Advanced Journal of Management, Humanity and Social Science

Abstract The will of the contracting parties constitutes the cornerstone of private law, determining the validity, enforceability, and overall effectiveness of contractual agreements. This paper examines the role of parties’ intention, consent, and autonomy in shaping legally binding obligations. In private law, a contract is only recognized as valid when the parties demonstrate genuine, voluntary, and informed consent. Defective or vitiated will—arising from mistake, fraud, duress, undue influence, or incapacity—can undermine contractual validity, rendering agreements void or voidable. Through a doctrinal and comparative analysis of civil law and common law traditions, the study highlights the methods courts employ to assess the authenticity of parties’ will. Civil law jurisdictions often prioritize the subjective intention of the parties, evaluating internal motives and knowledge, whereas common law emphasizes the objective manifestation of consent, focusing on outward expressions and reasonable perceptions. The paper further discusses legal remedies available when the will is compromised, including contract rescission, reformation, and damages, illustrating how private law balances the principle of contractual freedom with the protection of fairness and justice. Moreover, the study underscores the critical interplay between autonomy and legal oversight: while parties have the freedom to structure their legal relations, the law intervenes to prevent exploitation and ensure equitable outcomes. By analyzing theoretical foundations, historical perspectives, and contemporary case law, this research demonstrates that the parties’ will is both a theoretical construct and a practical determinant of contract law. Understanding its impact is essential for legal practitioners, scholars, and policymakers in safeguarding contractual integrity and promoting voluntary, fair, and enforceable agreements.

Abstract Stipulations within contracts (Shurūṭ Ḍimn al-‘Aqd) constitute an essential legal mechanism through which contracting parties can regulate their mutual rights and obligations beyond the principal terms of an agreement. In legal systems influenced by Islamic law, particularly Iranian law, contractual stipulations occupy a central position due to their deep roots in Imami (Ja‘fari) jurisprudence. This comparative study examines the concept, legal foundations, and conditions of validity, classifications, and legal effects of stipulations within contracts in Iranian law and Imami jurisprudence, with the aim of identifying points of convergence and divergence between the two systems. In Imami jurisprudence, contractual stipulations are regarded as ancillary commitments attached to the main contract and derive their binding force from both jurisprudential principles and religious sources, most notably the rule that believers are bound by their conditions (al-mu’minūn ‘inda shurūṭihim). However, their validity is strictly limited by conformity with Sharia, rationality, feasibility, and consistency with the essence of the contract. Iranian civil law, while largely inspired by these jurisprudential principles, adopts a codified and systematic approach, particularly in Articles 234 to 246 of the Iranian Civil Code, and further reinforces contractual autonomy through Article 10, which recognizes the freedom of private agreements within legal boundaries. The findings of this study demonstrate a substantial degree of harmony between Iranian law and Imami jurisprudence, especially in the classification of stipulations into conditions of attribute, act, and result, as well as in the legal consequences of breach. Nevertheless, Iranian law introduces modern legal concepts such as public order, legal certainty, and explicit statutory remedies, which distinguish it from classical jurisprudential analysis. Overall, the study highlights how Iranian law has preserved the substantive foundations of Imami jurisprudence while adapting them to the requirements of a modern legal system.

Abstract Family law serves as a fundamental legal framework regulating relationships within families, including marriage, divorce, child custody, inheritance, and domestic obligations. This comparative study examines the divergent and convergent features of family law systems in Eastern and Western jurisdictions, highlighting the influence of cultural, religious, and social factors. Western legal systems, including common law and civil law traditions, emphasize individual autonomy, gender equality, and codified procedural safeguards. In contrast, Eastern systems, particularly those influenced by Islamic law and traditional Asian customs, prioritize family cohesion, social harmony, and religious or cultural norms. The study analyzes marriage and divorce regulations, child custody and protection mechanisms, inheritance rules, and contemporary reforms in both regions. It also addresses emerging trends such as recognition of same-sex marriages, assisted reproductive technologies, and cross-border legal issues. Comparative findings reveal key differences in the balance between individual rights and collective responsibilities, the role of religion in legal formulation, gender equality, and procedural approaches. Despite these differences, globalization and international human rights standards have prompted reforms in both regions, fostering convergence in areas such as child welfare, protection of vulnerable family members, and legal modernization. The study concludes that understanding the underlying social, religious, and cultural values of family law systems is essential for policymakers, legal scholars, and practitioners to promote effective, equitable, and culturally sensitive legal frameworks. Comparative analysis not only enhances cross-cultural legal understanding but also provides opportunities for harmonization, mutual learning, and informed reform in globalized contexts.

Abstract The exponential growth of digital technologies and global connectivity has profoundly transformed the way personal, corporate, and governmental data are generated, transmitted, and stored. In this interconnected environment, cybersecurity has emerged as one of the most critical challenges facing both national authorities and international regulators. The increasing reliance on cloud computing, artificial intelligence, and data analytics has intensified the flow of information across borders, raising complex questions concerning data sovereignty, privacy protection, and jurisdictional authority. This paper examines the evolving landscape of cybersecurity laws and the regulation of cross-border data flows, with particular emphasis on the interplay between national interests, international norms, and global trade. It reviews major legal frameworks—including the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), the U.S. CLOUD Act, and data governance models in China and emerging economies—and analyzes how these systems shape the transnational governance of digital information. The study also explores the tensions between privacy rights and state security imperatives, ethical implications of data localization, and the prospects for global harmonization of cybersecurity norms. By integrating legal analysis, policy comparison, and theoretical perspectives on digital sovereignty, this paper contributes to ongoing academic debates about how to secure cyberspace while preserving openness, innovation, and human rights.

Abstract Conflict of interest (COI) in contractual relationships represents a critical legal and ethical concern, impacting the validity, enforceability, and fairness of contracts. COI arises when a party’s personal, financial, or professional interests may improperly influence the performance of contractual obligations, leading to compromised decision-making and potential harm to the other party or the public. This paper provides a comprehensive legal analysis of COI in various contractual contexts, including commercial, corporate, and public sector agreements. Through a doctrinal and comparative approach, it examines how different legal systems define COI, regulate disclosure obligations, and impose remedies for breaches. Common law jurisdictions typically address COI through fiduciary duty principles, equitable remedies, and statutory regulations, whereas civil law systems emphasize good faith obligations, fairness, and statutory prohibitions against conflicts. The study also highlights the consequences of non-disclosure or misrepresentation, including contract voidability, rescission, damages, and restitution. Moreover, it explores preventive measures, such as contractual clauses, mandatory disclosure requirements, and judicial oversight, which are crucial in mitigating COI risks. By analyzing legislative frameworks, case law, and best practices, the paper demonstrates the importance of transparency and ethical conduct in maintaining contractual integrity. The findings underscore that effective management of COI not only safeguards the interests of contracting parties but also promotes trust, accountability, and efficient commercial interactions. Overall, this analysis contributes to a deeper understanding of the legal mechanisms governing COI and their practical implications for contractual practice, offering guidance for policymakers, legal practitioners, and organizations engaged in complex contractual arrangements.