Legal Studies in Digital Age

Engagement in cyberspace, like any other domain, entails responsibilities and duties for individuals, one of which is the civil liability for content production. The present study seeks to examine civil liability for content production in cyberspace based on religious directives, particularly the principle of tasbib (causation). The central question is: What is the civil liability of individuals regarding content production in cyberspace in terms of being a cause (musabbib)? The present analysis demonstrates that civil liability encompasses both the prohibitive aspects, requiring the prevention of wrongdoing (munkarat), and the affirmative aspects, encouraging the promotion of exemplary content production practices. The establishment of civil liability in cyberspace necessitates identifying active and influential individuals, including influencers, and defining their liability in accordance with their roles. Furthermore, the principle of tasbib extends to the actions and decisions of managers and policymakers within the Islamic society concerning content production, holding individuals accountable regardless of their position or status. Consequently, civil liability attributes responsibility to both individuals and managers for any material or moral harm resulting from their role in content production in cyberspace. To actualize civil liability in an Islamic society, the development of specialized jurisprudence for media and the implementation of digital civil liability frameworks are recommended. The methodology of this study is descriptive-analytical, employing a library-based research approach.

This study aims to examine the feasibility of adjustment in construction partnership contracts and analyze the legal barriers and challenges associated with it. The primary focus is on the legal principles governing contracts within the Iranian legal system, its comparison with other legal systems, and offering solutions for improving the laws and regulations in this area. The feasibility of adjusting contractual penalty clauses, particularly in construction partnership contracts, is a significant issue in Iranian law. This article investigates the impact of changes in economic, social, and natural conditions on the possibility of adjusting penalty clauses in such contracts. With reference to Articles 10 and 975 of the Iranian Civil Code, and the role of social customs and public order, analyses are provided that can contribute to balance and justice in contractual relations. Moreover, suggestions are offered for reforming pre-sale building laws and establishing specific conditions for the adjustment of penalty clauses. The research is descriptive-analytical in nature and has been conducted through the analysis of legal documents, judicial cases, and comparative studies. Research data were collected from construction partnership contracts concluded in the metropolitan cities of Tehran, Isfahan, and Mashhad between 2011 and 2024. In addition, interviews were conducted with legal experts and professionals in the construction industry. Findings show that legal principles such as freedom of contract, contractual justice, and force majeure provide a framework for contract adjustment. However, the lack of specific standards in Iranian law and inconsistencies in judicial practice are major obstacles to contract adjustment. To improve the process of contract adjustment in Iran, it is necessary to develop clear regulations and incorporate explicit clauses into construction partnership contracts. These measures can help reduce legal disputes and strengthen trust between contracting parties.

The present study aims to examine the status and legal regulations governing refugees in Iran. Since their arrival, Iraqi and Afghan refugees have not enjoyed a clearly defined legal status recognized under international norms. This reality has necessitated a detailed investigation into their situation within Iran. Utilizing a library-based research method and analysis of official documents, this paper examines refugee-related provisions within the Iranian Constitution, asylum procedures in Iran, the impact of asylum approval on family members of the applicant, the practical approach of the Islamic Republic of Iran towards asylum seekers, and an overview of the specific circumstances of Afghan and Iraqi refugees in Iran. The findings indicate a disparity in the treatment of Iraqi and Afghan refugees. Iraqis, having more economic freedom, often consider Iran as a second home and show strong emotional attachment to it. In contrast, Afghan refugees face economic restrictions and social limitations. Misconduct by Afghan nationals is often amplified in the media, while similar issues concerning Iraqis tend to be concealed. Furthermore, Iraqis in Iran have access to mosques and professional, commercial, and economic organizations—resources that are largely unavailable to Afghan refugees.

Judicial presumption is recognized as one of the tools for proving claims within the Iranian legal system and holds a special position in the process of adjudication. Based on various studies, in some legal disputes, access to conclusive evidence may be extremely difficult or even impossible. Consequently, in order to prevent the violation of individuals’ rights, avoid judicial suspension, and fill this evidentiary gap to establish justice and fairness, the use of judicial presumptions is not only legitimate and authoritative but also essential, as it ensures judicial security. Judicial presumptions, due to their high degree of intelligence and flexibility, as well as their attention to the specific details of each case, allow for a thorough examination and analysis of all available evidence. By utilizing every tool at the judge's disposal for analysis and achieving precise conclusions, these presumptions enable the judge to reach a high level of certainty necessary for issuing a judicial ruling, making reliance upon them highly trustworthy. Relying on verses from the Qur’an, narrations, customary practice, and legal doctrines, it can be concluded that judicial presumptions—if they create sufficient certainty for the judge—may, under valid conditions, be independently used as evidence for proving claims, just like other means of proof. It can even be argued that the level of conviction derived from judicial presumptions is so strong that it transcends the status of mere presumption and becomes actual evidence. Therefore, the role of judicial presumption as evidence in achieving and enhancing judicial justice is undeniable.

Cryptocurrencies, as an emerging phenomenon in the world of finance and technology, have attracted significant attention. These digital currencies operate based on blockchain technology and facilitate financial transactions without the need for traditional intermediaries such as banks. In the Iranian legal system, due to the novelty of the topic, there is no specific and comprehensive legislation to address crimes related to this domain. Nevertheless, some existing laws on combating money laundering and financial crimes can be extended to partially cover cryptocurrencies. The Central Bank of Iran and other financial institutions are currently in the process of formulating regulations to manage and supervise this field. On the other hand, in the common law system, which is implemented in countries such as the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom, multiple laws have been enacted to confront crimes associated with cryptocurrencies. Institutions such as the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network under the U.S. Department of the Treasury have developed detailed regulations to monitor and control cryptocurrency transactions. This article examines the differences and similarities in the laws and regulations related to cryptocurrencies in the Iranian and common law legal systems and analyzes the efforts of both systems in addressing the legal challenges associated with this field.

The confiscation and seizure of assets derived from bribery is considered one of the most important legal and criminal tools in the fight against financial corruption. Beyond its punitive function, this measure plays a preventive role in reducing the economic incentives to commit crimes. In the Islamic jurisprudential system, the principle of "the prohibition of consuming property through wrongful means" serves as the foundation for the legitimacy of confiscating illicit assets. Shiite jurists emphasize the necessity of returning assets obtained through financial corruption to their rightful owner or to the public treasury. In Iran's legal system, various laws—including the Islamic Penal Code, the Anti-Money Laundering Act, and the Law on the Promotion of Administrative Health—have established mechanisms for the confiscation of illicit property. However, at the implementation stage, several challenges arise, including the difficulty of distinguishing between licit and illicit assets, legal shortcomings, weak financial oversight, and prolonged judicial proceedings. Comparative analysis reveals that in many advanced legal systems, such as those of France and the United Kingdom, independent agencies exist to manage confiscated assets, and international cooperation for the repatriation of illicit assets to the country of origin is effectively carried out. In Iran, the absence of such mechanisms has, in some cases, resulted in the retention of assets derived from financial corruption by the perpetrators. This article, by examining the jurisprudential and legal foundations of asset confiscation and comparing them with international standards, emphasizes the need for legal reform, strengthening of financial oversight, acceleration of judicial procedures, and the establishment of independent institutions for managing seized assets, in order to enhance the effectiveness of anti-corruption policies in the country.

According to international law, peoples possess the right to self-determination, which entitles them to freely determine their political status and to pursue their economic, social, and cultural development. However, the legal institutionalization and international legislation of this value became manifest after World War I and in the Treaty of Versailles. At the same time, the implementation of this right continues to face obstacles and limitations, such as the preservation of the territorial integrity of states, the principle of non-intervention in the internal affairs of states, the prohibition of secessionism, and above all, the maintenance of international peace and security. On the other hand, the growing emphasis on human rights and their universality has led to major transformations in the domain of the concept and implementation of this right, resulting in tensions between human rights and state sovereignty. Since the 1970s, the right to self-determination has increasingly come to embody the notion of democratic governance, the observance of human rights, and the protection of minority rights. The primary objective of this article is to explore the conceptual transformations, implications, and requirements of the right to self-determination, from independence to democracy, drawing upon the most recent studies in this field.

It is often stated that globalization and state sovereignty are engaged in a zero-sum conflict. However, it must be emphasized that such an interpretation is merely superficial. The concept of globalization attracts significant attention precisely because the notion of sovereignty continues to maintain its intellectual and theoretical existence. According to this perspective, every conceptualization of globalization—even in its most abstract form—is inherently tied to the concept of sovereignty (Clark, 2003, pp. 171–172). Accordingly, it can be argued that the discourse between globalization and sovereignty is rooted in interaction. Nevertheless, while the sovereignty of states has, to some extent, been reinforced through a broader scope as a result of globalization, its fundamental components have simultaneously been questioned by the same process. Furthermore, the influence of globalization on transnational governance is a matter of considerable importance from the perspective of human advancement. As the development of the human sciences progresses and human societies increasingly gravitate toward globalization—and as this movement aligns with components of good governance such as justice and fairness—its expansion is becoming uncontrollable. The lack of a cohesive and meaningful connection between the disciplines of law and management has led to the emergence of certain unfavorable features in international domains and behavior. Although societal progress has alleviated this issue to some extent, there remains a considerable gap to achieving the desired position in the realm of international communication (distinct from diplomatic relations between states).