JOURNAL OF COMPARATIVE STUDIES ON ISLAMIC AND WESTERN LAW
Year:2019 | Volume:6 | Issue:3 (21) |Papers Count:7

The right to self-determination can have different dimensions including in the local area and in the role which citizens can take in local-municipal regulations. This research discusses the mechanisms of citizen participation in the regulatory process in terms of local councils and, through employing comparative studies, expresses distinct examples and models of this participation. Despite the good experiences of leading countries in this area as to engaging citizens in the regulatory process, the results of the research demonstrate that, although there is a possibility of a general deduction of this participation from the upstream legal documents, there are no mechanisms for participating in local regulations or they are very weak and scarce in Iran. The impossibility of systematic and rational participation of citizens in regulation can be one of the most important causes of ineffectiveness and lack of willingness to obey municipal regulations and increase in the economic and social costs of implementing city councils' decisions.

In Shia jurisprudence and law of Iran the ruling related to unauthorized transaction in most cases is ineffectiveness. In English law, the representative's unauthorized transaction for himself except for exceptional cases is void and his transaction for others could be authorized only when his intention of representation is revealed. This difference in ruling is rooted in distinct bases of these systems. The authors, as the result of studying these bases, believe that the basis for unauthorized transactions in Shia jurisprudence and law of Iran is the "reference to the owner" theory, while the English law follows the "administration of contracts" theory for the unauthorized transactions of the representative for himself and "representation resulted from authorization" theory as regards the unauthorized transaction of the representative for the owner. Despite the difference in terms of bases and rulings, there are many features shared by the above mentioned legal systems as to effects of unauthorized transactions; insofar as one can, against the majority, claim that the rules of unauthorized transactions in Imamiyah jurisprudence and law of Iran, like English law, can only be implemented under certain conditions. Examination of the effects of the unauthorized transactions demonstrates that permission of denial or authorization and adherence of the authorized representative to the transaction are among the most significant effects of the unauthorized transaction in both legal systems. Acceptance of the aforementioned facts as the common effects cause the following questions: whether the permission of denial or authorization can be inherited or transferred by/to others? Whether the authorized owner has the right to terminate or transfer the transaction subject before the authorization? Answering these questions and the comparative study of the said effects contribute to the better accommodation of this type of transactions with the public order and globalization of the contracts law.

The brief composition of Article 265 of the Iranian Civil Code, not only is resulted in different interpretations regarding this Article, but also has caused the issuance of distinct judgments by the courts. Owing to this fact, setting up a unified in order to avoid confusion among the parties to a certain case, the courts and lawyers has become an undeniable necessity. In this research, through resorting to doctrine, the views relating to the foregoing Article are studied and analyzed and it is attempted to introduce the view among the existing ones which is more compatible with laws, custom and case law of the courts is Iran. Also, thorough a comparative approach, it is tried to study the procedure in the UK legal system and by means of employing the advantages of this system and contrasting it with the legal system governing the country, express a solution for ending this fragmentation in judgments. In the other side, because of the undeniable role of Article 1235 of French Civil Code in the codification of Article 265 of Iranian Civil Code (Many of the lawyers believe that Article 265 of Iranian Civil Code is an incomplete adaptation of Article 1235 of French Civil Code), the existing views as to these two Articles would be expressed. At the end of the study it is seen that in accordance with the majority standpoint, delivering a property to another person is not the presumption for indebtedness, while according the Islamic jurisprudents in case of disagreement between the giver and receiver of the property, the claim of the giver is preferred.

Among the most challenging interdisciplinary discussions in our era is the conversation about nature and philosophical foundations on the way to look at it that is discussed in the domain of environmental discourse. Various and sometimes crisis-making interventions in nature is rooted in the bases of the way of looking at nature. Some have a anthropocentric approach toward nature based on which nature is the enemy of human beings and must be defeated one way or another. Another view is based on this statement that the nature is divine trusts for us and should be treated with a lovely vision and be looked upon as a kind mother and interventions in its regard should be conducted trustworthily. These two views are of thousands of years' history and their expression in Judaism and Christianity based on which the current view in west is inspired, is the topic of the present article as the starting point of religious look in this regard. Briefly speaking, the Jewish view and the Christian view of the Roman branch are based on the defeating and forceful approach toward nature and the viewpoint of Christianity in the Greek branch and Islamic one are based on a loving and trustworthy approach as regards the nature and the environment.

International humanitarian law has provided numerous protections for respectful behavior with the dead bodies of the wars. These protections begin with the obligation to seek the missing and continue until the respectful burying of the bodies. In addition to the problems associated with the implementation of these regulations, the humanitarian law system is grappled with deficiency in criminalization of certain behaviors against bodies such as unauthorized exhumation, obstacles to the identification of bodies and uncared for them on the battlefield. Since the source of many humanitarian protective laws related to the bodies is the teachings of divine religions, in this article, the protection of bodies in the context of sources of Islamic jurisprudence has been studied. Respect for human personality after death, necessity of the urgent burial of corpses, and the prohibition of the amputation of the dead bodies in the war as a religious duty are highlighted in the traditions of the Infallibles (Ma'soumin) and the views of Muslim jurisprudents. Although burying with special Islamic rituals, in accordance with the pivotal role of faith and belief in Tawhid and Resurrection (Ma'ad) in the Islamic worldview is devoted to the bodies of Muslims, but based on the standards of Islamic jurisprudence regarding the secondary decrees, the necessity of burial is extended to all dead bodies of the war. Along with health considerations and the significance of exchanging the corpses and consequently the necessity to keep and bury them, currently, Muslim governments are obliged to complying with these protections through international humanitarian documents.

The approach based on the constitutionalization of criminal institutions is one of the most effective strategies for organizing the discourses aimed at safeguarding fundamental rights and freedoms of citizens against the state power. Aiming at alleviating the damage caused by unnecessary imprisonment and systematizing the Iranian judicial procedures in selection of this punishment necessitates finding a solution in this regard in legislative and judicial criminal policy-making levels. Doing so, constitutionalization of adopting the "minimum legal punishment of imprisonment" and recognizing this approach as a "legal principle" is one of the strategies that can play a pivotal role in realization of the foregoing goals. In this article, through relying on the principle of criminal minimalism, the way of applying this principle in the selection of imprisonment in Iranian and French legal systems as well as Islamic jurisprudence is studied comparatively.

A fact witness might incur damages as the result of attending court to testify. These damages are chargeable. It has been accepted and legislated by the legislative power. But paying fact witness for mere witnessing or testifying engrosses some obstacles in Iranian and American laws. Generally speaking, these obstacles are the prohibition of payment for witnessing due to its indispensableness and concern about payment impact on the testimony substance. In Islamic jurisprudence in witnessing only the former hurdle exists, whereas both can occur in testifying in which the latter is even more important. In U. S law only the latter obstacles exists. In this article, the first hurdle is rejected and a hypothesis would be proved based on which if fact witness payment is observed and controlled by courts, the mentioned concern can be eliminated and, therefore, fact witness payment would be lawful. One of the significant results of this discussion is that the mere payment to fact-witness does not render his/her witness invalid.