Comparative Law Researches
Year:2019 | Volume:23 | Issue:3 (105)|Papers Count:7

Partnership, in the Iranian Legal System of Iran, is not considered as a legal entity and-according to common views-partners’ liability to third parties is unlimited. Partners have joint liability to third parties. Profits and losses are divided between partners according to the proportion of capital they have invested. Irrespective of being possible for partners to agree that profits and losses be divided otherwise or not, we believe what was said in Iran Civil code, so did in Islamic Jurisprudence, about dividing profits and losses according to the proportion of partners’ capital, only covers the partners’ liability to third parties when it is not agreed otherwise between partners and third parties. As the partnership in Iran has no separate legal personality, restricting partners’ liability to third parties is covered by general rules of restricting persons’ liability, so if it was not against imperative law, it is possible to be agreed otherwise among partners and third parties to divide partners’ responsibility or restrict it. This possibility can encourage people to invest their property in the form of partnerships in order to manage a business. But without an agreement among partners and third parties, restricting liability is not possible for partners. Thus, it is impossible to rely on restricted liability in tortious liabilities, so do in contractual liabilities where limited liability is not agreed with third parties. To reach this possibility in the legal system of Iran, using the rules of English Partnership Law (both of limited liability partnership and limited partnership) in Iran, has been proposed in this essay article.

One of the main functions of electronic banking is the transfer of funds as one of the most important means of payment, which is now widely popular for various reasons in the field of commerce. However, the fraud and the issuance of unauthorized payment orders has put the tool in jeopardy. The present article seeks to find an appropriate response to the unauthorized transaction risk allocation and to describe the responsibility of the parties to the transaction in the field of electronic banking, which will use an analytical, descriptive, and logical method to to doing comparative research in the legal system of Iran & US. The results of the research shows that an unauthorized transaction is performed without the customer's actual or supposed appearance. Additionally, in cases where the transfer is based on the client's security policy, the customer is often assumed to be responsible. The objectives of risk allocation, including loss reduction, motivation, etc., provide a combination of possible risk allocation approaches so that, while accepting the bank's responsibility, limiting the limit for customer liability to prevent customer negligence in maintaining and maintaining access tools and hand codes To be found. The other results of this research are that Iran's legal system in this area is new, and there is a need for comprehensive regulation, and despite the fact that according to the rules of the principle is the responsibility of the bank, it is the responsibility of the customer's which emphasized in the judicial practice.

The basis of conflict rules in over the border claims is the principle of the places nearness. In this regard, the law governing the form and nature of contractual claims is the law that has the closest spatial relationship to the dispute contracts. This principle has been clarified in the rules of conflict of laws, in the form of an exemplified titled "The Law of Place of Contract", "The Law of Place of Execution of the Commitment", and "The Law of adjusting the Contract". All above mentioned instances are as the material manifestations of the place relationship factors, which requires identifying and enforcing them, determining the place to rely on these examples. Although, in cyberspace, where there is no any specified place, how is it possible to determine the conflict solution rules governing on form and nature of electronic contracts by these communication factors? Furthermore, what law is governing on these types of contracts? The effects of this challenge are evident in the electronic contractual system; because making the rules of competency for the place in private international rights, as well as the elements of power and legitimacy of cyberspace in public international rights, have been challenged. Hence, to be global and placeless natures of cyberspace are as the basis of conflict resolution rules in electronic contracts; substantially, they have challenged private international rights. Basically, what approach have legislators adopted for this challenge? Is there a separate legal system for electronic contracts? Private international law should have a worthwhile response in the conflict resolution phase of electronic contracts; besides, it should preset the ground for the unification of these rules. This matter has led to making reaction of governments and even judicial procedures domestically and internationally. These reactions can be studied in the field of legislation in the mode and form of electronic contracts rules as well as the rules of laws conflict resolution. The purpose of this paper is to discuse how the private international rights deal with these challenges?

In domestic law, the influence of the will of the parties in the conclusion of the contract is subject to the non-opposition of this will to the customary rules of the rights of that country. But in the international arena, which may have parties to different nationalities or, a foreign element may be involved in a contract, one of the issues that arises is the degree of influence of the will of the parties in the choice of law and Obstacles to the enforcement of this law are selective, in the Rome Rule one, "In addition to recognizing the principle of degradability or the depecage the principle of Sovereignty of will, in absolute terms, but in American law, the principle of Sovereignty of will, with due observance of a fundamental or rational condition, is conditionally admissible. In recent years, with the change in the American legal system's approach, the principle of sovereignty of will has been abandoned and is fully recognized in international treaties. Of course, in spite of the absolute acceptance of the principle of the will of will, the law may not be enforced because of the opposition to the general order and the rules of the country's home court.

The right of access to information is one of the most important principles, and plays the undeniable role regarding the participation of citizens in democratic societies. This right also plays an important role in protecting the rights and interests of individuals, preventing the administrative corruption and also increasing the administrative transparency. It should be noted that today, this issue has been accepted despite differences in Iranian and French legal systems. In each of these two countries, an institution has been created to control the observance of this right, which in Iran is the Commission for publishing and free access to information, and in France is the Commission for access to administrative documents. In this paper, it is attempted to examine the structure and tasks of theses commissions and to highlight their bugs, while expressing the way of constitution the commissions for access to administrative documents in Iranian and French administrative laws.

Strategic bombing of population centers and civilian industrial and communication facilities is a widely-used method by involved parties in the wars waged in the 20th century. This strategy which aim at destruction of the economic power and the population morale is in contrast with the principles of international humanitarian law regarding the distinction between belligerents and non-belligerents. In its advisory opinion on the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons in 1996, the International Court of Justice, on the one hand insisted on the principle of distinction between combatants and non-combatants and on the other, recognized the deterrence policy as state practice, hence having legal effect. reviewing of some of the technical details and requirements of the deterrence policy leads to the conclusion that this policy is a continuation of the older concepts of total war and strategic bombing. Therefore, the recognition of the deterrence policy in international law is a tacit recognition of the possibility of the principle of distinction being violated in some cases. Hence, the strategy of some States, including the Islamic Republic of Iran for retaliatory attacks on the cities of their adversaries can be legally justified on this basis.

Family Unity is one of the principles of human rights and is considered in numerous international instruments including the International Bill of Human Rights. However, when the unity right and family re: union: are considered within the framework of international human rights and especially for refugee, they are faced with several challenges in recognition and application on the basis of documents and practice. In any case, since the refugee, as a human being enjoy the fundamental human rights their enjoyment of family unity and reunification in the country of destination is inevitable, necessary and achievable under the international human rights law. This paper gives consideration to international and state practices in this issue while it investigates about the status of the right to family unity for refugees in international law and its challenges and it also legally analyzes the existing capacities in order to join family members to refugee and problems they facing with.