rahim pilvar

One of the issues concerning arbitration in civil law arises in proprietary contracts that include an arbitration clause. When the contract is transferred to a third party, a question emerges: does the arbitration clause automatically transfer as well? This research, using a descriptive-analytical method and based on jurisprudential and comparative legal studies, seeks to address this legal challenge. The response to this issue depends on clarifying several key points. First, the nature of the arbitration institution must be understood. Second, a precise understanding of the concept of legal succession and its differences in Islamic jurisprudence and Western law is necessary. Third, the implications of legal succession in proprietary contracts should be considered. Lastly, the independence of the arbitration clause plays a crucial role in determining the outcome of the issue. Based on these considerations, this research concludes the following: the transferee, as a result of the voluntary transfer of the contract, assumes the position of the previous owner concerning the specific property and is deemed the new owner. If arbitration is included as a condition within the proprietary contract, legal succession naturally follows, and this succession does not invalidate or alter the arbitration clause. However, the Civil Procedure Code, in cases of general legal succession, has introduced legislation contrary to standard rules, which should be rectified in the future. In contrast, if arbitration is not stipulated as a condition within the contract but is included as a separate agreement or independent arbitration agreement formed after a dispute has arisen, legal succession does not occur in such cases, which are referred to as independent arbitration agreements.

This article explores the evolving balance between the right to life and the right to private property. It examines how societal shifts have led to restrictions on the absolute nature of property ownership and how these changes have influenced legal rulings regarding the responsibilities of property owners toward unauthorized entrants. One of the fundamental challenges in any society is to reconcile conflicting rights and interests. The right to life and the right to private property are two such rights that can sometimes clash. Traditionally, property ownership was viewed as an absolute right, granting the owner complete dominion over their property. However, as societal values have evolved, there has been a growing recognition that the right to life is paramount and that property owners cannot exercise their rights in a way that infringes upon the rights of others. The concept of absolute ownership has its roots in individualism, which posits that each person's property is their personal domain. This idea has been challenged by the increasing emphasis on social responsibility and the need to protect the rights of all individuals. As a result, various restrictions have been imposed on property ownership, limiting the absolute power that owners once enjoyed. One significant factor that has contributed to these changes is the strengthening of the idea that human life and dignity must be respected. The right to life is considered the most fundamental of all rights, and it takes precedence over other rights in cases of conflict. This principle is enshrined in international human rights law, including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.    In Islam, the Qur'an clearly states that the right to life is the most important right. Taking the life of another is considered equivalent to killing the entire society. This principle is reflected in the Declaration of Islamic Human Rights, which guarantees the right to life and prohibits any aggression against it. The view that property owners have absolute power to control their property, even if this leads to harm or damage to others, has gradually been abandoned. This shift in thinking is evident in the laws of many countries and in the opinions of legal experts. Today, the arguments in favor of human life are given more weight than those supporting property rights. In Iran, the Islamic Penal Code has been amended to reflect these changing views. Articles 507 and 508 of the code now impose restrictions on property owners in their dealings with unauthorized entrants. This represents a significant departure from the previous approach, which held property owners harmless for any harm caused to unauthorized entrants. In conclusion, the absolute nature of property ownership has declined over time due to societal pressures and a growing emphasis on human rights. This shift in thinking has led to restrictions on property owners' rights and a greater recognition of their responsibilities towards others. By understanding this intellectual evolution, we can better appreciate the laws and regulations that govern property rights today.

The field of financial rights is divided in a number of ways within the context of legal knowledge. One of the most fundamental of these divisions is the distinction between "objective" and "personal" or "in personam" rights. The genesis of this distinction can be traced to Roman law. It subsequently permeated the Western legal system, including that of France, following a protracted journey. The foundation of this differentiation lies in the legal tenets governing litigation, the enforcement of rights, and the conduct of court proceedings. It has now become the primary consequence of embracing this differentiation in the proceedings and the exercise of rights.
However, over time, a substantial number of rulings have been issued on this matter. An objective right is a right that an individual possesses over an external object, which they are able to exercise independently, without the need for the involvement of others. In contrast, a personal right is attributed to the entirety of a particular individual's property, and the holder of the right does not possess dominion over a specific asset belonging to the debtor. This article's focus is on examining the existence of the division of financial rights into objective and personal categories and its implications in Islamic and Iranian law, despite the existence of differing interpretations.
In examining this issue and related issues in this article, the descriptive analytical method is employed, and materials are collected through the library method. This is done with the aim of investigating the concept, history and distinction of objective right from personal in Western law, and of re-examining the place of this separation and its implications. In examining rulings in Islamic jurisprudence and Iran's law, as well as the latest developments in Western law (France) and Imamiyya jurisprudence, this article aims to delineate the border between them in Iranian law. It will then proceed to examine some of the most important examples of this distinction, and elucidate the significant practical effects that arise from it.
In response to this, the authors argue that in Islamic law, the objective right is distinct from the personal one, and that there are specific rulings and effects associated with each. This is because, within the field of jurisprudence, the financial right is not divided in this way. Additionally, the distinction between objective and personal rights in Iranian law can be discerned from the Civil Code and the Code of Civil Procedure. However, with regard to the concepts of object (ein) and debt (dein), as well as the scope of objective and personal rights, there are notable differences between the legal systems of Islam and the West, which have been the subject of extensive investigation.
In conclusion, it can be stated that the distinction between objective right and personal right in Western law, including in France, is a well-established concept with roots in Roman law. This distinction has significant implications and has shaped the structure of the French civil code.
In Islamic law, although the jurists have not explicitly articulated this distinction between rights and obligations, they have instead distinguished between "right" and "melk" as well as "ain" and "dain," which is a division of property based on its existence in the world.
In conclusion, it can be stated that the distinction between objective right and personal right in Western law, including in France, is a well-established concept with roots in Roman law. This distinction has significant implications and has shaped the structure of the French civil code.
However, there are rulings in jurisprudence that cannot be justified except on the basis of distinguishing between objective and personal rights. This demonstrates that the jurists were aware of this division and accepted it. Examples of such rulings include the mortgagor's right of precedence over the mortgaged property over other creditors, the dissolution of the mortgage contract, rent and usufruct in the event of the destruction of the subject of the contract due to force majeure, and so forth.
In conclusion, it can be stated that the distinction between objective right and personal right in Western law, including in France, is a well-established concept with roots in Roman law. This distinction has significant implications and has shaped the structure of the French civil code.
In Western law, "ownership" represents one of the most evident instances of an objective right, with its foundation invariably situated in an external specific object. However, in Islamic and Iranian law, the ownership right exhibits a distinct character, contingent upon the object in question, whether external or general. If the property in question exists in the external world, In Islamic and Iranian law, ownership is an objective right. However, since general property can also be the subject of ownership, this assumption of ownership is not objective. This is to say that a person may be the owner of another person's liability (zemme). In other words, every creditor is the owner of the debtor's zemme. In conclusion, it is notable that in Western law, the term "object" is used in contrast to "obligation," and the concepts of "objective right" and "personal right" have been established as a foundation for this distinction. However, in Islamic law, there is no such contrast between "object" and "obligation." In other words, in Western law, the term "object" is synonymous with a material object that exists outside the legal system. However, in Islamic and Iranian law, the term "object" refers to both an external object, which is a material object and is a "definite object", and also to the object in zemme, which is the general object and "ein koli dar zemme" is actually the same as "debt". "Dein" is defined as "general property under zemme". This fundamental distinction between the concept of "object" in Western and Islamic law has prompted some scholars to question the existence of objective and personal rights in Islamic law. This article addresses these concerns and provides a comprehensive analysis of the subject. It should also be noted that in Islamic law, "dein" is the opposite of "specific object" (ein moayan) and the word "object" is used absolutely in contrast to "profit".
In conclusion, it can be stated that the distinction between objective right and personal right in Western law, including in France, is a well-established concept with roots in Roman law. This distinction has significant implications and has shaped the structure of the French civil code.
In contrast to Western legal systems, Islamic law distinguishes between the concepts of debt and obligation. In the event that the subject is a general obligation, the term "obligation" is also "debt"; otherwise, it is solely an obligation. In Western law, absolute obligation constitutes a personal right, with the rules of the personal right pertaining to it. However, in Islamic law, the distinction between debt and obligation means that some rules of the personal right are related only to debt, not pure obligation. From the perspective of civil procedure law, this division exists in Iranian law, with lawsuits divided into personal and objective lawsuits.
Furthermore, at the execution stage, once the claimant's objective right has been established and a definitive judgment has been issued, this judgment is enforceable against any individual or entity in possession of the property subject to the judgment, even if they are not a party to the proceedings. Consequently, the expropriation decree is enforceable against any possessor, even if they are not a party to the lawsuit. However, when the court judgment contains an individual condemnation of the obligor, it is enforced only against that same person.

Article 34 of the Iranian LICA mentions several reasons for setting aside the arbitration award in three paragraphs. The last cause, to a large extent similar to the fifth paragraph of Article 489 of the Civil Procedure law, refers to the "Conflict of the Arbitration Award related to Immovable Property with the Provisions of the Notarial Documents". A cause due to its lack of clarification in the UNCITRAL Model Regulations and the 1958 New York Convention raises the question of what is the meaning of the "Notarial Document" contained in this paragraph and what are the justifications for including or removing this exception in the provisions of the Iranian LICA.This analytical descriptive article has reached the following conclusions using the library research method, First of all, the intention of the legislator in this provision is the specific concept of the notarial document - in the sense of a document prepared by the notary; Because the subject of the law is commercial arbitration, and commercial operations as defined in articles one to three of the Commercial Code, usually refers to transactions. Therefore, if the third paragraph of Article 34 has a concept about commercial operation, that concept appears only by manifesting the meaning of the notarial document in the "document prepared by the notary." Also, part of the third paragraph of Article 34 holds, "unless the "arbitrator" has been authorized to act as "amiable compositeur" regarding the latter issue." implicitly implies that a legal relationship has been concluded between the parties within the framework of the notarial document in question, which, in the form of its terms, the arbitrator has been given the right to compromise.Secondly, Regarding the concept of setting aside the immovable property arbitral award based on Conflict with the provisions of the notarial act, three main points of view have been raised in the opinion of arbitration law experts, based on which they have considered the requirement mentioned above as a redundant provision:The Non-incorporation of subject matter point of view believes that the transfer of immovable property is outside the scope of the LICA due to the non-commercial nature of the immovable transaction. The main challenge of the present view is the neglect of the wide scope of commercial operations of Article 2 of the LICA, derived from the footnote of Article 1 of the UNCITRAL model regulation, and conflicts with Article 2 of the Commercial Code.Although it may be said, since joining the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards, Iran, like many countries, has used the right of reservation of paragraph one of Article 3 of the Convention regarding the governance of internal regulations in the definition of commercial operations, the Commercial Code definition of commercial operations is acceptable; However, in rejecting this argument, the possibility of difference between the concept of commerciality in the New York Convention and commerciality in the LICA has been mentioned. Even beyond that, it has been said that if Iran has accepted the New York Convention subject to the definition of commercial operations according to its internal regulations, this does not mean applying articles two and three of the Commercial Code. It also makes sense to refer to the general criteria of the LICA.The view of Conflict with public order believes that from the perspective of domestic law, immovable property is a part of the territory of countries, and the sensitivity of the legislator regarding immovable property and the possession of foreigners has historical roots, which places it in the category of domestic public order. According to some jurists, this sensitivity in the field of land registration system has become much more intense, especially after the events in Palestine.From an international point of view, the Lex rei sitae is one of the oldest rules in private international law, according to which the legal regime governing immovable property is assumed to be the law of the country where the property is located. In this regard, land registration rules are considered a manifestation of public order based on the Lex rei sitae.In this regard, although according to the acceptance of the land registration system in most countries, it may appear that the acceptance of this theory is not compatible with the concept of relativity in public order. But considering that relativity can be different based on the concept and scope of public order in different countries (spatial Conflict) or different periods (temporal Conflict), although from a spatial perspective, the issue of notarial documents has an almost universal consensus; From the temporal point of view, the relativity discussed can be attributed to the issue of notarial documents.The third point of view regarding the non-arbitrability of claims related to real rights believes that arbitration is only specific to the rights of obligations and cannot refer to real rights, which have to be registered in the land registry. In criticizing this point of view, it should be mentioned that according to the rule in Iranian private law, except in cases where the law prohibits arbitrability, all claims are arbitrable, and immovable property is not excluded from this principle. In this regard, the pre-sale contract is one of the contracts that, according to Article 3 of the building pre-sale law, is made through the preparation of a notarial document by the notary and its notice is sent to the local registry office and included in the title document. However, paragraph 10 of Article 2 of the law provides the mandatory arbitration mechanism. Article 20 of this law states that all disputes related to the pre-sale contract have been subject to arbitration.Therefore, paragraph 3 of article 34 of the LICA is part of the second paragraph of the same article. On this basis, it is suggested that it be removed according to the logical justification based on the doctrine of Conflict with public order. With this action and regarding the above-mentioned interpretation, Iranian regulations consider international standards, and respect for notarial documents is maintained in terms of public order.

One of the old problems of Iranian law is the conflict of competences that exists in practice between the organization of registration of documents and real estate and the judiciary. One of these cases, which is not ambiguous in the laws, but when it comes to an execution where disputes are considered, is when a document is executed, but one of the parties or a third party objects to the execution. In short, if the objection is about the issuing the execution, this matter is under the jurisdiction of the judiciary, but if the objection is about the execution itself, it is under the jurisdiction of the head of the local registry. The Supreme Court tried to resolve a dispute regarding the third party's objection to the execution of the document, according to judicial unanimity award number 784, but the investigation showed that the award not only did not resolve dispute, but also due to ambiguity. It may have caused more differences.If the dispute arises either from the third party or from the parties, it is related to the execution stage of the document and has an executive nature (according to the regulation of executive "operations"), it is within the jurisdiction of the head of the registry, but if the dispute is about the executive itself. or the dispute is quarrel , in this case, without a doubt, the dispute should be resolved in the court.

Negotiation is one of the methods that seek to resolve the dispute peacefully, and legally it has an independent nature from similar methods such as arbitration, mediation and conciliation. The necessity of negotiation is that because its provisions are carried out before entering the judicial authorities, it can be an effective and efficient way to speed up the dispute resolution process and reduce the volume of cases in Iran's courts and preserve the commercial-economic information of the parties to the contract. The novelty of this topic is that the negotiation clause has not been discussed so far in relation to the effect it has on the parties and the duty of Iran’s courts in dealing with it. This research was compiled with descriptive-analytical method and using library sources and verdicts of domestic and foreign courts. The results showed that if we consider the negotiation as a clause of a passive act or a clause of the result of a partial deprivation of rights, then the guarantee of its violation will be the issuance of a non-hearing order by the court. Regarding the duty of the parties during the negotiation, it is concluded that the mere recognition of such a clause is not enough for its precise implementation, but the need for continuous cooperation and good faith on the part of the contract parties in the process of renegotiation is also required.

The purpose of the current research was the historical course of ceremonial sale in Iran. Formalism, although partial, has always existed in different societies. The formation of contracts in ancient societies, for various reasons, was dependent on the observance of certain rituals, and not observing the prescribed rituals led to the invalidity of the contract. At that time, the position of the form was so much against the inner will of individuals that, for example, in the ancient laws of Rome, there was a phenomenon called single legal acts. This means that legal acts were completely independent from the will of individuals and in the formation of legal acts, there was an absolute government. Therefore, if the parties had the intention of selling and mistakenly used the words of gift, their action would be described as gift and it would not be possible to prove otherwise. In connection with the evolution of consent or the formality of contracts in Iranian law, it has been said that consent means freedom of contract in two ways, the first one comes from our traditional and jurisprudential system. In these articles, the will must be expressed in the form of "condition" or "contract" and the concluded contract will be titled. The second category of materials are the materials that entered Iran's law from the Roman-Germanic system.

Non-opposability is a sanction that came from French law to Iranian law and has taken examples in Iran's law, judicial procedure and legal doctrine. The flow of this sanction is where the rules protecting the rights of third parties, such as the need to register and publish or comply with the form, etc., in creating legal elements such as a contract, are not observed by the persons involved such as the parties to the contract. In Iranian law, this sanction is included among sanctions and legal situations such as nullity, lack of Influence and Mora’a and it raises the question that how efficient are these sanctions and legal situations for non-observance of the rules protecting the rights of third parties compared to non-opposability?Since efficiency is a basic concept in economics, which has several criteria for its evaluation, this research, using the efficiency evaluation criteria in economics, describes and analyzes the non-opposability from an economic point of view and in comparison with other sanctions and legal situations in Iran's laws.The result of this research is the economic efficiency of the non-opposability, among other sanctions in Iranian law, from the point of view of Pareto and Kaldor-Hicks efficiency criteria, relation to the situation of non-compliance with the rules protecting the rights of third parties.

A claim to oblige a seller to draw up a notarial deed is one of the most common claims in Iranian law, and due to some ambiguities, sometimes there are disputes concerning the issue of territorial jurisdiction between the courts in regard to movability or immovability of the claim. Takin into consideration the fact that according to the requirements of the registration law, until the real estate transaction is registered it cannot be relied upon, at least against third parties, where a seller refuses to draw up a notarial deed the buyer will have to file such a claim. Now, the first question that presents itself about this claim is whether it is considered movable since it is the result of a contract or, on the other hand, because it is related to an immovable property, it should also be considered immovable and therefore should be raised in the court where the property is located. This article, on the occasion of criticizing the decision handed down by the 25th branch of the Supreme Court that resolves disputes among courts regarding jurisdiction, has examined the nature of the claim to oblige a seller to draw up a notarial deed concerning an immovable property. According to the research conducted, it seems that currently drawing up a notarial deed does not play a basic role in the contract of sale, and is an example of movables since its nature is commitment to carry out an act. It follows then, that a case to oblige a seller to draw up a notarial deed is also considered a movable and must therefore be filed in the place of residence of the defendant. The judgment examined in this article has correctly considered such claims as movable and as a result has considered the matter within the jurisdiction of the court where the defendant resides.

 Changing the usage of agricultural lands which has been set out for about 60 years has been increased anxiously in recent decades and it is regarded as an essential barrier for sustainable development and food safety. Hence optimum utilization and production from lands specially agricultural lands are governments and people crucial missions as a power supply and assurance of human life continuance. The conclusion of this study is that governments are able to put limitations on people ownership rights of agricultural lands restriction on public profits moreover confirming some changes in agricultural lands is permission conditional on reducing from jurisdiction cases. Disobedience to legal limitations will end in civil and criminal responsibilities. But predicted civil and criminal sanctions of changing usage of agricultural lands rules in our country have some defects, therefore these defects are useful for offenders.

One of the important foundations of personality law is the integrity of the human body. This rule originates from the inherent dignity of man and has become a fundamental issue in recent centuries after changes. Accordingly, the human body should not be attacked, whether at the time of life or after death, and should not be attacked either by it or by others. However, advances in medical science on the one hand, and the development of markets on the other, have undermined this important achievement of law. This article seeks to study the history and basis of this rule by studying a historical and philosophical basis and fallacies about it that allow development to violate it.

This research is theoretical and the research method is descriptive-analytical and information collection is done in a library by referring to documents, books and articles.

In all stages of writing the present study, while respecting the originality of the texts, honesty and trustworthiness have been observed.

It seems that the views of current jurists on the rule of physical integrity of the human body and its immunity from aggression can be divided into three categories: 1. The first category still believes in the "absolute" integrity of the body and Are its components; 2. The second group, from a material point of view, believe in the possibility of relative appropriation of the body and its components, and consider the limitation as the truth as a serious injury to the body. The third group believes in the integrity and inviolability of the human body and its components, but believes that renewable items of the human body, such as blood and hair, can be traded as long as there is no customary damage to the body, as well as organs such as the kidney that is harmful. Allow it to be donated only if the truth of the title of self-sacrifice is sacrificed and not exchanged.

As a result, the integrity of the human body at the time of death and after death is a fundamental rule and can not be violated except in exceptional cases. However, the human body and its members are out of the market cycle and are not property.Please cite this article as:Pilvar R. Philosophical-Legal Analysis of the Integrity of the Human Body. Medical Law Journal. 2022; 16(57): e16.

Ownership right is the most important and complete financial rights that a person can have in a society; The most common means of Acquisition mentioned in Article 140 of the Civil Code are contracts. One of the most important proofs of claims is the deed, which is divided into two categories of normal and official under Article 1286 of the Civil Code. Despite the great value and importance that civil law has given to official deed, it is not possible to find an article that indicates the invalidity of ordinary deed. Approval of the Law on Registration of Deeds and Properties, especially Article 22, 46, 47 and 48 raised doubts about the lack of credibility of ordinary deed regarding Immovable property which continues to exist despite its approval for a long time and even Article 62 of the Permanent Provisions of Development Act has failed to end the challenge of invalidity of ordinary deed. Absolute accreditation of ordinary deed of land and property transactions and consequently the instability of ownership right and lack of attention to the importance of fixing it led to many economic and legal problems that can be an alarm for the community. The importance of ownership right for human in society and the necessity of its establishment gave credence to the present study. For this purpose, while studying the formation of a registration system in French law and the position of registration in Iranian law and examine the current approach of the legal system based on the validity or invalidity of ordinary deeds in immovable property transactions, we have been looking for a way to establish the right to private ownership. The result indicates the possibility of validity of ordinary deeds (merely by court order) and its acceptance as an "effective proof of claim" unless it conflicts with the official deed. Before amending the relevant laws, the only way to deal with the harmful results of accreditation to ordinary deeds is to use the "appropriate interpretation of existing laws" to enhance the status of official deeds.

The need to acquire new sciences, the establishment and construction of a national economy based on new knowledge and technologies, and finally the need to support thinkers, were highly valued by the constitutionalists. With a deep understanding of the causes of Iran's backwardness, they saw support for what we now call a knowledge-based economy and intellectual property rights, including the necessary steps for the country's development. This article studies the history of Iranian law and analyzes the first regulations adopted by the government, seeks to explain and analyze the intellectual foundations of the matter among intellectuals and clergies, and identifies and briefly analyzes the first Iranian regulations on the protection of intellectual property. Accordingly, by studying the treatises and regulations of the constitutional era, we observe the germs of intellectual property rights in Iran and it is observed that the provisions protecting the cases of intellectual property rights, especially industrial property, were formed very early, which are historically due to grace. It is an honor for Iran and its scholars compared to other similar countries

Sport, like other industries, has products and goods that may be based on skill, art, thought and knowledge. With a glance, it's possible to see professional sports competitions and surrounding affairs as the source of products that are shaping up in the industry. One of the achievements of these races is the sale of points, television broadcasting, ticket sales, promotions, and the like; among them the most profitable is the sale of sporting media player points, which are in the form of a contract, club or league or sports federation, the right to broadcast The contest settles in a variety of ways to an organization or company that specializes in broadcast media. Regardless of the level of commercial importance and popularity of professional sports competitions, one of the most important doubts is whether a set of professional sports competitions can be protected as literary and artistic work as intellectual property rights? This research seeks to prove, with the help of the fundamental principles of literary and artistic works, that professional sports competitions have the ability to take into account the truthfulness of the aspects of originality and expression in a particular form and form of the case of literary and artistic works of thought And hence the monitory and moral rights arising from literary and artistic works.

The role of literary and artistic works in the cultural development of a society is so strong that many sociologists have considered the basis of education in art and have emphasized its fundamental role in the growth and promotion of society. The undeniable impact of literary and artistic works is that if these works are in line with human and religious ethics and teachings, they will result in scientific and cultural excellence, and moving along the path, will have no effect other than degeneration and decline. In view of the need to balance the interests of society in the pursuit of new and exalting literary and artistic works on the one hand and to support the creators of artworks in the creation of exquisite works on the other, this article seeks to determine whether there is a legal limitation or absolute protection of these works in Iranian law by expressing the role of literary and artistic works in society. And if the restriction is imposed, what is the criterion to apply the restriction? The results show that the absolute literary and artistic works in the teleological, ethical and human dignity legal systems, unlike capitalist legal systems based on materialism and pleasure, are not legally supportable and for determining Supported Items, must use legitimacy and legitimate rational interest criterion

The contradiction between selfishness (personal interest) and altruism (public interest) and how they are combined are issues that have engaged the minds of the greatest thinkers of human history. The school of natural rights is one of the pioneers in this regard that it has played a significant role in justifying the right of ownership and identifying its limits. Some thinkers believe that the right to private property is a natural right inherent in human nature and in opposite, others, despite the recognition of the right to public ownership as one of the examples of natural rights, consider private property as the exception and maintain that this right has come about as a result of rulers’ act or on the basis of a social contract. On the other hand, in the school of Islam (theImamiyah jurisprudence), it is believed that the real property belongs to God and the man is indebted to Him in this divine gift. Defending private property rights is observed in both of these views (convergence) but each of them, under the auspices its intellectual foundations, has adopted a distinct policy about the scope of this right and sometimes has come to different results (divergence). This leads the mind of anyone to study these theories, reasons and argumentative methods so that be able to deal with a kind of convergence and conciliation between these thoughts and the existing divergence between them and come to a favorite result in this lane of dogmatism.

Reforming official institutions as enacting economic laws and regulations and guaranteeing their implementation, these reforms need to form a collective action among its stakeholders. Although the formation of this collective action among actors with conflicting motives may increase the chances of such reforms succeeding, economic considerations face significant barriers such as transaction costs. After the theory of collective action for voluntary public procurement and transaction cost theory challenged the presumption of the omnipotent and benevolent government, how the decision-making processes within the public sector evolved. In this paper, we attempt to provide a conceptual framework for examining the transaction costs associated with the collective action of political, administrative, and economic actors to guarantee the implementation of laws as a voluntary public good. Such action requires the pursuit of information seeking, bargaining and negotiation activities, and ensuring that political, economic, and administrative actors perform the transactions. The results of the conceptual framework, developed on the basis of the combination of theories of collective action and transaction cost in this paper, show that 18 components influence the costs of collective action for institutional reform. The application of this framework for analyzing the enforcement of business environment facilitation laws, in particular the Law on Continuous Improvement of the Business Environment Approved in Iran in 2011 shows that in addition to the lack of legal enforcement guarantees and external oversight deficiencies, there are several components that can cost the collective action required to enforce these laws.

In a major division, rights and disputes are divided into in rem and in personam categories; one of the sources of the creation of rights, contracts is that Article 10 of the civil code which has accepted the rule of will in establishing them. In the field of in personam rights, as the effects of contracts are relative, this rule is absolutely applicable. But its application to rights in rem, other than rights envisaged in the laws and regulations, requires further scrutiny because of the absolute nature of these rights and their applicability to others, especially in view of the legal neglect of this title and Legal systems do not have a single position. For this reason, in the present study, we have tried to discover the legal position in Iranian law by conducting comparative study as well as fiqh investigation of the issue, while presenting economic analysis. The result is that despite the disagreements it must be stated that the principle of sovereignty of the will and consequently the freedom of contract in the creation of rights in rem is applicable to both French and Iranian law, unless the legislator restricts it to the material.

Since the health of the human community is very important, and on the other hand, free trade has undeniable benefits, there must be a balance between the freedom of trade and the health of the community so that people benefit from both. Therefore, in order to minimize potential conflicts between commerce and health and maximize their benefits, there is a need for greater interaction between business and healthcare policymakers in mutual awareness of the policies of the parties, as well as the establishment of codified principles to support both of them , Next to each other.
This article attempts to examine the important and fundamental agreements of the World Trade Organization and the importance of the public health for the World Trade Organization.
In light of the review, it seems that the World Trade Organization has tried, while respecting its principles and objectives, such as free trade and non-discrimination, to take into account public health and, in its agreements, The conditions for countries to limit free trade, if necessary, to protect the public health and health of their societies.

Water as a source of life is one of the most important underlying factors of development in any country. Prior to the 1940s, water was considered unclaimed property according to Imam jurisprudence and, consequently, civil law and any acquisition and exploitation of them was carried out in accordance with the rules and regulations of private law. Over time and also the occurrence of many problems in this area, various damages were gradually inflicted on the country, including due to the introduction of deep well drilling technology and uncontrolled abstraction of groundwater by wells. Accordingly, the role of the government became more prominent in exercising sovereignty over the exploitation and protection of the country’s water resources and water exploitation became subject to the rules of public law as well as the rights of water wells “changed”. So that now any exploitation from groundwater by drilling wells must be done with the permission of the government and within the prescribed limits. Thus, It can be seen that due to the changing water conditions of the country and the crisis in the water sector, the waters became national. And the private rights of individuals were restricted in the exploitation of water wells and public laws take on a major role in the administration of this part of the legal system.

Today, with the rise of various diseases, the lives of human societies are more and more endangered. Therefore, the pharmaceutical industry is one of the most important industries to be supported in order to maintain the incentive to invent new drugs for dangerous and emerging diseases, as well as the incentive to produce widespread pharmaceuticals for inventors and investment companies in the industry. Against the undeniable advantages of protecting inventors and drug manufacturers, this support can lead to the emergence of some countries, especially developing and least developed countries, with serious threats to public health and the inability to access proprietary drugs, they face. Which of these two options is preferred over the other? Protecting the pharmaceutical industry or protecting public health against threats? Accordingly, the paper examines the World Trade Organization's Facilitation of Drug Access for Developing Countries and least developed countries with emphasis on developments in the Trips Treaty. In short, along with the World Health Organization, whose role is to help maintain health, the World Trade Organization has tried to incorporate some of the acts in the trips agreement as well as its "reform", while maintaining its fundamental principles, such as freedom of trade and the principle of non-discrimination, to protect public health from threats, in order to prevent the conflict between the two.

Although the Iranian Civil Code has allocated a considerable part to the “property” and its related issues, the nature, concept, and criterion for knowing it has not been expressed yet. A parallel condition exists in French Civil Code which has been the inspiration of the Iranian Civil Code writers. Western Law has undergone significant changes, specifically in the recent centuries which is worthy of being studied. There is much controversy in Islamic Law (Fiqh) in this area. This article initially tries to study the concept and elements of the “property” and explain the criterion for knowing it in both Islamic and Western Law. And we will prove that the property is a concept of created by law and a “haghighat e orfie, not the law, and the diagnosis criterion is also personal.

Abandonment is one of the most important causes which terminates the ownership and turns the abandoned property into a publicly-owned property. This makes the abandoned property available for a new ownership in accordance with the prevailing legal rules. The present study aims at undertaking a comparative examination of this legal institution in Fiqh, the Iranian law, and the French law. For this purpose, this paper will examine different dimensions of abandonment. This study will conclude that there are many similarities among the aforementioned legal systems in relation to abandonment. The most important aspect of abandonment is the termination of the ownership and if abandonment is not performed in a proper manner and in accordance to law, this may produce legal liability.

The State which in principle must be the guardian of the ownership of persons in society، in some cases takes private property for the purpose of executing general policies، challenges the ownership of persons in the name of superior interest، and acts to take the persons'' property. Now days، due to expansion of urbanization، this act has since become ever so expanding، and involves important issues in order to reconcile it with the respect for personal Right of Property. In this article، we have briefly attended to the most important issues concerning this legal institution and necessity of protecting of private property. We have concluded that، in short، taking of persons'' property for the sole purpose of public good and only after payment of fair compensation is accepted.

Ownership and freedom are two essential rights and of value to human beings. By contrast to preliminary reviews، the link between these two values is very solid، and they have a reciprocal relation. Not only can they serve as the foundation of each other، but also in case of departing this equilibrium، each can have a negative effect on the other. The relationship between the two is the subject of study of this article. For purpose of conclusion، we should know that Freedom and ownership are two important rights، in which Law has the obligation to create equilibrium between them; as such not only there will be no conflict between them، in fact they will complement and support each other، and also each shall maximize the other.