article_8924.html The dignity-based approach is an approach that, unlike the risk-based approach, seeks to reform criminals by emphasizing human dignity. Given the shaky theory of the failure of rehabilitation and the revival of the dignity-based approach and the application of correctional institutions of this approach alongside the institutions of the risk-based approach, the basic question of the present study is what is the relationship between these two approaches in the criminal policy of the West, Islam, and Iran? This article examines the relationship between these two approaches in the mentioned legal systems using an analytical-descriptive method and library resources, and its findings indicate that in the criminal policy of the West, various hypotheses of confrontation, apparent interaction, and real interaction are proposed. In the criminal policy of Islam, due to the alignment of the principles of the risk-based approach with the dignity-based approach, the hypotheses of confrontation and apparent interaction are rejected and only the hypothesis of real interaction is proposed.Also, due to the influence of Western models on Iranian criminal policy alongside the Islamic model, various assumptions existing in the West are also present in Iranian criminal policy, which has led to a lack of alignment between lower legislative policies and supra-legislative policies. Therefore, the findings of this article make it necessary to present a new model of criminal policy, which, while aligning lower legislative policies with upstream documents, will lead to the realization of a real interaction between these two approaches in Iranian criminal policy. https://jls.shirazu.ac.ir/article_8927.html The legal system of Iranian cinema relies on a "dual permit" mechanism, meaning filmmakers must obtain a "Production Permit" before production and a "Screening Permit" for exhibition. This process, grounded in Council of Ministers' resolutions, enables extensive administrative intervention in artistic creation and presentation. Using a descriptive-analytical method and critical legal analysis, this study examines whether the authority of the "Film Review Council" and the procedures of the "Screenplay Evaluation Council" in suspending or revoking permits align with human rights standards and fundamental principles of public law. Findings indicate that, under the three-part test for restrictions on freedom of expression, the licensing system lacks necessity, proportionality, and legal transparency, and deviates from the domestic law principle of non-competence, thereby expanding arbitrary discretion. The lack of effective legal guarantees and the largely ceremonial presence of cinema guilds undermine filmmakers' legal security and, by institutionalizing prior censorship, reduce artistic freedom from a "right" to an administrative privilege. Good governance in cinema requires two transformations: first, ending governance by regulation through comprehensive parliamentary legislation mandating adherence to substantive human rights to preclude expansive interpretations; and second, transitioning from preventive censorship to ex-post judicial oversight grounded in presumptive liberty and a fair trial. https://jls.shirazu.ac.ir/article_8928.html The obligation of non-recognition is one of the most important consequences of a serious breach of peremptory norms in the law of State responsibility, as expressly provided for in Article 41 of the International Law Commission’s 2001 Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts. Despite the importance of this obligation in preventing the consolidation of the aforementioned unlawful situations, its scope and conditions of application remain subject to certain ambiguities. This study aims to elucidate the nature, scope, and conditions of application of the obligation of non-recognition and, while examining its substantive scope, addresses the question of whether non-recognition is contingent upon the prior determination of a breach by an international body. Based on an analytical examination of case law, doctrine, and State practice, the study finds that the obligation of non-recognition applies to serious breaches of all peremptory norms and is not contingent upon the prior determination of a breach by an international body. Accordingly, the obligation of non-recognition is general and automatic in nature and, as the minimum legal response of the international community to a serious breach of a peremptory norm, precludes States from recognizing or accepting the effects of an unlawful situation and thereby prevents its consolidation. https://jls.shirazu.ac.ir/article_8929.html Transparency, as one of the fundamental pillars of good governance, has gained a prominent place in public law in recent decades and has gradually evolved from an administrative policy into a public right enabling oversight of power. This article analyzes the development of the concept of transparency in the Iranian legal system and evaluates it in light of standards developed in the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights. The central question is whether Iranian legislation recognizes transparency as a “fundamental public right” or regulates it within the framework of a “limited and suspendable administrative policy.” The research adopts a descriptive‑analytical method based on documentary analysis of relevant legislation, including the Law on Publication and Free Access to Information (2009) and the Law on Transparency of the Three Branches of Government and Executive Bodies (2024). The findings are assessed comparatively in light of leading judgments of the European Court of Human Rights interpreting Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The study shows that despite the expansion of transparency‑related legislation in Iran, the legal framework still contains broad exceptions, vague concepts, and extensive administrative discretion restricting access to information. As a result, transparency is reduced from a governing principle to a matter dependent on executive authorities’ discretion. The article concludes that effective realization of transparency requires reconceptualizing it as a public right to oversee power, narrowing exceptions on the basis of necessity and proportionality, and establishing independent oversight mechanisms to ensure enforcement https://jls.shirazu.ac.ir/article_8935.html The comprehensive reform of the French Civil Code in 2016 transformed the traditional framework of contractual freedom and introduced a new paradigm of economic justice into contract law. Within this reform, Article 1171, recognizing the doctrine of significant imbalance, and Article 1195, embodying the theory of imprévision (hardship), constitute the two fundamental pillars of modern contractual justice: the former addresses the contract’s ex-ante equilibrium at the moment of formation, while the latter governs its ex-post equilibrium during performance.adjust unfair contractual terms.undue hardship), and the doctrine of equivalence of consideration perform analogous functions. The La-Darar rule, by prohibiting any unjust or intolerable harm, grounds an indigenous notion of economic justice aimed at preserving the equilibrium of reciprocal prestations. Comparative analysis shows that in both legal systems, contractual justice is not confined to the parties’ formal consent but is realized through the preservation of real and economic balance within the contract. Nevertheless, the foundations legitimizing judicial intervention differ: in France, intervention derives from social justice considerations, whereas in Iran it rests on religious and jurisprudential principles. Consequently, the scope and legitimacy of judicial adjustment of contracts vary between the two systems. The findings demonstrate that both the French model of economic equilibrium and the Islamic La-Darar doctrine pursue the stability and economic efficiency of contracts against market fluctuations and changing circumstances. Integrating these two approaches can yield a new comparative paradigm—contractual economic justice—capable of serving as a general interpretive and regulatory principle in the formation and performance of contracts under Iranian law. https://jls.shirazu.ac.ir/article_8930.html Informed consent is a process whereby a patient, after receiving sufficient information, decides whether to accept or refuse treatment. Using a descriptive-analytical method and a comparative approach, this study examines the legal foundations and components of informed consent under the laws of Iran, Germany, Italy, and Spain. The findings indicate that, contrary to a common perception, informed consent is not without a legal basis in Iranian law; rather, the rules governing it are expressly or implicitly provided for in various regulations. Nevertheless, the fragmentation of these regulations and the absence of a coherent framework have resulted in ambiguity. By contrast, in Germany, Italy, and Spain, informed consent and its implementation are clearly and coherently regulated under a single law. Based on the comparative analysis, reform of the Iranian legal system should include enacting a comprehensive law on informed consent or systematically incorporating comprehensive provisions into the Civil Code; adopting the patient’s actual decision-making capacity rather than legal age as the relevant criterion; clarifying the concept and categories of “legal guardian”; taking into account the views of patients lacking legal capacity to the extent of their abilities; precisely defining disclosure requirements, with particular emphasis on the comprehensibility of information and its impact on patient decision-making; and clarifying the responsibilities of those involved in the consent process. https://jls.shirazu.ac.ir/article_8931.html Digital infrastructures no longer merely support public decision-making; they increasingly shape the range of decisions that public institutions can make. This article asks how data centers and artificial intelligence systems acquire public authority without entering the institutional forms through which public law ordinarily identifies competence, legitimacy, and responsibility. It combines conceptual analysis with a functional comparison of Amazon Web Services and the European Union’s regulatory framework, followed by a structural examination of Iranian law. The article develops the concept of data-infrastructural governance to describe authority exercised ex ante through architecture, access rules, and computational classification rather than ex post through commands alone. The comparison reveals two contrasting trajectories: private cloud infrastructures can convert contractual and technical design choices into public constraints, while the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation, Data Governance Act, and Artificial Intelligence Act seek to reconnect digital power to rights, oversight, and human dignity. Iran’s framework remains fragmented across institutions and sectoral rules and does not yet provide a coherent regime for automated public decision-making. The article proposes a three-layer model covering infrastructure, algorithms, and data to make digital authority legally visible, contestable, and attributable. https://jls.shirazu.ac.ir/article_8691.html The escalation of freshwater scarcity, driven by climate change and unsustainable consumption, has transformed transboundary river basins into critical flashpoints for 21st-century geopolitical tension. Traditional state-centric approaches, often predicated on zero-sum power dynamics, have largely failed to resolve these complex hydro-political challenges. This study investigates the structural transformation of global water governance, positing that a synergistic alignment between Regional Organizations (ROs) and South-South Cooperation (SSC) is essential for transcending zero-sum hydro-politics. By synthesizing neoliberal institutionalism with critical hydro-political theory, the research conceptualizes a dual-track framework: ROs function as the institutional architecture, establishing the requisite legal legitimacy and dispute resolution regimes, while SSC operates as the normative engine, driving the diffusion of context-specific technical knowledge and alternative financing models independent of Western conditionality. This article argues that integrating these mechanisms mitigates power asymmetries and facilitates a transition from the logic of resource division to a paradigm of benefit-sharing, ultimately offering a viable pathway toward desecuritization and shared water security in the Global South.Through an analysis of legal frameworks (including the 1997 UN Watercourses Convention) and case studies such as the Mekong River Commission and the Nile Basin Initiative, the research demonstrates that integrating ROs and SSC can mitigate power asymmetries. This integration facilitates a transition from a logic of water division to benefit sharing. The findings suggest that while hegemonic behaviors remain a constraint, the institutionalization of South-South solidarity within regional bodies offers a viable pathway toward hydro-political stability and shared water security in the Global South. https://jls.shirazu.ac.ir/article_8925.html Since the Industrial Revolution, human interaction with production and industry—through heavy reliance on fossil fuels—has led to increased greenhouse gas emissions, environmental degradation, and the intensification of climate change. In response, the development and deployment of renewable energy technologies have emerged as a central tool for mitigation and adaptation. Consequently, the transfer of these technologies to countries in need has gained a special place in international instruments and discourse. However, intellectual property constraints, institutional limitations, low absorption capacity in recipient countries, the voluntary nature of existing obligations, and the lack of a coherent theoretical framework have rendered technology transfer precarious in practice and have, at times, turned it into a pretext for technology holders in the Global North. This research, adopting an analytical-interpretive method and relying on the ICJ’s Advisory Opinion (responding to the UN General Assembly’s request), which characterizes states’ environmental obligations with respect to climate change as erga omnes obligations, raises the following question: In light of the principle of climate justice, what legal character does the transfer of renewable energy technologies assume—a merely voluntary commitment or an enforceable obligation? The findings indicate that although technology transfer is not explicitly designated as erga omnes, it is capable of normative reconstruction as an instance of the “duty of international cooperation” and by drawing on the human rights reading embedded in the Opinion. https://jls.shirazu.ac.ir/article_8932.html Human enhancement is moving from speculation to a regulatory problem. Somatic genome editing, implanted brain–computer interfaces, and non-invasive neurostimulation may alleviate disease, yet similar techniques can augment healthy persons, generate heritable effects, intensify inequality, or expose genetic and neural data. This article asks what domestic state responsibility should mean across that continuum. Using functional comparative law, it examines binding rules, administrative guidance, and remedial doctrines in Iran, the European Union, and the United States as in force on 27 July 2026. The comparison rejects two simplifications: Europe does not regulate enhancement through one prohibitory code, and the United States does not leave gene editing to unrestricted choice. Iran possesses constitutional foundations in human dignity, personal security, health, equality, and redress, but its statutory framework remains dispersed and poorly fitted to enhancement. The article develops a lifecycle model joining legislative clarity, risk-tiered authorization, independent ethical review, enhanced consent, genetic and neural-data governance, long-term surveillance, equitable access, and effective compensation. It concludes that responsibility arises not merely after injury but when public authorities seriously fail to construct or operate institutions proportionate to foreseeable, potentially irreversible, and intergenerational risks. https://jls.shirazu.ac.ir/article_8926.html This research paper examines the legal parameters of State responsibility for omissions during systemic crises, shifting the analytical focus from passive inaction to affirmative administrative choice. Within classical legal doctrine, State responsibility has been predominantly associated with positive acts clear, identifiable conduct attributable to public authorities. However, this approach becomes increasingly inadequate when confronted with contemporary governance structures, where harm frequently arises not from action, but from prolonged and systemic inaction. Drawing upon the International Law Commission’s Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (2001), as well as contemporary scholarship particularly the work of Nika D. Sabasteanski and Mila Harding this study challenges the traditional presumption that governmental failures to act are generally exempt from liability. It argues that omission, far from representing a neutral absence of conduct, often reflects a structured administrative decision regarding resource allocation, regulatory priorities, and institutional response. By analysing the standard of due diligence and the evolving allocation of the burden of proof in relation to resource constraints, the paper proposes a model of functional accountability. Under this model, responsibility arises where a State possesses knowledge of a foreseeable risk and retains the institutional capacity to intervene, yet fails to adopt reasonable preventive or corrective measures. In such circumstances, omission is recharacterised as a legally relevant form of conduct, engaging both domestic and international responsibility. https://jls.shirazu.ac.ir/article_8948.html Prison architecture, as a tangible manifestation of the criminal justice system, is not merely a technical or structural matter but also a reflection of prevailing philosophies of punishment and society’s response to crime. Using an analytical–theoretical approach, this article examines the relationship between prison architecture and developments in criminal justice thought, showing how shifts from isolation- and control-based models toward rehabilitative approaches are reflected in prison spatial organization. The findings indicate that traditional penal thought, which viewed crime primarily as an offense against the state, promoted prison designs centered on isolation, surveillance, and separation of offenders from society. In contrast, contemporary approaches, particularly restorative justice, emphasize harm repair, stakeholder participation, and social reintegration. This intellectual transformation has led to reconsideration of both the function and spatial structure of prisons, encouraging a shift from isolation-oriented architecture toward rehabilitative and interaction-based designs. The study further argues that focusing solely on offender reform, without considering the social, cultural, and spatial contexts of crime, is insufficient. Therefore, physical spaces associated with criminal justice, including prisons, must also be integrated into processes of rehabilitation and crime prevention. Accordingly, prison architecture should be understood not only as an instrument of penal policy but also as part of the broader process of reproducing or reforming social order.