فهرست مطالب bakhtiar abasloo

In most legal systems of the world, the execution of a will requires the observance of certain requirements. These requirements, which traditionally deal with paper wills, have given rise to formal, holographic, and secret wills in Iranian law, and to formal, holographic, and notarized wills in American law. An important question that arises with the advancement of technology and the development of electronic communications is: if the testator wants to execute a will in the electronic space, what place will these traditional requirements have in it? In other words, are traditional requirements followed in executing an electronic will or not? In this article, an attempt is made to provide an answer to this question through the library method. In this regard, while reviewing the traditional requirements of executing a will, the hypothesis is proved that in Iranian law, traditional requirements are followed in electronic will-making; requirements that, due to some shortcomings in the field of legislation, have prevented the electronic execution of formal and secret wills. In American law, however, there is a disagreement: on the one hand, the famous Castro and Horton cases in judicial proceedings and the Uniform Electronic Wills Act imply that electronic wills follow traditional requirements. On the other hand, the Nevada Statute, after deviation from traditional requirements, has introduced new requirements for executing electronic wills.

The present article seeks to answer the question of what are the legal responsibilities arising from the non-fulfillment of certain international obligations by governments, towards other governments and also towards the people? Findings indicate that according to the International Covenant on Human Rights, in particular the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the provision of health care by governments is not limited to nationals and peoples in their own country, but a commitment to international cooperation in this field. Is particularly important; On the other hand, with the spread of the corona virus and the outbreak of the emerging and deadly disease Covid 19 in the world, governments have begun to provide compulsory treatment services to people, especially those with the disease; The necessity of services is contrary to human rights rules. The provision of these services, in addition to violating some individual and collective rights, has in practice led to the violation of some of their international obligations, but given that these measures are optional and temporary, governments can not talk about the impossibility of full implementation of their treaties in international forums. To justify the violation of their international obligations because the effects of the Corona crisis on the inability to implement treaties are different. By emphasizing the rule of "force majeure" in Article 23, the subject of international responsibility of states, they prevent the admission of guilt resulting from the failure to perform the treaty and absolve themselves from the responsibility of breach of obligation.

They have compiled and published regulations and instructions or guidelines about business ethics and its obligations or points that marketers, production units and people working in industry and trade in general should observe in their economic activities. In some cases, the legislator has established or determined certain tasks or tasks to protect the rights of consumers, the health of the society or to prevent damage to the country's international reputation and prestige, which originate from the unilateral obligations of businessmen in contracts based on The ethical principles have been accepted at the international level. Unilateral obligations of the buyer or seller in unilateral commercial contracts are important in the sense that each of the parties to the contract may give one party (obligor) to another (beneficiary) in a certain period of time the right to choose to enter into a contract. It shows that its essential elements have been determined and only the beneficiary's will to form it has not been expressed. Cancellation of one-sided commitment in the time period determined for the beneficiary to exercise the right does not prevent the conclusion of the committed contract. A contract with a third party aware of the existence of a unilateral obligation due to which the said obligation is violated is void. And it seems that apart from the guarantee of civil executions, it is also necessary to comply with the guarantee of moral conduct.

The present article seeks to answer the question of what are the legal responsibilities arising from the non-fulfillment of certain international obligations by governments, towards other governments and also towards the people? Findings indicate that according to the International Covenant on Human Rights, in particular the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the provision of health care by governments is not limited to nationals and peoples in their own country, but a commitment to international cooperation in this field. Is particularly important; On the other hand, with the spread of the corona virus and the outbreak of the emerging and deadly disease Covid 19 in the world, governments have begun to provide compulsory treatment services to people, especially those with the disease; The necessity of services is contrary to human rights rules. The provision of these services, in addition to violating some individual and collective rights, has in practice led to the violation of some of their international obligations, but given that these measures are optional and temporary, governments can not talk about the impossibility of full implementation of their treaties in international forums. To justify the violation of their international obligations because the effects of the Corona crisis on the inability to implement treaties are different. By emphasizing the rule of "force majeure" in Article 23, the subject of international responsibility of states, they prevent the admission of guilt resulting from the failure to perform the treaty and absolve themselves from the responsibility of breach of obligation.