Right of rescission is one of the main topics of contract law in Islamic jurisprudence as well as in Iranian Law. Jurists and lawyers have devoted part of their books to this topic. The issue discussed in this area is the scope of right of rescission، called " necessary contracts" by jurists and legal scholars. In other words، legal acts lacking the description "contract" and "necessary" are exempted from being subject to the right of rescission. Although supporters of this opinion have put forward reasons to justify it and it is seemingly logical، a careful look at reasons given، criticisms، principles of right of rescission، rules of contract law and principles of interpretation proves the opposite view and not the famous one. This article examines famous and opposite opinions by conducting a critical analysis.

The One of the main issues in the legal regimes is the intentional revocation of any kind of obligations. This revocation means that obligant party terminates its duty merely at the request of that party.  Because this subject concerns with the rule of law, it should be necessary to exist proper rules in this context. However, there are significant ambiguities in the legality and conditions of intentional termination of obligations that arises from unilateral acts of states. The case law and states practice in this context are rarely and sporadic and the doctrine is also extremely contradictory. Since, the unilateral acts of states have gained prominent status in regime of regularization in international law in modern area, so the legality of intentional termination of these acts is important subject. This article seeks to answer the important question of whether a state can terminate its unilateral act of its own will. It seems the states can terminate their unilateral acts, with some conditions and exceptions.

Unilateral legal act consists of producing of effect of law which is created with volition. Also such as contract, gives important to classification and recognition types of unilateral act. Because of research and investigation in characters of any category, induces illustrate concept of unilateral legal act and derive appropriate rules with that. One classification of unilateral legal act is in to “non- suspended” and “suspended”. Some Shiite jurisprudence not accepts suspension in unilateral legal act and selects principle of non- suspense ability of unilateral legal act; except that legislator stated opposed legal rule; whereas others have been mentioned principle of suspense ability. In this respect, among Sunni jurisprudence few disputes and many are unreasonable theory of suspension of unilateral legal act. So, they accept suspension in divorce. Similarly, jurisprudents nearly concerned with suspension in unilateral legal act. However, theory possible of suspension in unilateral legal act by reasons of exist cases of shari’ah and absence opposition effect of cause, as a general principle and not exception rule, has been accepted. As against, resolution condition [La condition résolutiore] in unilateral legal acts has no legal effect.

The jurisprudential commitment rule as well as the other rules affected on the Iranian legal system, Legislature Legislator based on this rule accepts the fatwas of jurisprudence non-Shia and divine religions in the discussion of personal status law. "jurisprudential commitment rule" Is the best legal obligation of the disciplinary rules that the holy legislator lectures it for convenience and discounts of the Islamic community And, according to the tradition in Shiite jurisprudence the duct attend of fatwas of other religions, most of the items listed in the Iranian Constitution to be fitted, And legislator can by change their interpretation of personal status discuss, Or by applying the "jurisprudential commitment rule" as article By setting up economic and social relationships between Shia and non-Shiite Iran in various contracts and unilateral legal act, And Forcing the other religions to their beliefs, Given the great interest to Shia. The pathology of this issue answers to many of the questions regarding the special rights of the religious minorities in Iran's legal system.

The present article aims to investigate the revocation of nationality under the Islamic legal system and International Human Rights Law (IHRL) through a descriptive-analytic method. Nationality is a fundamental human right, a ground and basis of identity, dignity, justice, peace and security for the persons. Having no legal protection or right to participate in political processes, inadequate access to health care and education, poor employment prospects and poverty, little opportunity to own property, travel restrictions, social exclusion, vulnerability to trafficking, harassment, and violence are some devastating consequences of being deprived of nationality. Due to the said consequences and impacts, resort to deprivation of nationality by states is highly restricted through the IHRL regulations and grounds for this act must be construed restrictively. Furthermore, in Islamic Law, only in the case of breaching obligations stipulated in the Tribute Agreement by the recognized non-Muslim individuals in Contractual Nationality that revoking nationality is permissible.

Endowment under Islamic law is a permanent type of contract which cannot be revoked and it is a consensus among Shiite jurisprudents. It is a kind of contract which has been based upon a religious thoughts as well as provides great heavenly reward and includes social and economic effects. These are special characters which lead Endowment to be a more concrete contract with special imperative rules. But, a survey regarding jurisprudent books shows that, some of them sometimes let Endowment to be revocable by special stipulations in the contract, which is against the consensus on irrevocability of an Endowment. Although most of the Shiite jurisprudents accepted these stipulations, but some others are against them. In this article arguments relevant to both ideas are considered. These stipulations are not accepted under the civil law of Iran and it can be deducted from it that Endowment cannot be revoked and are bounded from the time of contract.

Unlike contracts, which are bilateral legal acts, unilateral legal acts (īqāʿāt) are performed by a single party. However, if there is doubt about the validity of a unilateral act, can the principle of validity (aṣl al-ṣiḥḥah) be invoked? Does the principle of validity apply to all types of unilateral acts? In response to this question, the researcher—based on library sources and through a descriptive–analytical method—briefly explains unilateral acts and identifies specific instances where the principle may apply. Doubt regarding the validity of a legal act provides a basis for invoking the principle of validity; nevertheless, this principle cannot be universally and unconditionally applied to every legal act. Additionally, legal acts are categorized based on the involvement of parties into contracts (ʿuqūd) and unilateral acts (īqāʿāt). In contracts, due to the bilateral nature, the likelihood of doubt is generally lower.

In this article we have tried to study the different aspects of bilateral relations and the role of sanctions in these relations. In answer to the main question-what is the role and place of US unilateral sanctions against I. R. Iran in terms of international law,we have attempted to address the role of pressures on the I. R. Iran through unilateral US sanctions, using the theory of "offensive realism". The results suggest that: The United States and the European Union have used cooperative mechanisms in the world system to unilaterally impose sanctions on Iran, creating the conditions for a change in Iran's behavioral patterns to transition from UN Security Council sanctions and sanctions. Forced diplomacy is seen as part of US strategic reality to persuade and limit the Islamic Republic's strategic power. From the point of view of international law, although many of these tools have been used in pursuit of unilateral interests and hegemonic policies contrary to human rights law, sanctions policy is viewed as a countermeasure as well as a collective action by the United Nations Charter. The Security Council has relative legitimacy and, consequently, good performance.

This research article examines legal discrimination against children born out of wedlock in Iran. Despite laws promoting equality, societal attitudes influenced by beliefs continue to result in discrimination. The study explores the reconciliation of religious beliefs with legal frameworks and the changes made to the Iranian legal system in response to positive human rights developments. The Article seeks to bridge the research gaps by comparing the experiences of Iranian children with those in other countries affected by Islamic law. The study employs library sources and descriptive and historical research methods to examine the legal status of children born outside of marriage, both nationally and internationally, and the discrimination they face. The Article is structured into four distinct sections: an analysis of Islamic Law, a review of the Iranian legal system, an assessment of Iran's compliance with international conventions, and a discourse on the necessity of substantial positive change. The Article ultimately recommends the eradication of discrimination through heightened awareness and the advancement of inclusivity for all children, irrespective of their lineage. In summary, this research Article aims to shed light on legal challenges faced by children born outside of marriage in Iran, with the goal of promoting positive changes in their treatment.

Unilateral sanctions and other coercive measures in international law are among the complex and controversial issues in intergovernmental relations, having profound effects on human rights, global security, and trade relations. Given the increasing prevalence of these sanctions, it is essential to analyze and assess their legal dimensions. The main question of this study is to what extent unilateral sanctions are legitimate under international law and how they differ from sanctions imposed by the Security Council. The research method employed in this article is based on documentary and comparative analysis, through which the differences and similarities between unilateral sanctions and those imposed by the Security Council are examined. The process of reaching answers involves the analysis of international documents, review of legal cases, and examination of various scholars' opinions. The final outcome of the article reveals that unilateral sanctions often conflict with international legal principles and, in addition to violating human rights, contribute to weakening the global legal system. The innovation of this study lies in emphasizing the extraterritorial impacts and complexities of implementing unilateral sanctions, as well as the challenges they pose in a globalized world, which require a revision of international law principles.