نشریه پژوهش های حقوق تطبیقی
سال بیست و سوم شماره 4 (پیاپی 106، زمستان 1398)

Legal systems around the world have adopted different approaches to protecting the privacy and integrity of citizens. However, protecting these values at times runs into conflict with principles such as freedom of speech and access to information. Moreover, the rise of social media platforms has intensified this conflict. In the U.S., the recognition of "public figure" and “actual malice” standard in defamation and privacy lawsuits has been a critical move in balancing the different values at stake. This Article studies the role of public figure standard in the U.S. defamation and privacy laws. It proposes that recognizing the differences between public figures and private persons in Iran’s tort law system can also help balance the various interests of the Iranian society and reduce the floodgate of defamation lawsuits. This approach will not undermine the right of private individuals who need the legal system’s guaranteed protection of their reputation and privacy.

Shipbuilding contact is a unique one. On one hand, regarding its outcome, it may be considered sale in which the builder has an absolute obligation to build and sale the ship, on the other hand, the long term of the contract and subsequently continued obligations of the parties against each other differentiate the shipbuilding contract from sale contract and simulate it to project construction contract. In this article, the legal nature of shipbuilding contract, emphasizing at English law, because of its selection in most of shipbuilding contract as governing law and comparing it with Iranian law, will be studied. Although Iranian case law has not yet found the opportunity to consider the nature of shipbuilding contract, scholars have considered this contract as sale. Traditionally, English law regards shipbuilding contract as sale and several authorities have also confirmed this issue. Some recent cases, however, have challenged this presumption in conformity with the continued obligations of the parties, such as designing and construction and payment of the price by way of installments.

The United States has been pioneering in the field of bank deposit insurance, and the deposit insurance was formally established in 1933 by the “federal deposit insurance corporation”, but in Iranian law, the deposit insurance system was established by the adoption of Article 95 of the fifth development plan act adopted in 2010, and the deposit guarantee fund was established in 2013. Due to the difference in the history of American and Iranian law, the deposit insurance system, although have similarities, but their differences are greater. In fact, the Federal Deposit Insurance Company(FDIC), in addition to being a deposit insurer, is one of the main supervisors of the US banking system, and thus, with its consistent supervision, will prevent the deterioration of the financial condition of the banks. Also, if (FDIC) sees the bank's situation unsatisfactory, it has the power to appoint itself as the bank's receiver and to prevent exacerbation of the bank's inappropriate condition, but in Iranian law, the duty of deposit guarantee fund will start when a bank goes bankrupt. The present study attempts to examine the deposit insurance institution in the US and Iran with a comparative approach, and ultimately offers suggestions to strengthen the institution in Iranian law.

After Punitive, Rehabilitative and Restorative models in the criminal justice system, recently a “worldwide trend” has been established in the judicial system of common law towards the use of more optimal and comprehensive methods, which has been respectively called “the Comprehensive Law Movement” in the USA and “Non-adversarial Justice” in the Australia. Accordingly, “Problem-Solving” or “Collaborative Justice” courts with reparative-therapeutic approach was established to address the underlying legal problems of defendant/offender. With a comprehensive look at the offender, victim and community, simultaneously use of therapeutic and community-based methods and mentioned triple models and without withdrawal traditional sanctions, these courts are trying to addressing defendants’ social, psychological, medical, and economic underlying problems. Meanwhile they seek to achieve the main purpose of the criminal justice system –crime prevention and rehabilitation of offenders- through minimizing the damages caused by laws, legal rules, legal procedures, legal roles and judicial practices. To increase the effectiveness of decisions, orders and verdicts, some criminal justice systems like Iran while keep traditional structures of present criminal courts and without using the specialized problem-solving courts has transferred some of the problem-solving principles directly to their laws or indirectly to their judicial practicies. This paper By using content analysis, analytical and descriptive method and library resources is trying to extract common principles of problem-solving courts and analyze the legal potentials of problem-solving in Iranian judicial system through a comparative study with Common Law System.

As the rules are more dynamic and more accommodate with the social and economic requirement of the community, they would be more pleased by people , and leads to improve individual's class's standard of living. The way of encountering with a breach of the contract and the violation of contractual obligations are among these rules. It has certain different effect, whether the promisee enforce the promisor to perform its obligation and in case of failure revoke the contract or has the right to choose between referring to the court or revoke the contract in accordance with its own personal benefits. Most of the Imamiyyah jurist believe it has priority to enforce the promiser to perform its obligation than revoke that, Iranian lawyer mostly follow this opinion. But in contrast, some  Islamic jurists believe that promise have the right to choose between enforcing the promisor or revoke the contract on its will. But in British Law in accordance with the goals of capitalism, the principle is to terminate the contract and force the promisor to compensate all damages and in the other hand enforcing the promisor to fulfill its obligations is an exemption. In this research by comparing the Imamiyyah jurisprudence ,Iranian law and British law we prove that it is more logic and acceptable that promise have an option to choose between revoking the contract or enforcing the promisor, and this option is not against the Islamic mandatory rules , and this theory is the proper point of view in todays commercial transactions

In Imamiyyah jurisprudence, the manufacturer of unsafe medicinal products should be held accountable, based on general rules such as waste and harm. EU law also provides for severe and effective sanctions as well as deterrents. Iranian law also needs to be upgraded, and the applicable safeguards in the laws should be amended and modified in order to strengthen its deterrence. In the EU, the supplier must provide information on unsafe medicines to reduce the risk of harm caused by unsafe drugs distribution, which is the obligation of the manufacturer based on the Rule of Tolerance in Imamiyah jurisprudence. In the European Union, the manufacturer of pharmaceutical products should reduce the scope for misuse of its manufactured drugs. It also promotes consumer confidence in the health of pharmaceuticals by establishing institutions such as the possibility of extradition and exchange of goods, to increase consumer safety, and in the in the European Union, there is also a special regulatory system for pharmaceutical manufacturers which is distinct from other regulatory systems that protect the consumer rights of other products are separate. Iran's law, in support of the consumer's rights to medicinal products, should be established by the principles and principles of common jurisprudence, by observing the institutions and recommendations of EU law and by observing their domestic laws.

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.