MODARRES HUMAN SCIENCES
Year:2008 | Volume:11 | Issue:4 (TOME 54)|Papers Count:16

The electoral campaign and the publicity, which are exercised during the election season by the candidates or their parties, are considered as the major subjects in the political systems based on the universal vote.Islamic Republic of Iran and the Fifth Republic of France both pay specific attention to the elections and have developed certain electoral codes concerning the electoral campaign.In this study, we defined four variables as our major categorization and tried to elaborate the electoral rules of both countries according to these variables:1. Preparing the context for the candidates and their parties for presenting themselves and their programs.2. Assuring a relative equality for all candidates to enjoy equal opportunities in the electoral campaign.3. Preventing violation of the citizens, rights during the electoral activities.4. Preventing the wasting and also the candidates' dependency on the interest groups and external powers.According, it was concluded that the electoral codes of both countries are corresponding with the proper situations of each country but the French rules are more comprehensive to assure the regularity of the elections.

The use of force by the United States of America (USA) and its coalition in Afghanistan, following terroristic attacks of September 11, 2001, can be approached from different political, economic, cultural, humanitarian and human rights dimensions. The right of self-defense is an inherent right of every country that was exercised in accordance with the customary international law before the United Nations (UN) Charter (including Article 51) came into force. Therefore, the concept of this right in the customary international law is wider than in treaty law. It seems that the traditional conditions for a legitimate and permissible defense, as defined under Article 51, cannot provide sufficient answer to the modem questions in the field. Self-defense, as provided in Article 51, does not include military operation in response to terroristic attacks, if the response breaches the territorial integrity of a country, it bears no direct responsibility for those attacks. Taking into account the new developments in the international community, any interpretation of this principle must inevitably take into consideration the security issues of the world. However, the main purpose of this paper is to examine the subject from the perspective of contractual international law to prove that the military operation going on in Afghanistan since October 7, 2001, cannot be justified as self-defense under Article51. Any interpretation of this Article has to take the provisions of Article 2(4) and 42 of the Charter into consideration. Accordingly, it is clear that for the protection of the international community's interests, Article 51 imposes certain limitations on the exercise of the right of self-defense. The silence on the part of some states concerning the US operation is not an approval by the international law either. Finally, the inaction by the Security Council of the UN toward both the brutal terroristic attacks against the USA and the latter's use of force against Afghanistan has undermined the main role of the UN in the international community.

The Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran suffers from a Paradox and a Contradiction crisis in relation to Human Dignity. This contradiction, real and fixed, has two internal and external aspects. Namely, the various principles of the Constitution (including the principles 2, 3, 4, 12, 13, 14, 20, 21, 115, 163) are not only inconsistent with each other but also with the International law of Human Dignity and International Human Right's law. The form of this inconsistency is "Contradictory" or "Contrary". Because the constitution recognizing the inherent dignity of man has laid down provisions which are completely contrary to its requirements and necessities. The main roots of this crisis must be searched in the opposite approaches are there among the philosophers and scholars about the dignity of man. Already, many solutions such as "Resorting to the Rules of Absolute, and Stipulated, General and Special". "Priority of the constitution to the other rules", "Jurisprudence of Expediency or Expediency of Government (Figh- al Maslaha)", "Necessity or Distress", have been proposed to resolve this paradox. But, in my opinion, none of these mechanisms can resolve this problem, permanently. In order to resolve this paradox, we must, inevitably, accept and recognize the inherent dignity of man as a natural, human and religious fact, by reviewing the epistemological, philosophical and anthropological foundations and principles (Ijtehad kalan).To put an end to this crisis, it is necessary, to review that principles of the constitution and other provisions is contradictory to the inherent dignity of man. By making such an effort we can establish social economical, political and criminal justice. Of course, considering the difference is there between the two groups of human rights, namely "Civil and Political rights" and "Economic, Social and Cultural rights", to differentiate between human beings in the latter one won't be contradictory won't be contradictory to human dignity. Because, as Plato and Aristotle have said, Justice is in proportionality nor in equality in this kind of rights.

The necessity of proceeding based on the contradiction and attempt to bring about a context in which the partners could contradict about such affairs as the crime, reasons or defending before themselves in an equal condition, is one of the most fundamental principles at the righteously trial process. This principle has been pointed out entitled "Fair Trial" in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and European Convention on Human Rights. Despite the fact that this principle has not been cited in Iranian statutes explicitly, because of its rational root, it has always been observed by the legislators and the jurisprudence in enactment and execution of the procedural rules, totally.Nevertheless, observance of the mentioned principle in some special trials such as the proceedings of Administrative Justice Tribunal's General Council in annulling the illegal governmental regulations has been hesitated because of the silence of the Law; in such away that some orders have been partly issued by the mentioned Council, without the observance of this principle.In this paper, we attempted to explain the concept and background contradiction: Moreover, the evidences of this principle and its justification in the proceedings of the administrative justice tribunal's general councils were also discussed.

A final and definite sentence is valid only in the case of a finished event. The principle is that is should be real. However sentences are sometimes issued wrongly which is not in the interest of justice. This is why revision has been considered in legal procedures as a complementary means for the elimination of mistake. This article aims to clarify the principles of revision and to juxtapose them with other external regulations and rules. The purpose best practices based on practical and scientific applications of revision principles there are only five articles on legal revision leaving many regulations untouched which the present article will try to unfold.

The present research attempted to explore the grounds for granting compulsory licenses of intellectual property rights and the possibility of granting this kind of license in Iranian legal system. Granting of compulsory licenses is possible both in the fields of copyright and industrial property rights. According to the related international instruments such as Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, Bern Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, TRIPs Agreement and Rome Convention as well as the national laws of many countries, compulsory licenses are granted generally in two grounds: when the right holder abuses his rights and when protection of public interests such as public health, national defense and correction of anti competitive practices are necessary. Apart from the draft of Iranian patent law and the draft of "Competition Enhancement and Monopoly Regulation", both of which are under review by the Islamic Parliament (Majlis), there are no specific provisions regarding the licenses. However, granting of compulsory licensing may be legally acceptable with respect to Iran's membership in Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property. The general rule of "prohibition of abuse of right" under the 40thprinciple of the Iranian Constitution Law may also be another legal basis for compulsory licensing in the case of the abuse of monopoly rights by the IP right holders.

The increasing development of different kinds of pyramid schemes and their extended activities having no economic value has caused some concerns as to their detrimental and unpleasant effects on economic and social relationships Of the most important questions raised about such schemes is the legal status of pyramid sale. This article is going to analyze such contracts from the point of view of the Shia Islamic Jurisprudence and Iranian Law. Pyramid transactions are among the examples of obtaining property in a void manner (unjust emichment) and uncertain or risky contracts which are subject to express prohibition of Islamic jurists, because they involve fraudulent statements and deceitful marketing methods which make false expectations among the new members for unreal benefits . This is despite the fact that mathematical calculations have made clear that almost ninety percent of such members not only obtain nothing but suffer losses. Therefore, the validity of pyramid contracts, because of fraud, is seriously questionable and contrary to pubic order. Furthermore, considering the compulsory nature of the sale and the fact that the network marketing is being extended by means of new members, who are in most cases family members and close friends, the rancor causes enmity among them, when they find that they have incurred detriment, which would, in turn, make the contract contrary to pubic moral. Finally, according to the Shia Islamic Jurisprudence's approach and that of the Iranian Law, pyramid sale cannot be regarded as valid contract. It is important to note that pyramid contracts are prohibited and invalid in the developed countries such as France, England, USA and Canada too.

This article deals with an important topic in the law of civil responsibility; i.e. the participation of force majeure with the defendant's fault in the arising of damages. It falls under the general heading of the plurality of causes in arising of damages. In such cases, the important question is the nature of the responsibility of each cause. In answering the question, two theories are set forth: integral responsibility and partial responsibility. According to the first, each cause is bound to compensate the damages in full. According to the second, each of them must only compensate part of the damages. The authors are of the view that the theory of partial causality fits Iranian legal principles.