فصلنامه پژوهش تطبیقی حقوق اسلام و غرب
سال دهم شماره 3 (پیاپی 37، پاییز 1402)

The concept of "capacity to be entitled" is an essential component of the definition of legal personality. If the law recognizes a "right" for an object or entity other than a living person, it implies the implicit grant of legal personality to that object. In the traditional common law system, death was regarded as the termination of legal personality. However, with advancements in experimental sciences and the emergence of intellectual property rights, the recognition of rights after death gradually gained importance, necessitating the consideration of legal personality after death. These rights include the right to donate body parts, the right to posthumous reproduction and the possibility of assigning a child to a deceased parent, the right to make decisions after death, the right to the integrity of the body, personal rights (privacy) after death, and the right to respect and honor the deceased. Despite the existence of the term "legal personality", Islamic jurisprudence continues to employ concepts and constructs such as capacity, which convey the meaning of legal personality and are applied to issues such as endowments, treasury, and holy places. Therefore, to identify traces of legal personality in Islamic jurisprudence, we must examine its consequences and effects. Jurisprudential recognition of certain rights, such as the right to make decisions after death, the right to inherit the estate (a subject of integrated religion), and the deceased's ownership in the prosecution of crimes against the deceased, indicates the limited survival and inviolability of legal personality after death. These findings rely on the application of Article 956 of the Iranian Civil Code.

The quasi-judicial body responsible for the enforcement of official documents is one of the most important auxiliary bodies within the registration system. This body possesses multiple legal competencies to handle specialized litigations, alongside other authorities within its legal system. The significance of these competencies lies in their nature as actions that guarantee fundamental rights of individuals within the judicial procedure of this body. The establishment of fair trial within this body is one of the key criteria to assess these competencies. This research adopts a descriptive-analytical approach with a comparative perspective. The article aims to examine the quasi-judicial procedure in the enforcement of official documents, considering its competencies, in the context of fair trial to answer the question: What is the approach of this body towards fair trial in its own judicial procedure? The findings of this research demonstrate that the quasi-judicial body possesses broad competencies under the regulations governing the enforcement of official documents, and some aspects of fair trial, such as the principle of legality, time limits, appealability, and religious exceptions, have been recognized; however, important criteria such as consistency, independence in decision-making, the right to legal representation, and the right to access case files have not been adequately addressed. Therefore, it can be argued that the quasi-judicial body in the enforcement of official documents applies an incomplete form of fair trial in its judicial procedure, which, in addition to ambiguities and inconsistencies within this body, leads to the violation of individuals' rights.

The principle of proportionality in criminal law is considered one of the fundamental principles, which entails determining punishments that correspond to the social harm caused by the crime. In the case of drug offenses, the application of this principle during the legislative stage requires careful consideration and subtlety on the part of the Legislature due to the complexity of such offenses. By taking into account the effective factors in the application of the principle of proportionality, unjustness in the determination and implementation of punishments can be minimized, and the expected goals of punishment, such as deterrence, can be better achieved. The behavior of the offender, the nature of the committed crime, the role of the accused, their involvement in the crime, and the severity and gravity of the offense are among the most influential factors in the application of the principle of proportionality in drug offenses. However, the Legislature in the Anti-Drug Law has solely emphasized the proportionality between the quantity of drugs and the level of punishment, disregarding other essential factors.

Legal interpretation is an essential aspect in every legal system, consistently playing a significant role in the application of the law and its impact on the rights of individuals. In the common law system, two significant approaches, namely the "literal" and "purposive" approaches, exist in opposition to each other, each with its own proponents. This article, while tracing the trajectory of interpretive approaches in the common law system towards the purposive approach and elucidating its important principles such as the "mischief rule" and the "golden rule" of interpretation, seeks to analyze descriptively and analytically whether the purposive approach and to determine the extent to which the principles and rules of the purposive approach are acceptable and applicable in Islamic jurisprudence and the Iranian legal system. The research findings indicate that Islamic jurisprudence places special emphasis on the "text" of the law. However, discussions on topics such as the "Purposes of the Sharia" or similar concepts can be observed in the discourse and opinions of jurists, warranting further investigation. A comparable approach can be observed in Iranian laws and Islamic jurisprudence, indicating a movement towards the purposive approach despite legal pluralism.

The founders of the modern criminal justice system in Iran initiated a transition from the traditional to the modern system by drawing inspiration from the criminal justice systems of developed countries. However, this process of change has consistently faced numerous challenges, and in some cases, the adoption of foreign models has been relatively unsuccessful. The adoption of the jury trial institution in English law is one such unsuccessful experience. This article, based on a scientific and systematic approach using the multiple streams theory, seeks to explain the reasons for this failure. The theory focuses on the changes in public policies and aims to identify the influential variables in this area. According to this theory, to develop a new policy, an undesirable situation, referred to as a "problem", must first be identified. This issue is heavily influenced by the values dominant in a society. After identifying a problem, multiple solutions are proposed, but only a solution that meets criteria such as feasibility, practicality, and normative acceptability remains as the answer to the problem. This article demonstrates, through the application of the aforementioned theory, that although the jury trial institution is a successful and effective institution in common law jurisdictions, it has not gained popularity in Iran. The reason for this failure should be sought in the lack of relevance of the jury trial institution to the Iranian context and its conflict with the public values and the values of the Islamic judicial system, which is judge-oriented.

Failure to perform contractual obligations may be unintentional or intentional. Intentional breach represents the most severe form of contract violation, consequently leading to unique consequences not applicable in cases of unintentional breaches, among various legal systems. One of the significant effects of intentional breach within the framework of compensatory arrangements is the inability of the breaching party to rely on an exemption clause it has obtained as a contractual benefit. A party that intentionally and willingly fails to fulfill its obligations should not be allowed to escape the consequences of its deliberate harmful actions by seeking refuge in an exemption clause contained within the contract. This article employs a descriptive-analytical approach to examine the practical and significant impact of intentional breach on the validity of contractual exemption clauses from an objective perspective, within the regulatory framework and judicial practices of three major legal systems (Roman-Germanic, Common Law, and Islamic Law).

The independence of the legal profession means that all matters related to the diverse executive policies of the legal community (the Bar Association) are carried out by its members without interference from others. This study, conducted in a descriptive-analytical manner with a comparative approach, aims to explore the legal foundations of this concept in the legal systems of Iran and England. The study relies on library resources to collect data. It argues that the basis of professional independence for lawyers in the legal systems of Iran and England, unlike the independence of the judicial branch which is based on the principle of separation of powers, is the oversight of an independent civil society organization over the proper implementation of the law within the judiciary, ensuring the right to a defense and upholding the rule of law. Therefore, a lawyer should not be appointed by the legislative or executive branches, as such appointment may lead to the interference of these branches in the independent judiciary, which is not permissible in accordance with Article 57 of the Constitution. On the other hand, if a lawyer is appointed by the judiciary, their role of defending the rights and interests of their clients and striving to achieve a balance in the rule of law and its enforcement undermines the independence of the judge. The notion of independence does not absolve the lawyer of accountability; if they commit an error, the relevant regulations and provisions regarding civil, disciplinary, and criminal liability will apply, thereby moderating this independence.

"Damages in lieu of performance" is one of the three types of damages for breach of contract provided by the German Civil Code. The main objective of this research is to examine this remedy in German law. Specifically, this study addresses the question of how, in a legal system that upholds the principle of contractual necessity and considers specific performance as the primary remedy for a breach of contract, damages can substitute for the actual fulfillment of the obligation. While the term "damages in lieu of performance" is not explicitly used in Iranian laws, certain instances of this type of damage have been explored in legal literature. By comparing these two concepts within the German and Iranian legal systems, it becomes evident that the German Civil Code provides precise and effective rules governing damages in lieu of performance, thereby offering a solid foundation for the comparative adaptation of such rules in Iranian law.