Business Law
Mohammad Rostami; Bahram Taghipoor
Abstract
Commercial companies as legal entities consist of various departments. As in some cases the interests of members or directors of a company’s departments may develop into a conflict, disputation are duly expected. Accordingly, the attempt to propose a practical solution to solve such cases has been ...
Read More
Commercial companies as legal entities consist of various departments. As in some cases the interests of members or directors of a company’s departments may develop into a conflict, disputation are duly expected. Accordingly, the attempt to propose a practical solution to solve such cases has been a significant concern in company Law. Among the existing solutions, arbitration has always been a well-received one because of its advantages. Nevertheless, considering the unique characteristics of companies and the multiplicity of departments, the practice of this solution has faced several challenges and ambiguities particularly as far as the concept and criteria of internal disputes and arbitrability are concerned. Bearing these points in mind, this study examines the arbitration in intra-corporate disputes in the legal systems of Iran and the England. Concepts like intra-corporate dispute, scope of arbitration, and barriers to arbitration are delineated in the first step. The findings of this study suggest that within the Iranian legel system arbitration of intra-corporate disputes is subject to the general rules of corporate law and arbitration law due to lack of specific laws while in the England the jurisprudence, in some cases, examines both the status of arbitration in a company’s internal disputes and the identified obstacles. Also, it gives the concerned parties considerable amount of authority to take advantage of arbitration. Moreover, it takes structural barriers, public policy, restrictions on the type of compensation, and conflict with the rights of third parties as the most significant obstacles to the practice of arbitration in these cases.
Public Law
mohammad najafi kalyani; Mehdi Hadavand; alimohammad fallahzadeh
Abstract
One of the most controversial legal and political issues in recent decades - especially since the 1990s - is the recognition of welfare rights in the constitutions of different countries and how to recognize them. Although it seems that most constitutions have recognized these rights, the status of them ...
Read More
One of the most controversial legal and political issues in recent decades - especially since the 1990s - is the recognition of welfare rights in the constitutions of different countries and how to recognize them. Although it seems that most constitutions have recognized these rights, the status of them in the constitutions does not follow a single pattern, and unlike the first generation of rights, the very existence of these rights is seriously questionable. Despite the diminishing challenges at the international level, internal disagreements persist, and these rights continue to be criticized by various thinkers, especially right-wing thinkers. This issue has led to the inconsistent recognition of these rights in the constitutions of different countries. In this article, we seek to examine the models for identifying welfare rights in constitutions. Given the wide impact of the theories of various thinkers on the current state of these rights, it is necessary to examine the objections to them. The results of the research show that the general principle in identifying these rights is their acceptance as "aspirational goals" in the constitution, and their recognition as a "justiciable right" is an exception.
Public Law
mahdi moradi berelian; Mghasem Tanghestani
Abstract
One of the necessities of the rule of law at the level of politicalinstitutions is to provide enforcement guarantees for violations of laws bypolitical authorities. The Iranian constitution has tried to meet theaforementioned necessity by providing various mechanisms for the responsibilityof the president. ...
Read More
One of the necessities of the rule of law at the level of politicalinstitutions is to provide enforcement guarantees for violations of laws bypolitical authorities. The Iranian constitution has tried to meet theaforementioned necessity by providing various mechanisms for the responsibilityof the president. Despite the possibility of the president being tried beforethe Supreme Court for violating his legal duties under Article 110 (10) of theConstitution, Iran's constitutional system is both doctrinaire and procedurallypoor. Based on this, the current research tries to pay attention to thecomparative constitutional law approaches, identify the existing challenges andprovide solutions to solve them, using the descriptive and analytical methodand through legal historical genealogy, a step in the direction of enrichingthe doctrines of the constitutional rights in relation to the president'sresponsibility before the court. The Supreme Court of the country should takeit and provide the ground for creating and strengthening the procedure in thisregard. This study seeks to answer the following questions: In the currentlegal system, what are the ambiguities and challenges of identifying andapplying the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court? And has the jurisdiction any legal and political justification and desirability? Research findings show thatnot enough laws have been passed to implement this responsibility, thegenerality of the constitutional provision on the violation of the president, ambiguity in the competence of the Supreme Court and the General Courts of Justicein exercising this responsibility and the abandonment of the implementation ofthe first part of the aforesaid paragraph in the Constitution are among thenotable challenges in this regard. Amending the constitution and adjusting thepresident's responsibility to the Supreme Court and passing the necessary lawsto put in place should be considered as a solution by the Iranian legalsystem policymakers.
Criminal Law
vali rostami; Sina Rostami; Hasan Kabgani
Abstract
The point of departure for the law and the sign of adherence to the rule of law is the existence of a constitution in any country. In the legal system of Iran, the safeguarding of the constitution is enforced by the Guardian Council and the Judiciary. Nevertheless, the Guardian Council seems not to be ...
Read More
The point of departure for the law and the sign of adherence to the rule of law is the existence of a constitution in any country. In the legal system of Iran, the safeguarding of the constitution is enforced by the Guardian Council and the Judiciary. Nevertheless, the Guardian Council seems not to be fully in line with the principles of fair trial enshrined in the constitution. Because by reviewing the legal and fundamental principles of the Code of Criminal Procedure, approved in 2013, one may easily realise that some of the provisions of this law are in conflict with the principles of fair trial enshrined in the constitution. Accordingly, it seems necessary to analyze the existing conflicts as well as to examine the possibility for court judges to invoke the constitution, as well as the non-implementation of legal articles contrary to the principles of the constitution. The present study uses a descriptive-analytical method to measure the compliance of ordinary laws related to the principles of superior proceedings and in case of changes and non-compliance, to describe the guarantee of implementation of these discrepancies. The results indicate that the Code of Criminal Procedure, passed in 2013, despite the great progress made in observing the principles of fair trial enshrined in the constitution, in cases related to the right to appoint a lawyer and the publicity of dealing with political and press crimes, the principles related to the separation of powers and other cases, still contain sentences contrary to the spirit of the Constitution.
Public Law
Abdolmajid Soudmandi
Abstract
"Reasonableness and legality of judicial decisions" is one of the most accepted legal principles governing judicial and quasi-judicial institutions and it can be assumed a result of presumption of innocence and a precondition of justice in judicial settlement of disputes. This rule has always not only ...
Read More
"Reasonableness and legality of judicial decisions" is one of the most accepted legal principles governing judicial and quasi-judicial institutions and it can be assumed a result of presumption of innocence and a precondition of justice in judicial settlement of disputes. This rule has always not only been part of Iran's Acts of procedure, but principle 78 of amendment to the Constitutionalism Constitution and principle 166 of the Islamic Republic of Iran' Constitution also have emphasized on it. Hence, it is obvious that Administrative Justice Court as a judicial institution established by the Islamic Republic of Iran's Constitution is subject to this rule.In this paper, we study the adherence of the General Board of Administrative Justice Court to this rule and discuss, in an analytical way, some cases of violation of the above rule by General Board of Administrative Justice Court in invoking legislative Acts, and it would be seen that this violation is in three forms: "defects in legal documentation and legal arguments", "failure to invoke a specific Act" and "failure to invoke specific articles of Acts". The study also reveals that two major consequences of this violation is "issuing wrong or doubtful decisions" and "adoption of regulations similar to previous revoked regulations". Hence, given that the General Board of Administrative Justice Court is the unique referee for complaint of regulations and its decisions are not supervised by any other institution, it can rightly be expected that it try harder for precise observance of this rule; in particular, given that the consequences of wrong decisions of it, Contrary to decisions of other judicial bodies, in revocation or not revocation of regulations is not confined to the complainant but can affect a large group of people.
Public Law
Alireza Dabirnia
Abstract
AbstractOn the one hand, existence of any ambiguity in explaining the status of development program rules in Iranian legal system, may bring this assumption to mind that some of the acts of parliament have a dominant position in relation to other laws. This assumption is reinforced when the program rules ...
Read More
AbstractOn the one hand, existence of any ambiguity in explaining the status of development program rules in Iranian legal system, may bring this assumption to mind that some of the acts of parliament have a dominant position in relation to other laws. This assumption is reinforced when the program rules is recognized as a supreme law in some procedures. In this situation, a legal issue arises; Privileged status under the constitution is not recognised but actually the hierarchy of laws in Iran's legal system, faced with a fundamental change. When the set of rules have a single unit in the Iranian legal system, how can recognized and extend the feature's constitution and its consequences to an ordinary law, even if parliament approve it under the program rules?On the other hand, it is possible when we determine the top position for program rules, certainly impose the specific format and limitation of legislative initiative to parliament. When a program rules impose to forces, It is possible that the most important duties of government institutions be affected by the program rules and some of the duties that explicitly stated in the constitution, run out priorities.
Hassan Alipour; Mohammad Yekrangi
Abstract
Confronting with Cyber-crime has strong relationship with all preventative and non- preventative measures. A Non-preventive measure, that is related to criminal law, consists of criminalization, imposing liability and sentencing. The preventative measures, however, include social and technical measures ...
Read More
Confronting with Cyber-crime has strong relationship with all preventative and non- preventative measures. A Non-preventive measure, that is related to criminal law, consists of criminalization, imposing liability and sentencing. The preventative measures, however, include social and technical measures that impose on the situation or potential criminals. All these measures should obey two fundamental rules: first, it should be compatible with norm of society and bring the security; second, should not in contradiction with individual liberties. Intense concentration of just the security, with pay attention to cyber-crime, will result in infringement of individual liberties and Sole considering the individual liberties, with pay more attention to cyber-criminal, will decrease the security. Neither security-approach nor liberty-approach is compatible with Constitution. This paper, try to reconciliation of these two approaches in the light of Constitution rights in confronting with the cyber-crime.
Hassan Poorbafrani; Rauf Rahimi
Abstract
This article compares Iranian laws about torture with the contents of United Nations Convention against Torture. The common basis for comparison is that both laws of Iran and Convention against Torture identify torture as inhumane practice and contrary to human dignity. But must be acknowledged that ...
Read More
This article compares Iranian laws about torture with the contents of United Nations Convention against Torture. The common basis for comparison is that both laws of Iran and Convention against Torture identify torture as inhumane practice and contrary to human dignity. But must be acknowledged that Iranian laws about torture are narrower than Convention and only have discussed physical and mental torture of direct and did not mention indirect physical and mental torture. On the other hand there are some punishments like retaliation and stoning in Iranian laws that anti-torture committee has described them as torture. But these differences do not mean that there is no similarity between Convention and Iranian Laws. This comparison not only helps recognizing legal obstacles toward the accession of Iran to the United Nation Convention against Torture but also has suggestions to remove these obstacles too.
Alireza Dabirnia
Abstract
The existence of numerous supreme councils in the iranian legal system and their’s practical independence from the executive has raised ambiguities in the status and authority of these councils thus research of them is important in constitutional and administrative law. Because the strict separation ...
Read More
The existence of numerous supreme councils in the iranian legal system and their’s practical independence from the executive has raised ambiguities in the status and authority of these councils thus research of them is important in constitutional and administrative law. Because the strict separation between the executive and legislative affairs has not been done in the legal system thus establishment of the supreme councils by parliament can limit the authority of executive and increase the power of parliament.The supreme councils which established by parliament within the executive, cause an imbalance of power between the legislative and executive. "sovereign from and by the people" - regardless of the superior of each powers - has emphasised in the fifth part of constitution thus any interference by each of the powers within the other, may be considered as a undemocratic methods. Did you mean: از سوی دیگر «اصل صلاحیّت» در حقوق عمومی به هیچ قهوه ای اجازه نمی دهد تا نسبت به توسعه اختیارات خود بدون وجود تصریح در قانون اساسی اقدام نماید The principle of " Incompetence " in public law does not allow to any powers to increase their’s competence without any stipulation in the constitution, otherwise any unauthorized power development considered as a violation of people’s sovereignty. Regardless of the lack of strict separation between legislative and executive powers in the legal system, there are some supreme councils with the higher authorities but do not considered as a part of executive power. The supreme councils have features such as; legal position, regulatory or policy actions, using some powers of ministers, dominance of appointed members on Ministers and lack of effective supervision on activities of supreme councils.These features cause the formation of alternative political power to doing professional executive affairs beside the ministers’s authorities. In this situation, there is no supervision of the executive and legislative powers on the supreme councils activities.
Ali Akbar Gorji Aznadreyani; Morteza Rezaei
Abstract
In the legal- political system of Iran, resolving dispute and regulation of the powers relations, especially on thirty five years of the Islamic Republic history that led into the revision and modification of the Constitution, is special and unique issue that derived from the power distribution type ...
Read More
In the legal- political system of Iran, resolving dispute and regulation of the powers relations, especially on thirty five years of the Islamic Republic history that led into the revision and modification of the Constitution, is special and unique issue that derived from the power distribution type in governance system of this country. Disputes and conflict jurisdictions problems sometimes results in unprecedented disputations that indicates different explanations from law. In recent years, this problem, despite some apparently regards again brought back into the political arena, thus it seriously required to be redesigned and fixed. The Leader created "Supreme institution of resolving dispute and regulation of the threefold powers relation" in the political arena of country based on paragraph 7 of Article 110 of the Constitution, in culmination of disputes between the threefold powers. Research in this newly established institution and review of paragraph 7 of article 110 of the Constitution as basic system of the resolving dispute and regulation of the powers relations in Iran make the main subject in this essay.
