جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه "unilateral will" در نشریات گروه "فقه و حقوق"

Administrative officials in the implementation of their duties take many decisions daily that affect the administrative situation and citizens. The primary basis for applying these decisions and monitoring them is to determine the limits of the authority of the administrative authority. We are looking for the answer of whether the administrative authority after making and implementing the decision has the authority to cancel and cancel his decision or not. Obstacles and exceptions that can be avoided are dealt with by illegal decisions for the administrative authority, and deviation as an exception to the principle of prohibiting the return or change of legal decisions. With regard to principles such as the principle of the rule of law and as a result the lack of competence of the administrative authority, the acquired rights and legitimate expectations of the citizens, the need for stability and unwavering in administrative decisions with the aim of predictability and programmability of administrative actions, annulment of legal administrative decision and deviation from On the part of the decision-making authority, it is also against the legal principles and moral rules, of course, there can be exceptions to this, and also by dividing the legal administrative actions, we deal with the possibility of deviating from some decisions.

Although unilateral sanctions usually evoke the special role of the sanctioner countries as the main cause of human rights adverse effects caused by the imposition of sanctions, but this issue should not lead to ignoring the role and responsibility of the target countries in the extent of the effects and providing the human rights needs of their residents. In other words, unilateral sanctions (primary and secondary) inevitably always contain side effects, the amount of which can always depend on various factors. So far, most of the books and articles written in the field of sanctions have examined sanctions and human rights violations from the point of view of the sanctioning country, and limited research sources have also examined sanctions from the perspective of the target countries and third countries. One of the most important goals of internal sanctions is to review the internal structures and laws and subsequently modify the structures and laws that intensify the sanctions, and in this article, it is referred to as self-sanctions. Third countries can also support their nationals who are engaged in trade with the sanctioned country by imposing blocking regulations while preventing the violation of their sovereignty by the sanctioned countries. In this article, an attempt has been made to explain the role and responsibility of the concerned countries in sanctions (sanctioner, target and third party), and examine the structures, laws and regulations of the target country (especially Iran) and its role in the effects of sanctions. At the end, we will provide solutions to modify and change them.

Revocation plays a crucial role in regulating legal relationships among individuals in society. Due to the diversity and complexity of its nature, the concept of revocation remains largely unexplored. In Islamic jurisprudence, revocation is considered an independent general theory, while in law, it is not seen as an independent theory but is discussed under concepts such as revocation of wills, gifts, testimonies, etc. Revocation is a unilateral legal act realized with the intent of creation. It is neither an absolute judgment nor a right but is relative and person-specific, non-transferable, and subject to partial waiver. Revocation, as a general theory, can dissolve legal acts alongside its similar instances and can assert its position through legislative enactment. This research aims to explore the theoretical foundations of the general theory of revocation in contracts, unilateral acts, events, and its legal nature from the perspective of Imamieh jurisprudence and Iranian Civil Law. The research methodology is library-based, and the type of research is analytical-descriptive. The principle of autonomy of will in contracts, such as in contracts and unilateral acts, is accepted unless it conflicts with public order and law. This principle is essential for the dignity and freedom granted to humans by God. Generally, every contract is formed through the concurrence of two wills, with the parties intending to sustain its validity and effects. However, sometimes, by examining legal provisions regarding contracts and transactions and observing the nature of some contracts, we find that certain contracts can be dissolved through revocation. This legal act creates complex discussions in contracts like endowment, mortgage, and gift.

Permission (''Idhn'') is a frequently used concept in the jurisprudential and legal systems of Iran. Identifying and explaining the legal nature of permission is the first step toward analyzing this legal concept, as well as the different areas in which it plays a role. The widespread applications of permission have made it challenging to choose a single nature for it. Scholars who have aimed to identify the legal nature of permission have often focused on its permissive aspect, assigning it a single nature. They then extend this chosen nature to the permission found in ''permissive contracts.'' Accordingly, scholars have argued about whether permissive creation stems from will or legal provision; some consider permission a unilateral legal act (Iqa’), while others see it as a legal event. Viewing permission as a unilateral act or legal event seems accurate only in cases where the granting of permission results in permissiveness. However, in cases where permission becomes a source of representation—or, in other words, when permission leads to the creation of agency, as in contracts of agency—the nature of permission cannot be regarded as a unilateral act. Defining permission as a unilateral act in such cases leads to inconsistencies and fails to align the selected nature with instances where permission forms the basis for agency. Thus, to determine the legal nature of permission, it is necessary to distinguish between the nature of permissive permission and that of permission as a basis for agency (i.e., in permissive contracts) and to examine them separately. According to the authors, the legal nature of permission as a source of permissiveness is unilateral, while permission as a source of agency holds the nature of a contract.

A unilateral promise in this article is a statement made by a person with the intention to be legally bound to do or refuse to do something or transfer property to another. Is such a promise binding without acceptance or not? There is still disagreement between jurists in European countries as well as Iranian jurists. Obviously, the concept of a unilateral promise communicated to the addressee is different from the contract and pre-contract negotiations. Because the promisor performs this act with the intention of fulfilling a legal obligation and creating trust and confidence, it will have legal effect. This legal act can only be justified in the form of an Iqa’ (Unilateral act). Iqa’ as a general theory and in the light of the rule of will, and according to narrations and verses, has an unlimited scope and includes a unilateral promise. Therefore, the will itself is the criterion as a source of commitment, whether it comes from a promise or not. So that the source and requirement of duty arise from the promise in the voluntary act, and the law also protects. The law protects any legal act by specifying it and even by not obstructing or by remaining silent if it is not contrary to public order and good morals. It seems that Article 10 of the Iran Civil Code, which is enacted in the case of contracts, is not specific but rather overriding and can include any legal action, including a unilateral promise as an Iqa’.

The normal situation of concluding a contract indicates that the parties in the Qur'an of creating intention and consent, after examining all the conditions and circumstances related to the contract, reach a final decision. In addition to this normal case, for some reason, preliminary agreements may be made on the conclusion of the final contract, which creates legal effects. In general, the unilateral obligation to sell and the right of priority agreement are two common legal forms in concluding the main contract, which, despite the similarities, should be considered as two independent legal entities with different legal regimes. The subject of this research has been the subject of controversy between jurists and the jurisprudence in terms of concept and nature, which in the recent amendments of the French legislature has sought to identify it as a preliminary institution of the contract to have the necessary effects on it. N. In this article, an attempt has been made to examine the concept of this legal establishment along with its effective functions and to determine its place in Iranian law.

International intellectual property rules are made over time and through confrontation and interaction between developed and developing countries in the form of bilateral and multilateral treaties. After Second World War and with the beginning of the independence movement of developing and less developed countries, the intellectual property rule making has been done through a cycle consist of unilateral, bilateral, collective and multilateral actions. This is a staircase process: Each of these actions is a prelude for the next step and developed countries, through unilateral economic pressures, at first forced developing countries to participate in intellectual property based bilateral negotiations, and then persuaded them to accept TRIPs. Afterwards due to developed countries dissatisfaction regarding TRIPs standards and by imposing unilateral pressure on developing countries, they committed to TRIPs-plus rules and standards in bilateral and collective commercial negotiations. Although some believe that after TRIPs, intellectual property rule making process may lead to multilateral measurements impediments, but considering the most favored nation treatment principle function, it is expected that with increase in the number of bilateral and collective agreements, TRIPs-plus standards will become an important part of international intellectual property. Therefore required provisions for raising the level of negotiations to multilateral negotiations in the forum of World Trade Organization or World Intellectual Property Organization and finally creating new TRIPs will be provided. In this situation and in order to protect the interests of the country in the best way, it is necessary for Iranian commercial negotiators to participate intellectual property negotiations intelligently and awared of the Country's development level and developed countries' goals.

America uses embargo not as a tool and method to apply pressure but as its foreign policy. The purpose of this article is to examine the effects of the pressure and control approach of the United States of America on Iran's oil and gas industry and its confrontation with the right to development, as well as trying to provide suggested solutions to deal with it in the international arena.
This article is descriptive and analytical. Materials and data are also qualitative and data collection was used in collecting materials and data.
Ethical Considerations: In this article, the originality of the texts, honesty and trustworthiness are respected.
The right to development belongs to all citizens, and the United States' approach to pressure and control over Iran's oil and gas industry violates the right to development in Iran. Governments are obliged to refrain from resorting to any type of action that contradicts international cooperation. Article 2 paragraph 4 of the United Nations Charter implicitly confirms this necessity. There is no doubt that international cooperation is one of the goals of the United Nations, and economic sanctions seriously threaten international cooperation and contradict the spirit of the new economic system that is being developed at the international level.
It is necessary to pursue appropriate legal measures in order to deal with unilateral US sanctions, which violate the right to development, through international legal forums.

While the legal validity of unilateral acts of states has been subject to various challenges, in the actual practice of states such acts have long existed as regards their daily ordinary relations, so much so that the development of customary international relations regarding them can be examined. Unilateral acts matter both as a common way by which states operate in international relations, and as a recognized source of law in scholarship and jurisprudence. This paper, in a descriptive-analytical way and using library resources, examines the situations in which the practice of the state leads to the termination or revocation of unilateral act. Thus, the question is under what preconditions are states able to end or withdraw their unilateral action? Based on the comparison between the legal effects of unilateral acts with those of treaty obligations, it could be argued that the right to revoke such acts may be subject to the consent of beneficiary third parties. Nonetheless, the International Law Commission’s approach of merely imitating the rules of treaty law on this subject seems problematic.

Administrative act is the primary core of administrative law. In this article, this concept is examined in German administrative law, which has one of the most complete and transparent laws in this field, and in Iranian administrative law, which does not have any laws in this regard. Here, the German Administrative Procedure Law is discussed as a general administrative law that includes the details and effects of administrative act, along with the state of Iranian administrative law, which is at the beginning of the codification process, in order to compare the two in order to explain the administrative act. to be used in Iran. According to the authors' analysis, the main difference between Iran and Germany's administrative law is in the basic definition of administrative act, which in German administrative law, administrative act include general order and arbitration acts. From the view of executive effects, these acts should be considered according to the state of the act, whether it is correct, defective or invalid. In German administrative law, the effects of administrative act are valid or objectionable according to the correctness or degree of defects. to be or it will be invalid, but in Iranian law, these acts are not clearly specified in the laws, and a theoretical discussion should be raised about it.

The challenges facing the rule of law in the face of unilateralism in international law, which are expressed in this research in a descriptiveanalytical method and using library resources and documents, constitute one of the important issues of relations and international law, and it intends to answer the basic question that what are the challenges of the unilateral US sanctions against countries, especially the Islamic Republic of Iran, with international law? and are these unilateral Imposing valid and legitimate from the point of view of international law? The data shows that since 2002, the issue of sanctions against Iran and the unilateral implementation of US sanctions, without the prior permission of the Security Council and outside of the collective security system charter, it has caused the legality of these measures to be questionable in terms of their compliance with international legal standards and also contradict the principle of the rule of law at the international level.

Our current world is a world of intertwined economies; So that the continuation of economic life of countries depends on international cooperation. According to the United Nations Charter (1945) and the two Covenants (1966), the states are committed to strengthen world peace, expand international relations and strengthen respect for fundamental human rights and freedoms; While imposing unilateral sanctions is in clear contradiction with these commitments. The present article with a comprehensive review of the concept of sanctions and its types; It seeks to understand the position of unilateral sanctions in international law, as well as the reactions and capacities of the international community to face such coercive measures. Unilateral sanctions, especially primary and secondary economic sanctions(extra-territorial), which are carried out outside the provisions of the United Nations Charter, are used as tools of political pressure in the hands of powerful countries to impose their intentions on the target governments of such actions (including the unilateral coercive sanctions of the United States against Iran). Unilateral sanctions by violating the principles of “legal equality of states”, “international cooperation”, “non-intervention” and “non-use of force” violate the standards of international law, especially in the field of fundamental human rights. In recent years, there have been many reactions in the form of offering proposals, issuing statements and resolutions in opposition to unilateral coercive sanctions and continues. Despite the fact that the international community has many political capacities (enlightenment of public opinion, issuing announcements and statements) and legal (provisions of the United Nations Charter and covenants, specific treaty obligations, judicial references, etc.) in order to prevent or reduce the effects of unilateral sanctions; However, due to obstacles such as “veto” power in the hands of the sanctioners and the actual dependence of most countries on their Political-Economic Hegemony, it has not been very successful. It seems that, in addition to the mentioned mechanisms, until a global consensus is formed against these unilateral coercive measures, achieving the appropriate result will be far from mind.

After the Cold War, the Security Council has widely used the tool of sanctions, referring to the Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter. The imposition of such sanctions in terms of violation of articles 1, 24 and 55 of the Charter and other human rights treaties is considered a violation of the jurisdiction and legal authority of this council and is invalid; and in terms of violation; The Security Council failed to fulfill its international obligations in the field of human rights, the causes of the international responsibility of this council and consequently of the United Nations will be realized. The study of the consequences of imposing sanctions in the target countries shows that the most suffering and damage of these restrictions was inflicted on ordinary people and human rights standards have been widely violated as a result of sanctions. In this article, using the descriptive-analytical method, we seek to investigate the effects of human rights violations of sanctions that have been unilaterally imposed on Iran.

Unilateral US sanctions imposed on Iran are an example of hostile policy in interstate relations and disregard for fundamental human rights, including the right to life, health, and development, which are recognized in international law and the fundamental rights of countries, and mechanisms are foreseen to guarantee and support them. In the Iranian legal system, these cases have been identified in the framework of public rights, and the judiciary and the attorney general's office play an inherent mission in restoring these rights. Therefore, the question that arises is how the Attorney General's Office, given the powers specified in the laws and regulations of Iran in restoring public rights, should act in order to restore the rights and interests of the Islamic Republic of Iran deprived of unilateral sanctions. In order to answer this question with a descriptive-analytical method, an attempt has been made to first follow up and monitor the issue of unilateral sanctions, and then the possible ways to pursue and file lawsuits in domestic and international courts have been examined. In this regard, in accordance with the rules and regulations in the system of international responsibility of states, the violation of general and specific obligations of the United States has made it possible to pursue this issue in international courts. Under domestic law, the jurisdiction to hear complaints against persons involved in sanctions in domestic courts has also made it possible for the Attorney General to pursue and supervise in domestic courts

Indefinite Iqa’ and Unilateral Commitment; the Challenge, Evaluation, ResultAbbas GHASEMI HAMED (Professor of Law, Shahid Beheshti University)Abstract:Iqa' has legal effect through intention of one individual without harming any other party (except as explicitly mentioned in legal cases including Divorce). In Iran's civil code one category of Iqa' is nominated with especial names and has specific legal effects similar to the definite contracts, while the validity of indefinite Iqa' is subject to discussions and controversies in Iran's Law. This disagreement regarding the general validity of unilateral commitment to create legal responsibility refers to disagreement about validity of indefinite Iqa'. Now this question is raised: are there any reasons implying the general validity of indefinite Iqa' otherthan those which are explicitly included in law concerning definite Iqa'? In other words, are there any citations relating to accuracy and validity of indefinite Iqa' and unilateral commitment as well as those relying on Art. No 10 of Civil Code infavour of indefinite contracts? It seems that based on Art.30 of Civil Code, indefinite Iqa' has legal validity in the field of Financial Rights. Accordingly unilateral commitment about Financial Rights as an example of indefinite Iqa' is correct and encompasses legal effects.

Letter of credit, as an international payment instrument that is now widely used by traders in the international trade, has always been used as a reliable means of safeguarding the interests and rights of contract parties. Despite the widespread use of this payment instrument, businessmen and activists in the international trade pay less attention to its nature and source of the obligations in this international payment instrument. This Study examines the legal nature of Letters of Credit and views on this subject in light of the regulations in a descriptive-analytical manner. Legal scholars have offered different views on the legal analysis of the nature of the letter of credit and the source of its obligations. Although, some authors, considering the differences between the nature of letter of credit and contracts and negotiable instruments, believe that letter of credit should be analyzed as an international payment instrument with an independent and unique nature, however, Most of these views are based on contract law and have analyzed the nature of the letter of credit in the contract nature, that this view is more consistent with the accepted principles of the Iranian legal system.

The role of will in the creation of obligations and the determination of their boundaries and effects is evident for all. Traditionally, it has been debated whether the concordance of wills does lead to the creation of obligations? In other words, are two persons need primarily to create an obligation or a single will can create an obligation against him/herself? This question arises for this fact that obligation was understood as the legal relationship between two persons. The advocates of the classical theory have always criticized the theory of unilateral will as the source of obligation; the criticisms which are often answered by the advocates of the mentioned view. In its recent amendments and in particular Article 1-1100 of the French Civil Code, the French Legislature has recognized legal acts arising from unilateral will. There are disagreements in the Law of Iran; some have completely rejected this view and others have accepted it. As regards the nature of this obligation, some consider it as a directive unilateral act and others, invoking the theory of exhaustivity of contracts and unilateral acts, maintain that this view can be accepted as a general theory. This study is conducted through a descriptive-analytic method and aims at examining the creative power of unilateral act as the source of obligation in law of Iran and the French law.

In the process of Iran's accession to the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime, known as the Palermo Convention (hereinafter the Palermo Convention) and the International Convention for the Suppression of the Financing of Terrorism (hereinafter the CFT Convention), the Guardian Council has, among the others, two objections regarding the non-accession to the two instruments. First, concerns about potential impediments on the circumvention the United States sanctions and second, obstructing assistance to resistance groups. Given the common provisions of both Conventions on the fulfilment of obligations under the domestic standards of the Member State, there seems to be no reason to worry about them. In this article, while examining the reservation of other States to these instruments, it will be analysed in light of international law rules the Guardian Council's objections to the proposed reservation to the Conventions. The conclusion is that the concerns raised about accession to the conventions can be eliminated in the light of the principles and rules of international law based on the objections raised.

The term "unilateral contract" in appearance contains an explicit conflict; due to the fact that contracts have at least two parties and are bilateral. In general, unilateral legal actions are outside the scope of contracts and are the equivalent of unilateral juridical actions. Unilateral contract in English Law refers to a contract in which, upon acceptance, only the offeror has an obligation. The offeree in a unilateral contract has no obligations, and acceptance is done only by conduct. In French Law, the concept of a unilateral contract refers to a single-obligation contract that can be accepted in any of the available ways to express acceptance. In Iranian legal system, a unilateral contract is not recognized under such a title. However, there is a similar entity called single-obligation contracts compatible with its French meaning and comparable with a unilateral contract in English law if acceptance is by conduct. In English law, as a general rule, the contract's conclusion time is the same as the receipt time of acceptance. Due to the offeree's reliance on the offer, the offeror loses the opportunity to refer the offer in the unilateral contract. The contract is concluded from the beginning of the offeree's action. There are many ambiguities in Iran's law regarding the issues raised because the legal texts and the jurists' opinions are not explicit in these cases. While their Inclusion in civil law adds to the richness of legal literature but in practice, this division's effects can eliminate courts' ambiguities in this regard. This comparative study's results indicate that Iranian Law can accept the unilateral contract without any obstacles. This subject is discussed in this article through a descriptive, analytical and comparative method.

This article analyzes the crisis of secession in the Catalan region of Spsin in terms of  the right to self-determination in international law. The focus of this paper is on the application of this rule to non-colonial situations. While applying the right to self-determination in colonial situation is well-established and the people of these lands can create their own government under this rule, serious doubts have been raised about the right of self-determination outside the colonial situations. There is no consensus about the right to remedial secession under international law. This article tries to examine the customary law and the most important international instruments dealing with the right to self-determination, in particular the right of Catalan ethnic minority in Spain to form a new state. It is concluded that the Catalan authorities’ reliance on this right for declaring independence faces serious legal difficulties.