Legal Studies in Digital Age

Cyberattacks against countries’ critical infrastructure have become one of the most significant challenges of international law over the past two decades. Using a descriptive-analytical method, this article examines the international responsibility of states for such attacks. The research findings indicate that, despite the consolidation of the general principles of responsibility in classical law, establishing responsibility in cyberspace faces two fundamental obstacles: first, the difficulty of proving the attribution of attacks to states due to the intangible and transboundary nature of cyberspace, the possibility of identity falsification, and the use of non-state actors by states; and second, the absence of clear and uniform standards regarding the level of evidence required to prove cyberattacks. State practice in the cases of Stuxnet and attacks on Ukraine’s infrastructure shows that states often refrain from accepting responsibility and resort to a strategy of denial. If responsibility is established, its legal consequences include cessation of the wrongful act, reparation for damage, and countermeasures, each of which faces practical implementation challenges. Finally, the article presents proposals for drafting a comprehensive international treaty, establishing an independent body for investigating cyberattacks, and developing evidentiary standards.

This study aims to systematically review the specialized literature and analyze the challenges related to transparency, the right to explanation, and the right to redress in response to AI-based administrative decisions. Based on the PRISMA 2020 framework, a systematic search was conducted in the databases of Scopus, Web of Science, Google Scholar, and two Persian-language databases, namely the Comprehensive Portal of Humanities and Social Sciences and SID, covering the period from 2016 to 2025. Following the application of rigorous inclusion and exclusion criteria and a three-stage screening process, 9 articles (6 in English and 3 in Persian) were ultimately selected from an initial pool of 255 records for final qualitative synthesis. The extracted data were categorized and analyzed across six major themes. The analysis revealed an inherent tension between the efficiency-driven logic of algorithms and the protective legal requirements of administrative law. In the area of transparency, the literature demonstrates a transition from the concept of “formal transparency” (information disclosure) to “meaningful transparency” (citizen-oriented interpretability and comprehensibility). Regarding the right to explanation, the “gap between technical explainability (XAI) and legal explainability” was identified as the principal barrier to realizing this right. The most significant finding was the identification of the “right to redress” as the weakest dimension of the protective triad; traditional mechanisms of judicial review were deemed insufficient in addressing the complexities of algorithmic “black-box” systems, underscoring the need for new procedural standards and anticipatory oversight mechanisms, such as independent audits. The findings further suggest that the challenges of algorithmic administrative law are not solely legal and technical in nature but are intertwined with broader dimensions, including democratic accountability, the exacerbation of social inequalities, and organizational culture. Ensuring transparency, the right to explanation, and the right to redress in the era of algorithmic governance requires a conceptual reengineering of traditional principles of administrative law and the adoption of a multidimensional strategy encompassing technical (development of explainability tools), legal (formulation of new procedural standards), institutional (establishment of specialized and independent oversight bodies), and cultural (institutionalization of a culture of accountability) dimensions.

Artificial intelligence-based electronic contracts in crisis conditions, due to their speed, automation, and the complexity of decision-making processes, create novel challenges concerning contractual consent and the performance of obligations. This study aims to provide a jurisprudential and legal analysis of these challenges by examining the validity of the parties’ consent, the possibility of attributing algorithmic decisions, and the scope of liability in the performance of contractual obligations within AI-based environments. The research adopts a descriptive–analytical approach based on the examination of library resources and the study of the principles of Imami jurisprudence and the substantive law of Iran. The findings indicate that, under crisis conditions, concepts such as informed consent, intention to create legal effects, good faith, hardship and distress, and the rule of no harm (La Darar) play a decisive role in assessing the validity and performance of contractual obligations. Furthermore, the lack of transparency in the operation of intelligent systems may undermine the authenticity of consent and create difficulties in the fair execution of contracts. Accordingly, the study concludes that appropriate legal regulation, algorithmic transparency, and the establishment of protective mechanisms can contribute to ensuring contractual justice and reducing disputes arising from the use of artificial intelligence in electronic contracts.

In the digital era, emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence (AI), blockchain, and smart contracts have fundamentally transformed the traditional structure of commercial transactions and the conceptualization of legal liability for transnational corporations. While these technologies enhance efficiency and transparency and reduce transaction costs, they simultaneously raise novel legal questions concerning the legal personality of machines, the establishment of causation, the allocation of liability across production and supply chains, and the legal validity of self-executing contracts. Accordingly, in light of the unprecedented integration of these technologies into international commercial agreements, this article seeks to develop a coherent legal framework governing the liability of transnational corporations and to bridge the gap between technological efficiency and the traditional principles of contract law. This study adopts an analytical–critical approach and relies on library-based sources and international legal instruments to examine the legal challenges arising from automated decision-making, the role of oracles, algorithmic discrimination, and regulatory deficiencies within both the Iranian legal system and international legal frameworks. The findings indicate that the absence of a clear legal framework regarding the legal personality of artificial intelligence, risk-based civil liability, and ex ante oversight of algorithms has contributed to persistent regulatory uncertainty and diminished investor confidence. Finally, the article proposes several innovative legal solutions, including the recognition of a limited legal personality for intelligent systems, the establishment of mandatory insurance funds, the development of algorithmic transparency standards, and the creation of a specialized supervisory authority for artificial intelligence. These measures are intended to preserve fundamental legal principles while fostering innovation and ensuring legal certainty for commercial actors.

A single-member company is the simplest form of business, exclusively owned and controlled by one person. In this structure, all benefits and liabilities arising from the business are directly attributed to that same person. This study aims to examine the possibility of forming single-member companies under Iranian law and to conduct a comparative analysis with U.S. law in order to clarify the legal necessities and challenges of this emerging institution. The study adopts a descriptive-analytical method and, using library-based sources, compares the legal foundations for the formation of such companies in the two legal systems of Iran and the United States. The findings indicate that recognizing these companies in Iran requires redefining the concept of a commercial company in the Commercial Code and distinguishing it from the concept of partnership. Moreover, authorizing this institution without enacting comprehensive rules on management and transactions may lead to personal abuse. By contrast, U.S. law, particularly the limited liability company (LLC), and the Twelfth European Directive have provided more flexible frameworks for this purpose. Based on the analysis conducted, it is recommended that, in order to address existing legal gaps, the new Commercial Bill be supplemented with precise regulations concerning decision-making procedures and the separation of assets, so that the economic advantages of these companies can be utilized while also protecting the rights of third parties.

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.