Judgment
Year:2024 | Volume:24 | Issue:2 (118)|Papers Count:6

Pregnancy represents a critical phase in the growth and development of human beings. Given the inherent relationship between a mother and her embryo, detrimental behaviors exhibited by the pregnant mother can lead to diseases and abnormalities in the developing fetus. As the embryo is profoundly influenced by maternal actions, it is essential to establish appropriate standards to safeguard the embryo's right to health. Employing a descriptive-analytical methodology, this article explores the feasibility of holding mothers accountable for the fetal right to health within the framework of international legal documents. The findings indicate that, in light of preliminary negotiations and the conditions surrounding the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) and select articles of the Declaration on Human Rights in Islam, it is plausible to consider the pregnant mother's obligation to uphold the health of the fetus. This interpretation aligns with the provisions of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. Furthermore, various documents from the World Health Organization (WHO) explicitly emphasize the necessity of appropriate maternal conduct concerning fetal health. Additionally, the embryo's right to health is recognized in the Maternity Protection Convention of 2000, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR), and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).It is suggested that Welfare should have the ability to bring an action against pregnant mother by referrig to foregoning documents and internal law.

The legal status of transactions that contradict negative result conditions (the consequences of negative result conditions) is an issue that has received limited attention in Islamic jurisprudence and Iranian law. Jurists and legal scholars have proposed four theories regarding the legal status of transactions conflicting with negative result conditions: the invalidity of the conflicting transaction, the non-enforceability of the conflicting transaction, the potential for the conflicting transaction to be annulled, and a distinction between unilateral acts and contracts (invalidity in contracts and non-enforceability regarding the conditional beneficiary in unilateral acts). The authors contend that a distinction should be made between the unilateral waiver of legal effects (unilateral acts) and the waiver of such effects within the framework of a bilateral contract. In the former, because the individual has irrevocably waived the legal effect, the conflicting transaction is invalid; however, in the latter, since the waiver is contingent upon the will of the conditional beneficiary, they may choose to forgo it and restore the legal effect to the conditional obligor. Thus, the conflicting transaction should be considered non-enforceable and subject to the approval of the conditional beneficiary. Finally, a comparison is made between the consequences of negative result conditions and negative action conditions, demonstrating that, despite differences in their content, they share the same legal ruling in the context of conflicting transactionsIn conclusion, a comparative analysis between the guarantee of executing a negative outcome condition and the legal negative condition reveals that despite differences in content, they share a consistent legal ruling in the context of contradictory transactions.Key words: opposite Transactions, sanction, negative result condition, nullity, invalidity,

Iranian criminal law, to safeguard public health and counteract the detrimental impacts of trafficking in goods that endanger public health, has adopted an intensified criminal policy. The Law on Combating the Smuggling of Goods and Currency dedicates Article 27 to the protection of public health as a core objective of criminal policy. This law, alongside criminal measures, also embraces situational preventive policies and highlights the importance of addressing the trafficking of health-related goods by adjusting its approach. Given that criminal prevention in developed societies no longer adequately reduces crime rates, there is an increasing need for a robust and preventive non-criminal policy to maximize protection of health-related goods. The legislator's view of the trafficking of health-related items, such as medicines, differs significantly from its approach to other contraband items. Such goods, when illegally imported, pose fundamental and sometimes irreversible risks to uninformed consumers. To prevent additional harm to vulnerable groups, the government has mandated specific regulations for importing health-related goods based on international standards. Furthermore, the legislator, in Chapter Two of the aforementioned law, has adopted various non-criminal preventive strategies for combating the trafficking of these specific items. This article elaborates on the situational preventive measures enacted by the legislator, with a focus on their international counterparts

Legal scholars and practitioners in commercial law concur on the social and economic changes of today's world and the misalignment of Iran's commercial laws with these changes. The necessity for updating and amending commercial law is evident. However, given the significance of this law in the country's economic framework, there is a need for meticulous consideration in its legislation. In this context, it is essential to analyze the Commercial Bill approved by the Islamic Consultative Assembly prior to its potential ratification by the Guardian Council. This study seeks to answer the question of how the innovations introduced by the Commercial Bill will impact the general contract rules within the Iranian legal system. The initial hypothesis posits that while some of these innovations will enhance the legal framework, they may also pose new legal challenges in certain areas. Therefore, this research employs a descriptive-analytical method to examine these innovations and analyze their effects on general contract rules in two phases: before and after the conclusion of contracts. The findings indicate that certain innovations, such as the broad allowance for the agreement to apply foreign law and the granting of authority to third parties to determine the transaction amount, will create difficulties, as they are not well-aligned with the existing legal structure. Additionally, granting third parties the authority to determine the transaction amount when the criteria established by the contracting parties are not enforceable will also lead to practical and legal problems within society. Conversely, the Commercial Bill, by adopting the theory of accession, has specifically improved conditions in electronic contracts, and provisions such as the possibility of amending non-standard contracts or preemptive termination are regarded as positive movements. Therefore, despite the presence of some positive reforms, challenges remain, highlighting the necessity for a more precise examination and amendment of this bill.

Article 674 of the Islamic Penal Code prescribes a ruling concerning compensation for lost benefits, which, in Islamic jurisprudence, not only deviates from the widely accepted view but also lacks any authoritative "Fatwa" aligning with its provisions. Moreover, Article 674 conflicts with Article 672 of the same code, raising uncertainty about the legislative rationale behind this provision. This descriptive-analytical study aims to examine this issue within the framework of jurisprudence and the principles of civil liability law to determine whether a reliable foundation for Article 674 of the Islamic Penal Code (IPC) can be identified to justify its existence or whether it requires revision. The study’s findings suggest that the closest Fatwa to the ruling in Article 674 IPC is attributed to the jurist Mohaqqiq Karaki; however, it is not fully aligned with it. Furthermore, the subject of the article does not correspond to the rule of previous status or the "egg-shell skull" doctrine. Ultimately, the ruling in Article 674 IPC does not align with the goals of civil liability, the principle of compensating for damages, or the principle of deterrence. Consequently, the ruling in Article 674 IPC lacks any credible jurisprudential or legal foundation

Article 46 of the General Conditions of Contract (GCC), as specified in Publication No. 4311, outlines 15 grounds for contract termination by the employer. Although some of these instances may inherently lead to automatic termination or nullification, where the employer has no role or influence, the majority of termination cases arise due to the contractor’s breach or negligence. This termination right can be interpreted as a breach of a conditional obligation by the contractor. For breaches mentioned in Clause (a) of Article 46, particularly in items 3 through 6, the employer has the discretion to terminate the contract. In making this decision, the employer must weigh public interests and benefits and choose between contract termination, adherence to the contract, or seeking damages. Moreover, if the contractor expresses readiness to mitigate delays—for instance, by working at night as provided in Article 25 of the GCC—and if, according to the employer’s assessment, the contractor’s adherence to the contract would offset or lessen the damages caused by the breaches, and the resulting harm from termination would exceed the harm of contract continuation, or if the employer takes other measures against the contractor, such as compelling contract performance and claiming damages, thereby reducing harm significantly below that of termination, then, considering the analogous principle of Article 25, the exceptional nature of termination, public interest, and preference to minimize greater harm over lesser harm, the employer’s right to terminate is nullified and forfeited.