جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه « نظام کامن لا » در نشریات گروه « فقه و حقوق »

Land under human ownership has a special place and importance in all legal systems and the legislator provides important protections for this property by observing certain conditions. The rights of Islam and the common law also attach special importance to land and have protected the owner and occupier in various civil and criminal regulations. The legal establishment of Trespass is one of the most important issues of tort law in the common law system in this regard, one type of which is Trespass to land. Although this legal establishment does not exist in Iranian law with such a title, by careful evaluation and recognition of its elements, it can be claimed that its contents can be found in the institution of forcible entry and usurpation in Iranian legal system. Since Trespass to land has a long history in common law judgments, by analyzing and comparing the elements of these three institutions, one can identify the commonalities and differences between the elements and responsibilities arising from each in the two legal systems and the achievements of this. Due to its long history, the regime used domestic property lawsuits to promote domestic law. This article analyzes and compares the elements and responsibilities of these three legal institutions after examining the elements of each of the trespass to land in the common law system and the forcible entry and usurpation of Iranian law

One of the characteristics of the English judicial system as the cradle of common law is the existence of the rule of precedent and its use in the proceedings. This rule, which is based on creating unity and commonality between different customs, requires judges to follow previous opinions. Of course, the judgment is binding if it is issued by the Supreme Court and is consistent with the new event. However, at present, this institution does not have an exact equivalent in the legal system of civil law, but In this article, it has been tried to show that, French law has long used tools with a similar function under the name of regulatory decisions. On the other hand, Iranian law has not equivalent for it and in the case law of Iran, the unanimous rulings of the Supreme Court cannot be introduced as its equivalent. Furthermore, the Islamic judiciary has also followed from such an approach.

Moral right is one of granted rights to author in literary and artistic property law. Unlike economic right which considers protection of financial and economic aspects of author's rights, the function of moral right is to protect author's Character creativity, immaterial aspects and social interests. Despite the attention of countries following copyright system to economic right and having utilitarian approach, necessities such as internal and international (like the results of accession to Berne Convention) requirements, compelled these countries including UK and US to accept moral right. However, this right in these countries has less important situation, more limited instances and time protection rather than countries following author's right system: for example, waiver of moral right in UK has been accepted extensively and the rights such as right of attribution and right of integrity are not applied about some works. Moral rights in Canada are limited into two rights of attribution and integrity and waiver of this right is allowed generally or partially. Australia has the most comprehensive statute on moral right, infringement and remedies about that. This research examines the causes of accepting moral right in copyright system through comparative study on some of countries following this system.

Among the most important principles governing recovery of damages in Common law systems is that damages are compensatory. The principle applies in the field of the law of contracts as well as the law of torts. By the principle it is meant that damages are paid to compensate the injured party for losses sustained and not to punish the wrongdoer or depriving him from gains acquired by the breach. It has several functions like determining the kind of recoverable damages and limiting them. The latter function has some effects which include: plaintiff must suffer damage; damages are based on the loss of plaintiff and not on the gain of the defendant; damages must not exceeds the loss and damages are not punitive. The principle has faced several challenges but none of them could call into question its validity.After an inquiry into this principle and its functions and effects in common Law system, this article offers a brief study about it in Iranian law. The study shows this principle has not been recognized under the same topic, it could be inferred from various rules and other principles regarding civil liability.

Intellectual rights are granted to the author under the literary and artistic property rights whereby the authors can claim the authorship of the work, protect the integrity, and prevent any distortion or modification of the work. Contrary to material rights that support the financial interest of the author, intellectual rights support the character of the author. It is believed that intellectual rights were introduced in countries that confirmed the copyright system such as France and Germany. Historical antecedents, however, prove the opposite assumption. The intellectual right was discussed for the first time in the second half of the 18th century within the investigation of two important cases in Britain where this right was recognized as the origin of the copyright system. The copyright approach to intellectual property rights has resulted from the historical, cultural, incentive, and utilitarianism factors. This approach differs from the author’s rights system. Countries that follow the copyright system used to support the intellectual rights of the author by using some methods such as mutilation or defamation relying on the contract provisions before joining the Berne Convention. These countries are still using the same methods in courts to support intellectual rights according to Article 6 of the Berne Convention after joining it. This study was conducted to investigate the background and basis of intellectual property rights under the copyright system. Besides, this paper examines factors affecting the copyright approach and methods to protect the intellectual rights of the author.

The question of codification is a topic that is almost as old as the law itself. Early collections of laws are routinely referred to as codes, even though there is usually little reflection on quite what it is that constitutes a ‘code’ or what codification might mean in this context. In the modern law, codification has tended to be thought of in terms of grand modernizing projects that aim to replace older laws with new, universal and complete statements of law. The academic literature on codification has accordingly been dominated by debates for and against codification. The reformers argue that codes are modern, clear, accessible and consistent, while defenders argue that existing laws are consistent with the culture of the community they regulate and are flexible and adaptable to change. In this paper my aim is to go beyond this debate which, in my view, has become somewhat sterile. I try instead to address two principal questions. The first is to ask what exactly it means to codify the law. The, perhaps slightly surprising, conclusion that I draw here is that all law is necessarily ‘codified’ in the precise sense that laws or rules are necessarily generalizations about conduct and how it should be regulated, and that this very process or abstraction or generalization then creates constraints for the practice of law or dispute settlement: as rules are written down they must be followed, and similar cases decided in the same way. In this way the practice of codification regulates legal practice as well as social life. And as rules become more complex they may be written down in different way - law books or legislation. This then leads to the second question, which is to examine the more limited understanding that we have of codification in modern legal systems. Here I argue that codification is linked to practices of state-building and the practices of legitimacy that are associated with it in modern society. In this way I thus hope to offer new understanding of a concept and a practice that is central to the modern law. Finally I would like to record my gratitude to Bahman Khodadadee and Sara Mirbazel for their works in producing this translation, and to Dr. Abdolreza Javan Jafari for assisting with and overseeing this process.

According to article 1 of civil liability code, the liability is based on fault, but in civil code it is not assumed as a necessary element for civil liability. However, fault is not a unique base of Iran’s law, the role of fault in civil liability is not deniable. Fault in fault-based liabilities result in tort and in restrict liability it makes a new way for injured person to claim. In liabilities that fault is supposed by legislator, a plaintiff has no need to prove the fault. In common law system, courts sometimes voted by strict liability and in some cases fault is considered as a necessary element. Additionally,whena defendant commits an inconsiderable negligence, there is an authority for judge to reduce the amount of compensation and this the way that fault effects on compensation.

This article error in law within the private law domain specially in conclusion of contract in Iranian law system and latest evolutions performed in this regard in the law systems of the USA and UK and judicial procedure of these two countrie's courts.Error in law is one of the issue that all legal systems in the world are challenging with them within the domain related to civil responsibility and conclusion of contract depending on fundamentals and viewpoints accepted by them and in spite of difference existed between them in behaving method. Performance method of common law and the legal systems of the USA and UK is so interesting in this regard and shall be considered. Study of historical movement of this discussion in this discussion in this system represents two different behaviors to accept this kind of error including negative behavior in the past and positive behavior during this days.In this abstract, we try to study the method of former behavior and new approach of common law system in the above said countries in connection with subject, reasons and fundamentals of changing this approach briefly, while study meaning, concepts and different kinds of these errors and other issues related to them in Iranian law.