https://jlviews.ujsas.ac.ir/ The Quarterly Journal of Judicial Law Views en daily 1 Sat, 13 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0330 Sat, 13 Sep 2025 00:00:00 +0330 https://jlviews.ujsas.ac.ir/article_729158.html ادعای شباهت علامت تجاری جدید با علامت سابق در مواردی مطرح می شود که هر دو علامت در راستای ارائه و معرفی کالا و یا خدمات مشابه شکل گرفته باشند. در غیر این صورت بحث شباهت منتفی است. بنابراین برای احراز نقض ناشی از مشابهت، باید معیار تشخیص عناصر شباهت بین دو علامت و یا کالا و یا خدمات تحت آنها از دید مشتریان عادی (طرفینِ مخاطب آن علامت)، بررسی و معین شود. براین اساس نگاه کارشناسی و تخصصی به تشخیص شباهت برخلاف نظر مقنن بوده و در حقوق اینگونه کشورها، معیار عرفی مطمح نظر می باشد.در مقاله حاضر این مساله خاص مورد بررسی قرار گرفته که چه مقدار باید به ایده یا مفهوم زیربنایی یک علامت در هنگام ارزیابی اینکه آیا علامت مورد ادعای نقض، «به طرز گیج کنندهای مشابه» است، توجه شود؟ استدلال می‌شود که فقدان دقت در ارزیابی شباهت مفهومی ، خطر اعطای حمایت بیش از حد به یک تاجر را دارد؛ همچنین نبود مراقبت ممکن است منطق نظام ثبت را با عدم حمایت از آنچه که به ثبت میرسد، تضعیف کند و امکان دارد قانون علائم تجاری را نیز دچار تزلزل نماید. تشخیص میزان شباهت علائم در زمان تقاضای ثبت و یا زمان اتخاذ تصمیم نسبت به ادعای طرفین دعوی، به جهت ارتباط با حقوق آنان، مستلزم صرف وقت و بررسی های همه جانبه است؛ معیار تشابه در این فرض، "احتمال گمراهی" عامه مشتریان می باشد. در این پژوهش، معیارهای تشخیص تشابه علائم تجاری با اتکا به آرای دادگاهها، بعنوان برخی از رخدادهای قضایی، در حقوق آمریکا، اتحادیه اروپا و نیز مقررات ایران مورد بررسی قرار گرفته و با توجه به ضعف قوانین ایران در جزئی سازی معیارها، راهکارهایی نیز برای بهبود قوانین ایران ارائه می‌شود. https://jlviews.ujsas.ac.ir/article_731316.html Objective: The primary aim of this study is to examine and explain the relationship between adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) and the commission of drug-related offenses among male and female adolescents in Alborz Province, Iran. The research further provides a comparative criminological analysis of these two groups.Method: This study employed a causal-comparative (ex post facto) design. The sample consisted of 330 non-delinquent adolescent girls and 32 delinquent adolescent boys, aged 15 to 18. To assess childhood trauma, the Childhood Trauma Questionnaire (CTQ; Bernstein et al., 2003) was utilized. Data were analyzed using SPSS version 28 and the Mann–Whitney U test due to non-normal data distribution.Findings: Delinquent boys scored significantly higher than their non-delinquent female counterparts across all dimensions of childhood trauma, including emotional, physical, and sexual abuse, as well as emotional and physical neglect (p < 0.05). Moreover, factors such as parental divorce, domestic violence, and parental substance abuse were found to significantly increase the likelihood of engaging in drug-related delinquency. The theoretical framework of the study, grounded in Attachment Theory, Self-Control Theory, Developmental Criminology, Social Learning Theory, and General Strain Theory, indicated that adverse childhood experiences contribute to the development of insecure attachment styles, diminished self-regulation, and a higher propensity toward risky or criminal behaviors during adolescence.Conclusion:The research confirms that adverse childhood experiences—particularly those occurring before the age of 15—play a critical role in the development of drug-related delinquent behavior between ages 15 and 18. Juvenile delinquency, especially in the domain of drug offenses, emerges as a multifactorial phenomenon rooted in early psychosocial and familial trauma. Accordingly, criminal justice policies should prioritize not only punitive responses but also proactive prevention, early screening, and psychosocial interventions targeting at-risk children. https://jlviews.ujsas.ac.ir/article_734105.html The birth certificate is one of the most important identity documents that contains information regarding a person's civil identity in society and expresses the existence of an individual or specific characteristics in society. The birth certificate (identity card, identity card, register) is an official document containing the name and surname, the name of the father and mother, the date and place of birth, the date and place of issuance of the document, the date of death, marriage and divorce, and the characteristics of the holder's children, and a copy of the general register of events. There are many lawsuits regarding the birth certificate, and one of its examples is the lawsuit to amend the birth certificate, which is under the jurisdiction of the peace court based on paragraph 11 of Article 12 of the Dispute Resolution Councils Law (1402), but the legislator has not specified the cases and examples of this lawsuit, and this will cause disagreement in the hearing of the courts of justice. The present study examines the issue of what are the most important examples of lawsuits to amend the birth certificate, using a descriptive-analytical method and using library tools and an applied approach, especially the judicial opinions of the courts of justice. https://jlviews.ujsas.ac.ir/article_734110.html In the system of tortious and contractual liability, damages are divided into two categories: compensatory and non-compensatory. The legal system's focus in non-compensatory damages goes beyond the harm inflicted on the right-holders. In some of these damages (such as punitive damages), the wrongdoer’s bad faith and the extent of their wrongdoing are considered, and damages are determined accordingly. In another category, damages are calculated based on the benefits the violator gained through the infringement of rights. The latter category is referred to as gain-based damages. The disgorgement damages derived from the infringement of rights also falls under this group.However, the fundamental question is: First, what is the need to recognize a new method of remedy such as disgorgement? Second, What is the basis for accepting the disgorgement damages in the civil liability system? This basis must encompass two key points:1. Why are profits taken from the wrongdoer?2. Why are these profits returned to the right-holders (and not to another party, such as the government)?Several reasons, including helping to achieve the goals of civil liability, preventing conflicts of interest, filling gaps in compensatory damages, etc., require the recognition and acceptance of the aforementioned remedy in the Iranian legal system.In addition, Various justifications have been proposed in this regard. Nevertheless, it appears that the principle of deterrence and unjust enrichment (in its broad sense) can adequately address the aforementioned questions. In any case, this paper attempts to examine the issue through an analytical-descriptive approach, with a comparative perspective on the legal systems of the United States, England, and Iran. https://jlviews.ujsas.ac.ir/article_734092.html The transformation of Iran’s judicial system through emerging technologies such as Electronic systems& artificial intelligence marks a significant turning point in improving procedural efficiency and enhancing judicial transparency.The central issue explored in this study is the assessment of the positive impacts of these technologies on adjudication time, cost reduction, and the facilitation of access to justice, alongside the existing challenges. The use of natural language processing (NLP) and machine learning algorithms is examined in terms of their capacity to automatically analyze legal documents and predict case outcomes, while the ethical and legal dimensions regarding responsibility and regulatory standards are also analyzed.The research methodology is based on library studies using a descriptive-analytical approach. The findings indicate that the use of digital judicial systems has reduced paperwork, saved time and costs, and increased transparency in judicial procedures. The implementation of modern judicial systems not only facilitates citizens’ access to judicial services but also enhances the accuracy of rulings and mitigates communication challenges.The results highlight the crucial role of artificial intelligence as an auxiliary assistant in analyzing legal documents and predicting case outcomes. However, technology without precise oversight may lead to algorithmic bias and reduced transparency. Therefore, the development of regulatory regulations and the promotion of user knowledge are essential requirements. The final result of the research introduces the intelligent integration of new technologies with existing fundamental legal principles, human oversight, transparent accountability frameworks, and the creation of preventive platforms for risk management in the judicial system as an effective step in achieving digital justice. https://jlviews.ujsas.ac.ir/article_734096.html The crime of forgery in today’s criminal law is one of the most dangerous and common crimes that is most often committed by white-collar criminals. Apart from causing personal harm, committing this type of crime disrupts public comfort and welfare on a wide scale and may be a prelude or means to committing many other important crimes. In Iranian law, the legislator has avoided defining forgery and has only mentioned its examples, but in American law, the Model Penal Code, in Article 224-1, has comprehensively defined the above crime and stated its elements and conditions. In general, in Iranian and American law, the crime of forgery means making or changing a writing or document contrary to the truth and with the intention of fraud, but in Iranian law, forgery is considered a crime against public peace and interests, and in American law, it is considered a crime against property. In the following article, while examining the legal articles and with a comparative approach between the two legal systems of Iran and the United States of America, the similarities and differences in the field of the constituent elements of the crime of forgery, the advantages and disadvantages of these two systems in relation to the described crime are examined. A comparative study of the two systems can provide the basis for using the experiences of other countries and further research in the field of domestic law. However, it seems that despite similarities in the field of legislation, in some cases such as the conditions for the commission of the crime, malicious intent, type of punishment, etc., these two systems differ. Also, given the lack of a specific approach regarding the psychological element of the crime of forgery in Iranian legal doctrine and judicial practice, some judicial opinions in this regard areevaluated. https://jlviews.ujsas.ac.ir/article_735824.html One of the most essential issues that prospective spouses must adequately consider prior to marriage is the health status of the other party. In jurisprudential and legal discussions, annulment of marriage has traditionally been examined mainly with respect to defects existing in either spouse at the time of concluding the marriage contract. However, with advances in medical science and the emergence of new diseases, the law has not always been able to respond effectively to contemporary medical concerns and, except for specific enumerated defects, remains silent or ambiguous.This study seeks to determine whether the marriage contract is fundamentally premised on the health of the spouses or whether their health must be expressly stipulated as a condition within the contract. The importance of this question lies in the fact that, if marriage is presumed to be based on the health of both parties, silence regarding health implies its existence both legally and customarily. Conversely, if health requires explicit stipulation, the presence or absence of relevant diseases must be conditioned within the marriage contract.In analyzing this issue, attention is given to newly identified diseases that are not listed among the defects giving rise to annulment, while clarifying the position of health in the marriage contract and establishing criteria for diseases that significantly affect marital life. The findings demonstrate that accepting the presumption of health allows recourse to annulment under Article 1128 of the Civil Code. Otherwise, annulment is available only in cases of breach of an expressly stipulated condition, and in the absence of such stipulations, judicial divorce remains the primary legal remedy. https://jlviews.ujsas.ac.ir/article_731356.html Bioterrorism, as one of the most complex and dangerous threats to national security, public order, and global health, necessitates an effective and multi-layered criminal policy. This study employs a descriptive-analytical approach and document-based research to examine the obstacles and strategies of Iran's criminal policy in combating bioterrorism within the framework of international documents and treaties. Findings indicate that despite some existing legal and institutional infrastructures in Iran, challenges such as lack of coherence among relevant institutions, weaknesses in effective law enforcement, limitations in international interactions, and the absence of systematic preventive policies have hindered the development of an effective criminal policy in this area. Comparative analysis demonstrates that enhancing evidence-based decision-making, establishing preventive monitoring systems, implementing precise and proportionate criminalization, expanding transnational judicial and security cooperation, and institutionalizing cross-sectoral collaboration can serve as foundational measures for advancing biosecurity.Aiming to address existing gaps, this study proposes a policy framework for restructuring Iran's criminal policy, founded upon three pillars: strengthening evidence-based decision-making, institutionalizing inter-agency collaboration, and strategically leveraging international legal capacities. https://jlviews.ujsas.ac.ir/article_734085.html AbstractJudicial delay constitutes one of the most persistent and structural challenges of Iran’s judicial system. Beyond mere temporal procrastination in adjudication, it reflects deep-seated institutional, managerial, and intra-organizational deficiencies within judicial proceedings. This study aims to identify and analyze the structural factors contributing to judicial delays in Iran and to propose reformative solutions grounded in comparative experiences. Employing a descriptive–analytical methodology and a comparative approach, the research examines domestic judicial rules and practices alongside the judicial systems of France and Germany as successful models in caseflow and time management.The findings indicate that factors such as deficiencies in case allocation mechanisms, inefficiencies in expert examination procedures, lack of effective supervision over adjudication timelines, poor coordination in the execution of judicial commissions, and administrative and archival disorder play a decisive role in the persistence of judicial delays in Iran. Comparative analysis demonstrates that instruments such as process digitalization, judicial specialization, performance-based evaluation of judicial branches, and the establishment of independent oversight institutions have been effective in mitigating judicial delays. The primary contribution of this article lies in proposing a multi-layered reform framework operating at legislative, institutional, and managerial levels. This framework, while attentive to Iran’s legal and executive particularities, offers practical applicability for judicial policymaking and for enhancing the efficiency and effectiveness of adjudicative practices. https://jlviews.ujsas.ac.ir/article_734104.html The research attempts to examine the approaches and scope of judicial review by the Court of Administrative Justice over the determination of minimum wages. The main research question is: which type of judicial approach does the Court adopt in overseeing minimum wage determinations, considering its judicial practice and role within the legal system, and how does it define and protect the concept of minimum wage? Employing qualitative analysis method and data gathered with documentary and library research, the article examines the Court's judgments within a particular theoretical framework. Drawing on the concept of minimum wage and various approaches of judicial review, the paper analyzes how judicial review is exercised and seeks to clarify the Court’s approach in this regard. The findings reveal a degree of instability and incoherence in the Court’s approach to the scope of minimal judicial review, particularly in its attempts to reconcile this limited oversight with varying conceptualizations of wage. Overall, the study seeks to clarify the Court’s role in upholding minimum wage protections. https://jlviews.ujsas.ac.ir/article_734101.html This article explores the scope and limitations of judges’ freedom of expression, addressing the central question of how legal systems can reconcile judges’ expressive rights with the institutional duties inherent in judicial office. Using a descriptive–analytical methodology and drawing on library based research, the study examines international legal instruments alongside the domestic laws of selected jurisdictions.The analysis demonstrates that while judges, as citizens, are entitled to freedom of expression, this right is subject to heightened and specific restrictions aimed at preserving core judicial values, including independence, impartiality, and public confidence in the judiciary. Such limitations extend to judicial conduct during proceedings, public speeches, online activities, and aspects of private life. At the same time, the findings indicate a gradual erosion of the doctrine of “judicial silence” in relation to matters such as judicial governance and policies, legal education, legislative deficiencies, and broader issues concerning democracy and the rule of law.Comparative findings reveal that many legal systems have delineated the boundaries of judicial expression through self regulatory mechanisms, whereas in Iran this approach remains underdeveloped, with existing rules largely state centered and lacking effective enforcement. The article concludes that the adoption of comprehensive domestic standards emphasizing self regulation, the establishment of advisory bodies, and the institutionalization of continuous judicial training can contribute to a more balanced and coherent framework governing judges’ freedom of expression and their professional and institutional responsibilities. https://jlviews.ujsas.ac.ir/article_734095.html Although both Standby Letters of Credit and Contracts of Suretyship are employed to secure the performance of obligations, they possess fundamental differences in their theoretical foundations, legal structure, and practical function. The SBLC—based on principles such as independence from the underlying contract, the primary nature of the bank's obligation, its documentary character, being conditional upon the presentation of documents, and beneficiary protection—is considered an efficient instrument in international trade, enhancing transparency, speed, and certainty. In contrast, the Contract of Suretyship is rooted in civil law and is structured upon its accessory nature (dependency on the principal debt), the secondary and conditional obligation of the surety, and the establishment of the debtor's actual default. It is primarily utilized within traditional relationships and domestic legal systems. This study, employing an analytical-conceptual and comparative approach, elucidates these two legal instruments and analyzes their relative efficiency in responding to contemporary legal and economic requirements. The analysis indicates that SBLCs exhibit greater efficiency in international transactions, whereas suretyship remains effective in domestic relations; consequently, each is considered complementary to the other within its respective domain. Accordingly, the selection of an appropriate security mechanism must be contingent upon the nature of the obligation, the specific legal context, and the commercial exigencies of the transaction. Beyond its comparative analysis, this research offers practical implications for Iranian jurisprudence. It can be instrumental for courts and arbitral tribunals in clarifying the precise nature of a bank's undertaking in modern guarantee instruments and establishing its clear distinction from traditional civil law suretyship. https://jlviews.ujsas.ac.ir/article_734112.html The prevention of harm constitutes a fundamental concern within all legal systems. Among various legal doctrines, the theory of prevention occupies a pivotal role in the domain of civil liability by endeavoring to forestall potential damages through the application of established legal principles and norms, thereby enhancing legal certainty within social relations. Unlike traditional approaches that focus predominantly on compensating damages post-occurrence, this doctrine emphasizes anticipatory and precautionary measures, thereby contributing significantly to the realization of preventive justice.Within the Iranian legal framework, no explicit rule or principle directly articulates the doctrine of prevention. Nevertheless, numerous principles derived from Islamic jurisprudence and Iranian substantive law underpin this theory implicitly. Notable among these are the principles of la darar (no harm), bena-ye 'aqlā (the reasoning of rational individuals), sadd al-dhara'i (blocking the means), the principle of precaution (ihtiyat), and the rule of respecting others’ property. These principles, grounded in Twelver Shi’a jurisprudence and practical reasoning, collectively emphasize the imperative to avoid actions likely to cause harm to others and thus serve as foundational supports for the acceptance and reinforcement of the prevention doctrine.Conversely, the English legal system, grounded in common law traditions, adopts a distinct yet aligned approach through doctrines such as public interest, proportionality, the neighbor principle, reasonableness, and the standard of reasonable care. These legal constructs collectively underscore the necessity of exercising preventive conduct in relation to third parties.A comparative examination of these two legal systems reveals that despite their structural differences, both prioritize harm prevention through a rational and public welfare-oriented framework. This article aims to analyze comparatively the jurisprudential and legal foundations of the prevention doctrine in Iranian and English law.Keywords:Harm,Imminent,Precaution,Liability,Prevention https://jlviews.ujsas.ac.ir/article_738095.html AbstractJuvenile delinquency, due to the developmental, psychological, and social characteristics of this age group, is a major challenge for contemporary criminal justice systems and requires differential, preventive, and rehabilitative policies. In modern criminal policy, responses to children and adolescents should not rely solely on deprivation of liberty and punishment, but must emphasize reform, education, treatment, and resocialization. Nevertheless, in Iran, placement in Juvenile Correction and Rehabilitation Centers remains a primary response to juvenile offending, and its effectiveness in achieving reformative and educational goals has often been questioned.This study critically examines the criminal policy of Chapter Ten of the Islamic Penal Code (2013) and highlights the need for reform by moving beyond a correctional center–oriented approach toward “Special Educational Schools” based on an educational–therapeutic framework. The research provides a theoretical and legislative foundation for redesigning penal responses to children and adolescents in line with genuine reform and resocialization. It adopts a descriptive–analytical and comparative method, using library studies, analysis of domestic laws, criminological and developmental psychology findings, field research, and a review of documents and practices of the U.S. juvenile justice system.Findings show that detention in Juvenile Correction and Rehabilitation Centers, due to focus on deprivation of liberty, weak specialized interventions, peer delinquency, and disconnection from education, has limited effect on behavioral reform and recidivism and may increase psychological harm, social stigma, and academic decline. In contrast, Special Educational Schools, with an education-centered, family-oriented, and semi-open structure, maintain the child’s connection with educational and social systems and offer greater potential for behavioral reform and successful reintegration.Keywords: Special Educational Schools, Juvenile Correction and Rehabilitation Centers, Differential Criminal Policy, Rehabilitation, Juvenile Offenders, Right to Education https://jlviews.ujsas.ac.ir/article_738096.html Restitution, as the primary form of reparation in international law, faces significant theoretical and practical challenges when human rights violations result from the concurrent or interrelated conduct of multiple States. This study examines the evolving concept of restitution within the framework of shared international responsibility by analyzing the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and assessing its consistency with the principles governing shared responsibility in international law. The research adopts a descriptive-analytical methodology based on a comprehensive review of international legal instruments, scholarly literature, and an in-depth analysis of leading and recent ECtHR judgments. The findings demonstrate that, through a dynamic interpretation of Article 41 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the Court has progressively expanded the traditional understanding of restitution beyond its material and individual dimensions toward a multidimensional, institutional, and participatory model. Within this framework, measures such as institutional and legislative reforms, effective investigations, guarantees of non-repetition, transnational cooperation among States and regional institutions, and the restoration of confidence in the human rights system have emerged as contemporary forms of restitution. The study further reveals that although the Court has gradually developed a more coherent approach to shared responsibility and restorative justice in its recent case law, jurisdictional limitations and the absence of coordinated enforcement mechanisms continue to impede the full realization of restitution in cases involving multiple responsible States. Accordingly, the study concludes that the development of a more coherent judicial practice, together with strengthened supervisory mechanisms and enhanced international cooperation, constitutes an essential prerequisite for ensuring the effectiveness of restitution within the framework of shared international responsibility https://jlviews.ujsas.ac.ir/article_738097.html In the legal literature of our country, there is not seen a united and constant perception about the concept o the term “judicial procedure”. What has a legal and approximately transparent concept is the verdict for uniting judicial procedure. Nevertheless, it must be noted that the “united judicial procedure”, according to its legal meaning, is imperative, and will be issued when there is not a united procedure. In this article, the term [natural unity of procedure] is used for the situations that the unity is created naturally. The usual idea of the lawyers of our country is, apparently, that the natural procedure can be explored through reviewing some of the final judgments ant comparing them with each other. But, for this exploration in a determined subject, all or a scientific sample of the judgments of a determined area and determined length of time, must be reviewed and compared; the conclusion of reviewing the scientific sample of judgments can be generalized to the whole number of judgments. Actual tendency of the scientists of developed countries, in this type of researches, is to scientific sampling. The scientific confidence to such researches is depended to the scientism in sampling. The aim of this paper is to elaborate a scientific method for sampling from the judgments of a determined area and determined length of time, for the process of the research, and to elaborate the method of generalizing the results of surveying the verdicts of sample to the whole of verdicts of the area and length of time, about natural judicial procedure. Information collection is from books, journals, and scientific documents; and the analysis is based on a combination of scientific methods of scientific judgment and inferential statistics. https://jlviews.ujsas.ac.ir/article_738098.html AbstractBribery is considered one of the most significant manifestations of administrative corruption and has been criminalized in different legal systems in order to protect administrative integrity and maintain public trust. In Iranian law, this crime is recognized under two titles: Rashā (bribe‑giving) and Ertishā (bribe‑taking). Its legal framework has been addressed in several statutes, including the General Penal Code of 1925, the Islamic Penal Code (Ta’zirat) of 1996, and the 1988 Expediency Council for Discernment of the System Act on the Intensification of Punishment for Bribery, Embezzlement, and Fraud. In French law, bribery is categorized under the titles corruption active and corruption passive, and the offense of trading in influence (trafic d’influence) has also been criminalized independently.This study adopts a descriptive‑analytical method with a comparative approach to examine how the scope and boundaries of bribery and unlawful trading in influence are defined in the legal systems of Iran and France, and to identify the differences between them. The findings indicate that although both legal systems seek to combat corruption and safeguard administrative integrity, French law provides a clearer distinction between administrative bribery, judicial bribery, and trading in influence. In contrast, within Iranian law—particularly in the 1988 statute—there appears to be a certain conceptual overlap between bribery and trading in influence.Keywords: Bribery, Unlawful Trading in Influence, Rashā, Ertishā, French Law, Administrative Corruption https://jlviews.ujsas.ac.ir/article_738099.html “Private sector corruption, as one of the fundamental challenges in modern economic systems, poses serious risks to investment security, fair competition, and the integrity of administrative structures. The United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC), by adopting a systematic approach, mandates member states to criminalize private sector corruption and establish criminal liability for legal entities, thereby addressing the gaps resulting from the influence of private power within the public sphere. This article, utilizing a descriptive-analytical method, examines the legislative and structural gaps in Iranian criminal law and analyzes the necessity of aligning domestic criminal policy with the standards of the UNCAC. The findings indicate that the Iranian legal system, due to its reliance on a traditional state-centric approach and the absence of explicit legal provisions for criminalizing corrupt behaviors in the private sector, lags significantly behind international developments. This study argues that reform in this area must transcend minor legislative adjustments and requires a transition from traditional criminal models toward a progressive paradigm. Ultimately, this paper proposes a hybrid model comprising three fundamental pillars: ‘differential criminalization,’ ‘the establishment of independent and specialized supervisory bodies,’ and ‘the utilization of active criminal liability based on a compliance model’ as the primary roadmap for transitioning from the status quo to an optimal state. This model not only enhances the deterrent power of the criminal justice system but also minimizes the social and economic costs of combating corruption by emphasizing preventive measures.” https://jlviews.ujsas.ac.ir/article_738100.html In recent years, the rapid expansion of digital technologies and the growing use of artificial intelligence in pricing mechanisms have profoundly transformed the dynamics of competitive markets. This article investigates how algorithmic predatory pricing can operate as a novel form of abuse of dominance and examines the challenges it poses for the enforcement of competition law. It also explores the extent to which national and international legal frameworks are capable of addressing such algorithm-driven conduct and identifies the reforms required for the Iranian legal system. The findings indicate that algorithmic predatory pricing, unlike its traditional counterpart, involves four fundamental challenges: opacity and the difficulty of establishing predatory intent, the speed and automation of price adjustments, the potential for autonomous coordination or tacit collusion among rivals, and the complexity of attributing legal responsibility among developers, deployers, and commercial users of the algorithm. These features complicate the assessment of predatory behaviour and limit the effectiveness of conventional competition law tools. A comparative analysis shows that certain advanced jurisdictions have begun adopting measures such as algorithmic transparency requirements and supplementary AI regulations to mitigate anti-competitive risks, whereas the existing legal framework in Iran remains insufficient to address algorithmic challenges. The article concludes that developing modern, transparent regulatory instruments—including disclosure obligations and oversight mechanisms for algorithmic pricing systems—is essential to prevent the emergence of algorithm-driven anti-competitive structures and to preserve the effectiveness of competition law in the future. https://jlviews.ujsas.ac.ir/article_738101.html The most common mechanism for enforcing civil judgments is the seizure and sale of the property of the convicted person, and this sale is generally carried out through auction. The auction held by the execution of civil judgments of the judiciary is, in some cases, annulled by a court ruling. Now, if the winner of the auction has performed a legal act with respect to the property subject to the auction after the auction and before its annulment, it is necessary to analyze the effect of the annulment of the auction on the aforementioned transaction; on the one hand, the basis of the transactions under consideration is based on a transaction based on the annulled auction, which suggests its invalidity, and on the other hand, the legitimate trust of individuals in the actions of public authorities and the judicial system is worthy of protection and justifies the validity of the contract. The present fundamental research, using a descriptive and analytical method, by explaining and analyzing various legal situations, while criticizing the legal situations of absolute invalidity, relative invalidity, lack of influence of consideration and suspended lack of influence, has introduced the status of "non-invokability" as the most appropriate option as a status provision of the contracts under consideration.relative invalidity, lack of influence of consideration and suspended lack of influence, has introduced the status of "non-invokability" as the most appropriate option as a status provision of the contracts under consideration. https://jlviews.ujsas.ac.ir/article_738102.html Even though, the principle of freedom of contract is govern to parties’ relation up to contract was made and is disclaimer of their pre-contractual responsibility, the principles lazarar and good faith in contract guarantee the abandonment of contractual negotiations. In this essay: A Comparative study of pre-contractual liability in Iran law and liability arising from Inchoate Contracts under English law, on the base of freedom of contract, we concern to the parties relations. The Maine question is: (Can pre- contractual relations create liability for the parties of the contract?). Based on the results of this research: In UK law the principle of freedom of contract governs the relations between the parties until the conclusion of the contract. In Iranian law, pre- contractual liability is divided into three categories based on the type of contract: 1- Pre- contractual negotiations in contracts in contracts subject to the law on: (Mandatory official registration of transactions concerning immovable property do not create liability.) 2- If the pre- contractual has independent nature from contract, it can perform. 3- Other contracts: The pre- contractual negotiation is binding. However, as a result of the negotiations, one of the parties suffers damage and there is a causal link between the other party’s conduct and that damage, that party is obliged to compensate the loss. https://jlviews.ujsas.ac.ir/article_738103.html Although class actions originated in U.S. courts, the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court have not entirely opened the way for claimants to bring such claims before arbitral tribunals. Generally, whether a contract containing an arbitration clause permits group arbitration and whether the applicable law allows for such a class action depends first on the decision of the arbitrators. While some states in the US have tried to prevent class action arbitration, arbitrators have accepted the filing of such clams by interpreting the arbitration clauses. Despite the fact that companies usually seek to prevent the initiation of class action arbitration against themselves by including a clause prohibiting it in the arbitrations terms, some US states refrain from enforcing such a right-waving clause in class action arbitrations arguing that preventing a class action is against conscience. The enforcement of international class action arbitration also faces obstacles such as non-notification, violation of due process, the right to a fair hearing, non-arbitrability, and conflict with public policy within the frame work of the New York convention. This article seeks to analyze the challenges of this claim in international commercial arbitration based on the concept of class action arbitration. https://jlviews.ujsas.ac.ir/article_738104.html The Islamic Republic of Iran, with its ancient civilizational heritage, has historically been a land where diverse ethnic, racial, religious, and sectarian groups have coexisted. This cultural diversity, emerging from Iran's unique historical and geographical context, has created a rich cultural tapestry while simultaneously presenting specific legal and social challenges. Within this framework, Iran's legal system has established protective and punitive measures against discriminatory practices through Article 499 bis of the Islamic Penal Code. This legal provision is built upon multifaceted jurisprudential, philosophical, and social foundations, drawing inspiration from both constitutional principles safeguarding citizenship rights and Iran's international human rights commitments. The article reflects the legislature's recognition of the necessity to maintain national unity while embracing cultural pluralism, offering legal protection to officially recognized religions—including Zoroastrianism, Judaism, and Christianity—as well as approved Islamic sects such as Shia, Hanafi, Shafi'i, Maliki, Hanbali, and Zaidi. From a criminal law standpoint, this article represents a progressive approach compared to similar statutes like Article 513 of the penal Code, as it incorporates a specific mens rea requirement encompassing both general intent (knowledge of the subject matter) and specific intent (the aim to provoke tension or violence). Crucially, the law stipulates that any insult directed at these protected religions or sects—irrespective of their connection to Islamic sanctities—constitutes a prosecutable offense. Moreover, while the actual occurrence of harmful consequences influences the severity of punishment, it does not determine the establishment of criminal liability itself. https://jlviews.ujsas.ac.ir/article_738105.html One of the most challenging developments in the procedural framework of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) is the emergence and expansion of a phenomenon known in legal literature as the multiplicity of jurisdictional grounds. This situation arises when a claimant invokes more than one legal basis to establish the Court’s jurisdiction. These bases may include a combination of jurisdiction derived from different treaties, jurisdiction based on the Optional Clause under Article 36(2) of the ICJ Statute, jurisdiction arising from reciprocal declarations, or even jurisdiction grounded on the respondent’s implicit consent. The tendency to employ this legal strategy has noticeably increased since the 1980s as a tool to strengthen likelihood of the Court accepting a case. In recent decades, the Court has faced situations such as Nicaragua v. United States case (1986), Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia (2007), and Iran v. United States (2018), where more than one jurisdictional basis was invoked. In these cases, the Court was not only compelled to analyze and select the appropriate basis but in some instances resorted to an expansive interpretation of fundamental principles of international law, such as the principle of consent. The fundamental question addressed in this article is: What are the legal and institutional impacts of the simultaneity and multiplicity of jurisdictional grounds on the procedure, jurisdictional analysis, and status of Court within international legal order? To answer this question, article employs a descriptive-analytical method relying on judicial precedents, advisory opinions, and authoritative theoretical sources. findings indicate that although the multiplicity of jurisdictional grounds may functionally enhance the Court’s dispute resolution role, it generates serious theoretical tensions between the principle of consent and expansive interpretation of jurisdiction. Furthermore, employing such strategies can lead to instability in judicial practice, increased complexity during preliminary objections, and may even undermine legitimacy of Court’s decisions. https://jlviews.ujsas.ac.ir/article_738106.html Crimes against security are among the most sensitive issues in criminal law, as they directly relate to two fundamental values of the legal system: the protection of political security and the safeguarding of judicial justice. This study employs a descriptive-analytical method to examine Iran’s criminal policy in addressing these crimes and to analyze the experience of English law. The findings indicate that Iran’s criminal system primarily follows a security-oriented model, in which the protection of the political system takes precedence over fair trial principles; the concentration of jurisdiction in the Revolutionary Courts, the broad scope of security-related concepts, and the dominant role of security agencies exemplify this approach. In contrast, English law emphasizes a judicial-investigative model that ensures judicial independence, oversight of security agencies, transparency of proceedings, and proportionality of penalties. The study concludes that achieving both sustainable security and judicial justice in Iran requires redefining the role of security institutions, strengthening judicial independence, and limiting overly broad security concepts. https://jlviews.ujsas.ac.ir/article_738108.html The arbitrability of competition law disputes remains one of the most complex and controversial issues in international arbitration, as such disputes lie at the intersection of party autonomy, mandatory rules, and public policy considerations. Traditionally, the mandatory and public nature of competition law, together with its role in safeguarding market integrity, led many legal systems to exclude these disputes from arbitration. Public policy thus functioned as a preliminary jurisdictional barrier to arbitral authority. However, developments in judicial practice and arbitral doctrine have prompted a reassessment of this traditional view and the emergence of a more flexible approach to arbitrability. Using a descriptive-analytical and comparative methodology, this article examines the concept of arbitrability and its relationship with public policy, with particular emphasis on the “second-look review” doctrine as a modern mechanism for reconciling arbitration with competition law enforcement. Under this doctrine, competition law disputes are considered arbitrable, provided that courts retain the power to conduct effective judicial review at the stages of recognition, enforcement, or annulment of arbitral awards. Accordingly, public policy is transformed from a prior obstacle to arbitral jurisdiction into a subsequent control mechanism designed to ensure compliance with mandatory competition and antitrust rules. The findings indicate that a limited yet strategic form of judicial review is necessary in competition law disputes to safeguard mandatory rules and protect economic public policy. At the same time, such review must be carefully structured so as not to undermine the finality of arbitral awards or the efficiency of the arbitral process. Consequently, it is recommended that national arbitration regimes maintain the principle of minimal judicial intervention while expressly providing for judicial control in cases involving manifest violations of mandatory competition law provisions https://jlviews.ujsas.ac.ir/article_738110.html This article examines the foundations underlying the establishment of the investigating judge (examining magistrate) alongside the public prosecutor and the rationale for separating the prosecutorial function from the investigative function in criminal proceedings. The main research question is what legal and practical grounds justify the establishment of the investigating judge alongside the public prosecutor and to what extent the criticisms directed at this institution (investigating judge) are justifiable. The study adopts a descriptive-analytical approach and is based on library research and documentary sources. The principle plays an important role in impartiality, equality of arms and separation of powers. Moreover; it increases the precision of the investigating by division of tasks and specialization in the antithetical duties (investigating and prosecuting) and through supervision over the investigation phase. Moreover, the division of functions and powers prevents the accumulation of power in the hands of a single authority and exposes the measures of authorities to supervision of another. In other words, it minimizes mistakes and abuses. In contrast, criticism of the interrogation status, which is a violation of neutrality, has led to reforms in the judicial system of some countries, including France. https://jlviews.ujsas.ac.ir/article_738111.html The prosecution stage is one of the important stages of criminal proceedings that has a high impact on the later stages of criminal proceedings. different legal systems, by giving different discretionary powers to the authorities, try to filter the incoming cases and remove the crimes from the formal criminal process at the very early stages, thereby providing an opportunity for important crimes. The solutions that are foreseen for the exercise of this authority are the alternatives to prosecution. In the Iranian legal system, with the approval of the Criminal Procedure Code of 2013, alternatives to prosecution have been foreseen. In this article, using a descriptive-analytical method, we are trying to answer what are the challenges of the prosecution system in Iranian law and what are the solutions to overcome them and what is the efficient prosecution model. The results of the research indicate that the scope of alternatives to prosecution in the Iranian legal system is very limited and in cases where these alternatives have been foreseen, in practice it is not sufficient from the point of view of judgment, and these alternatives are not used. This has led to no assessment of the expediency of prosecution or not, and it is the same as the crimes at the prosecution stage, and no filtering occurs. In order to address these challenges, the scope of alternatives to prosecution should be expanded and the necessary training should be provided to officials.