Legal Studies in Digital Age

An efficient tax system, under the principle of the rule of law, is founded above all on the pillar of “justice.” Nevertheless, the realization of tax justice within the Iranian legal system, as a fundamental ideal, faces serious ambiguities and challenges in the process of concretely implementing legal provisions. This is because the genuine establishment of this concept depends not merely on the enactment of substantive laws, but also on the quality of judicial interpretation and supervision over the conduct of administrative authorities. The importance of this issue becomes even more pronounced when the lack of conformity between “abstract justice” and “executive realities” casts doubt on the efficiency of the tax system. From this perspective, the central issue of the present study is to explain the role of “judicial precedent” in resolving this tension and establishing a connection between the text of the law and practical justice. This issue is reflected in the following main question: What role does Iranian judicial precedent play in influencing tax justice, including horizontal justice (equality of taxpayers under similar conditions) and vertical justice (the proportionality of taxation to actual ability to pay)? The findings of this descriptive-analytical study indicate that “judicial precedent” — particularly the decisions of the General Board of the Administrative Justice Court — possesses significant potential for simultaneously strengthening horizontal justice (equality of taxpayers under similar conditions) and vertical justice (the proportionality of taxation to actual ability to pay) through safeguarding the principles of fair adjudication. However, the quality of this influence has been affected by limitations such as prolonged judicial proceedings, ambiguities arising from the digital economy, and legal constraints. This situation makes it inevitable to reconsider the position of this institution as a complementary pillar to the legislature in order to move toward a fair tax system and enhance the efficiency of the tax system in confronting contemporary developments.

Blockchain-based contracts, as a new generation of digital obligations, provide a self-executing and decentralized method for structuring contractual relationships, in which the role of human will is fundamentally transformed when confronted with automated mechanisms. In this context, establishing the parties’ intent—one of the identity-defining elements of any legal agreement—faces challenges such as user anonymity, disintermediation, reliance on pre-determined code, and difficulties in identifying the moment and content of consent. The main issue addressed by this research is how a valid and legally attributable intent of the parties can be established in blockchain contracts under Iranian and European law, and what conflicts arise between traditional doctrines of intention and consent and technological mechanisms. This study adopts a descriptive–analytical method with a comparative approach. Data were collected through the examination of statutory instruments, specialized technology regulations, judicial decisions, and up-to-date scholarly literature. The analytical tools include a limited empirical review of sample smart contracts, legal analysis of code, and a comparative interpretation between classical contract law principles and European Union regulations. The findings indicate that although blockchain technology offers transparency, immutable record-keeping, and automation of obligations, shortcomings such as the lack of reliable identity verification, the possibility of programming errors, difficulties in applying traditional theories of intent, and conflicts between code and the parties’ actual will create serious ambiguities in establishing consent. The study proposes the adoption of supplementary regulations on digital identity verification, mandatory inclusion of declaratory layers, the possibility of judicial review of code, and the development of integrated frameworks bridging technology and law, in order to strike a balance between automation and human intent. 

The expansion of artificial intelligence technologies has generated a fundamental transformation in the detection and proof of crimes, particularly complex offenses such as intentional homicide. This study aims to analyze the evidentiary role of artificial intelligence as a digital witness in establishing the material and mental elements of intentional homicide, while also examining the emerging legal and ethical challenges arising from this transformation. The central question is how AI-based evidence can contribute to establishing criminal conduct, causation, and criminal intent, and what obstacles and risks accompany this process. This article adopts a descriptive–analytical method and an interdisciplinary approach, integrating criminal law, information technology, and ethics. The required data were collected through a review of library-based sources, analysis of emerging judicial decisions in advanced legal systems, and examination of technical reports and reputable studies in the fields of artificial intelligence and digital criminology. The findings indicate that artificial intelligence, through tools such as computer vision (crime scene reconstruction), natural language processing (intent analysis from textual data), and advanced data analytics (digital tracing), is capable of generating otherwise inaccessible evidence and uncovering hidden patterns, thereby potentially enhancing the accuracy and efficiency of the evidentiary process. However, this technology is accompanied by significant challenges, including lack of transparency (the “black box” problem), discriminatory algorithmic errors, vulnerability to deepfakes, and conflicts with privacy rights. These challenges may undermine the principles of fair trial, including the right to defense and equality of arms. The article concludes that while the use of artificial intelligence in proving intentional homicide is both inevitable and powerful, it requires the development of robust legal and regulatory frameworks, including standards for algorithm validation, assurances of controlled transparency, and specialized training for judicial actors, in order to ensure that it serves, rather than undermines, the realization of criminal justice.

One of the most important and prevalent legal relationships through which a substantial portion of human needs is satisfied is the contract of sale, whether domestic or international. The United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (1980) is regarded as one of the most successful international instruments in harmonizing the law governing international sales contracts and provides various remedies in cases of breach of contract. Among the most significant of these remedies are the right to terminate the contract and the right to claim damages. When parties enter into a contract, they intend for it to be duly performed; however, this outcome does not always materialize, and for various reasons, one or both parties may acquire the right to terminate the contract. Moreover, the occurrence of loss is an inevitable aspect of commercial transactions, and such loss may arise either from a breach of contract or from the dissolution of the contract through termination. In the present article, by relying on the provisions of the Convention and with reference to Iranian law, the remedies of contract termination and damages, as well as the possibility of their concurrent application, are examined. Furthermore, the study analyzes the conditions and rules governing the claim and calculation of damages following the termination of a contract.

Arbitration, as one of the most significant mechanisms for dispute resolution, has consistently faced the challenge of balancing the principle of arbitral autonomy with the necessity of judicial supervision. The objective of this study is to examine the system for challenging arbitral awards and the grounds for their annulment, with particular emphasis on the scope and nature of judicial supervision in Iranian law, and to compare it with English case law in order to identify similarities and differences and propose a more efficient supervisory model. The research adopts a descriptive–analytical method, utilizing library resources, statutory laws, judicial decisions, and authoritative domestic and international documents, while employing a comparative approach between Iranian law and the English legal system. The findings indicate that in Iranian law, the grounds for annulment of arbitral awards are exhaustively enumerated and predominantly procedural in nature, and the role of courts is primarily limited to ensuring compliance with legal standards and public policy. In contrast, although the principle of minimal judicial intervention prevails in English law, judicial practice, through a more flexible interpretation, allows for more effective court supervision in exceptional circumstances. Strengthening the transparency of judicial supervision criteria and providing a more precise articulation of the grounds for annulment of arbitral awards in Iranian law, drawing on the experience of England, can preserve arbitral autonomy while enhancing public trust in this institution and preventing the issuance of awards that conflict with fundamental legal principles.

Undeniably, these laws primarily address acts against chastity within the physical realm; however, the perpetration of such offenses has transcended the boundaries of the real world, extending into cyberspace and its emerging domains. Consequently, this necessitates a specific approach to legislation and the determination of corresponding penalties. Nevertheless, the initial response of the Iranian legislature to information technology crimes was the Amendment to the Press Law, enacted on April 18, 2000. Furthermore, in 2001, the Supreme Council of the Cultural Revolution adopted the “Regulations and Criteria for Computerized Information Networks.” Pursuant to Article 7 of this bylaw, information and internet service providers, as well as public internet access centers (cybercafes), are prohibited from producing and disseminating offenses against chastity and public morals by service providers and users.

The rapid expansion of digital technologies and virtual businesses has fundamentally transformed the structure of economic markets, creating new challenges for the application and effectiveness of competition law. Traditional competition frameworks were primarily designed for physical markets characterized by identifiable geographic boundaries, direct contractual relations, and price-based competition. However, digital markets operate through platform-based ecosystems, data-driven business models, and algorithmic governance mechanisms that reshape competitive dynamics. This study examines the functioning of competition law in cyberspace and analyzes how legal systems can regulate competition within virtual markets while maintaining fairness, efficiency, and consumer welfare. Using a descriptive–analytical legal approach, the research explores the theoretical foundations of competition law in digital markets, the relationship between electronic commerce and consumer protection, and the operational role of competition regulation in virtual businesses. The study demonstrates that competition law in cyberspace extends beyond traditional concerns such as price manipulation or cartel behavior and must address structural issues including network effects, data concentration, platform dominance, and technological entry barriers. Particular attention is devoted to the interaction between consumer protection mechanisms and competition policy, highlighting how transparency, contractual fairness, and data governance contribute to sustaining competitive market environments. The findings indicate that effective regulation of digital competition requires an integrated legal framework combining competition law, electronic commerce regulation, and consumer protection policies. Virtual businesses necessitate proactive regulatory strategies capable of responding to rapidly evolving technological environments while preserving innovation incentives. The study concludes that competition law functions as a central governance instrument in the digital economy, ensuring market openness, preventing abuse of economic power, and fostering sustainable innovation. Adapting competition regulation to cyberspace is therefore essential for maintaining balanced and fair competitive frameworks in contemporary digital markets.

Every year in Iran, tens of thousands of men and women become victims of sexual assault, violent offenses, or cyber-based sexual crimes, with thousands of criminal cases related to sexual offenses being processed in courts. In their most severe forms, sexual crimes and sexual assault primarily affect women and children. Unfortunately, such sexual crimes are increasingly prevalent across most countries, with the number of victims growing daily, leading to numerous challenges and a heightened need for support from national criminal justice systems. Lawmakers are accelerating legislation and increasing legal investments to better support victims and control perpetrators of these crimes. However, these measures have become excessive, exceeding actual needs and real requirements. This legislative approach, in response to sexual crimes, is often inappropriate, and the mass production of criminal standards related to sexual offenses can result in weak, confusing, and ambiguous legal texts. Excessive legal investment frequently leads to "crime proliferation" and "an abundance of procedural exceptions." Such a trend not only fails to suppress sexual crimes but also fails to guarantee the protection of victims' interests through these proliferating and weak laws. The correct approach is for Iran’s legislative strategy to be carefully examined through diverse studies, critically assessing existing practices, identifying strengths and weaknesses, and implementing comprehensive reforms within the relevant criminal justice system to provide more principled support for victims of sexual crimes.