Ali Taghizadeh; Sajjad Yavari
Abstract
< p >AbstractIn this study, attempts were made to understand the views of the two legal systems of Iran and the European Union on the revocation and feasibility of it in the donation. The purpose of this study, while familiarizing with the draft EU civil law, was to examine the comparative approach ...
Read More
< p >AbstractIn this study, attempts were made to understand the views of the two legal systems of Iran and the European Union on the revocation and feasibility of it in the donation. The purpose of this study, while familiarizing with the draft EU civil law, was to examine the comparative approach of the revocation and the effects of it in two systems. Finally, while suggesting an opinion on the Iranian and European legislature''s approach and its cases, we have achieved the result that, despite the similarity in the target, Due to the acceptance of the principle of the ability to revocation, the Iranian legislators have made exceptions to the impossibility of revocation; While in the EU law, due to adopting a non-revocation approach, the cases of revocation have been established somewhat limited but reasonable including: Ingratitude, Impoverishment and Change of essential circumstances of the time of concluding the contract after the hangover. This comparative approach to the subject has been widespread in the field of action and opinion and, while imparting the minds of the Iranian legislator, can fill some legal vacuum or bring about a reform of the law.Keywords:Revocation, Donation, Donor, Donee, Dcfr.
Mohammad Taghi Rafiei; Abolfazl Shahin
Abstract
< p >< p >Resolving the conflict of laws applicable to cultural heritage disputes in an important challenge which is faced with private international law. The cause of this challenge is, in one hand, the preponderant role of cultural property in constituting of cultural and historical identity ...
Read More
< p >< p >Resolving the conflict of laws applicable to cultural heritage disputes in an important challenge which is faced with private international law. The cause of this challenge is, in one hand, the preponderant role of cultural property in constituting of cultural and historical identity of nations, and the enormous profit of illicit trade of cultural properties on the other hand which leads to numerous disputes. In most of these claims, the lex rei sitae rule has been applied and this has been led to making unfair judgments. The negative effects of these decisions lead to the question of determining the proper law governing cultural property claims. The theory of applying the lex originis rule to cultural property disputes is the theory which is accepted in this article. In order to prove this theory, this article is divided into two parts by a descriptive and analytical method: at first, the lex rei situs rule will be studied and the applying of this rule to cultural property claims will be examined by a critical perspective and then the alternative courses of action will be analyzed.
Zahra Mahmoodi Kordi; Mehdi Zahedi; Seyyedeh Atefeh Ghadirinezhad
Abstract
With expansion of transactional commercial arbitrations in the 20th century, the Theory of ‘Transactional Commercial Law’ presented by lawyers such as Gladman and Schmitthoff. This theory was based on the claim that there is a third Legal system along with public international law system ...
Read More
With expansion of transactional commercial arbitrations in the 20th century, the Theory of ‘Transactional Commercial Law’ presented by lawyers such as Gladman and Schmitthoff. This theory was based on the claim that there is a third Legal system along with public international law system and national law system in order to adjust transnational commercial relations. There is no consensus in legal doctrine about the sense, nature and other issues about transnational commercial law and there are ambiguities in studying it. Considering the history of transnational commercial rules, some authors consider this new legal system equivalent to Lex Mercatoria whereas Lex Mercatoria has never had a fixed sense and has developed over time. This article is a desk research and descriptive-analytical research. It studies and assesses the evolution process of Lex Mercatoria and also clarifies the relationship between Lex Mercatoria and Transnational Commercial Law and finally, this study concludes that it is not possible to define pure Lex Mercatoria, i.e without specifying characteristic such as classical, modern, and post-modern, as the synonym of pure Transnational Commercial Law (including broadest sense and Proper sense).
Reza Shokoohizadeh
Abstract
Interest is one of the conditions of bring an action in court. This condition is not limited to first instqnce but is also necessary in appeal. But the question that which party holds the right of appeal is not an easy one to answer. Para. a of Art. 335 Civil Procedure Act grants the appeal right to ...
Read More
Interest is one of the conditions of bring an action in court. This condition is not limited to first instqnce but is also necessary in appeal. But the question that which party holds the right of appeal is not an easy one to answer. Para. a of Art. 335 Civil Procedure Act grants the appeal right to all parties of first instance. But the appealing of the winner party is not in accordance with the principles of law of civil procedure. In French Law, the Succombance Principle determines in which cases the parties could appeal the review of the judgment of first court. There are presumptions that specify the cases of appeal, condemnation in logic of the judgment and condemnation to compensation of costs of proceedings. But these presumptions are not inviolable. Consequently, it is necessary to study the application of succombance rule in deferent cases. In this regard, the application of succombance rule in respect of court judgment, parties and subject of the case would be studied in this Article. The research of French lawyers would be one of the sources of finding the solutions of cases of appeals in Iranian Law.
Tayebeh Saheb; Abbas Moradi
Abstract
In some civil law countries, creators of literary works have a special moral right titled withdrawal of publication. By virtue of this right, if the creator's opinions and believes change drastically after assignment of publishing right, he has the right to prevent further publication of his work and ...
Read More
In some civil law countries, creators of literary works have a special moral right titled withdrawal of publication. By virtue of this right, if the creator's opinions and believes change drastically after assignment of publishing right, he has the right to prevent further publication of his work and stopping the circulation of his/ her work in the market. Also, in some legal systems, this right can be exercised for economic reasons in case of non-exploitation of the work by the publisher.Since the underlying principle of this right rests on the theory of personality, advocates of the right of withdrawal consider it as a suitable tool to preserve the creator's personality. In contrast, utility-based legal systems refuse to accept it because of its huge costs on publishers. This right is not explicitly recognized in the Iranian legal system. However, given that the foundation of literary rights in our country is mainly based on the preservation of creator's personality, and the right to withdraw is essentially the extension of right to disclosure, this article defends the insertion of this right in Iranian Legal system.
Gholam Nabi Feizi Chekap; Mohammad Hassan Mardani
Abstract
< p >The Rotterdam Rules that has been ratified at 2009 is one of the most important rules with significant innovation in the regulations of international transport of goods by sea. The gradual development of the rules governing the basis of carrier’s liability since Multimodal Transport ...
Read More
< p >The Rotterdam Rules that has been ratified at 2009 is one of the most important rules with significant innovation in the regulations of international transport of goods by sea. The gradual development of the rules governing the basis of carrier’s liability since Multimodal Transport Convention 1980 to the UNCTAD/ICC Rules 1992 and then the Rotterdam Rules 2009 are discussed in this paper. While according to Multimodal Transport Convention 1980, presumed fault, was accepted as the basis of carrier`s liability, and the majority of scholars claim that the basis of liability in UNCTAD /ICC Rules 1992 is the same (presumed fault), in practice the burden of proof in both groups of the above-mentioned Rules is on carriers and they are practically subject to presumed liability. The Rotterdam Rules is based on the new structure in assigning the burden of proof to each party, and the basis of liability. While the other previous regulations governing the multimodal carriage of goods comply with certain liability basis, in Rotterdam Rules, this liability is the combination of presumption of liability and presumption of fault, and tort law which alternatively change at each stage. Therefore, carriers in some cases have to prove lack of their fault, and in some cases, lack of their liability, and in some assumptions, the claimant has the responsibility about the burden of proof, and not the carrier. < p >
