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 Contract rescission serves as a crucial legal mechanism for terminating contractual obligations, ensuring fairness, and maintaining the balance of rights between parties. This study aims to examine the effects of contract rescission in Iranian civil law and to compare them with those in comparative law, analyzing the legal aspects, conditions for rescission, and its consequences. In Iranian law, contract rescission is generally possible either legally or contractually, and its effects mainly include the termination of future obligations, restitution to the prior state, and compensation for damages resulting from contractual breaches. In comparative legal systems, particularly in French and English law, similar concepts exist; however, notable differences can be observed regarding restitution, the extent of damage compensation, and the role of the parties’ will. The research employs a descriptive-analytical method, relying on legal texts, doctrinal analysis, and judicial precedents to identify points of convergence and divergence among various legal systems. The findings indicate that while the fundamental principles of contract rescission are largely similar across jurisdictions, differences exist in the execution of rescission and its impact on complex economic contracts. Moreover, comparative law generally offers greater flexibility in determining the effects of rescission and compensating associated damages, whereas Iranian law provides a more defined and limited legal framework. This study concludes with recommendations to enhance the regulation of contract rescission in Iranian law, offering practical guidance for legal practitioners, judges, and contract drafters.

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 Arbitration has become one of the most widely used mechanisms for resolving disputes in international commercial contracts due to its efficiency, neutrality, and enforceability across borders. The effectiveness of arbitration, however, fundamentally depends on the validity and enforceability of the arbitration clause embedded within the contract. A well-drafted arbitration clause ensures that parties have a clear, mutual agreement to resolve disputes outside of domestic courts, providing predictability and reducing the risk of protracted litigation. This paper examines the legal frameworks, challenges, and practical considerations associated with arbitration clauses in international commercial agreements. It analyzes key international instruments, including the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (1958), and national legislations modeled on the UNCITRAL Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration, highlighting how they influence enforceability. Critical factors affecting the validity of arbitration clauses include mutual consent, clarity of scope, compliance with mandatory legal requirements, capacity of the parties, and adherence to public policy. Challenges to enforceability often arise from ambiguities in drafting, conflicts with national laws, jurisdictional disputes, and procedural irregularities. The study also discusses notable case law, including Fiona Trust & Holding Corp v. Privalov and Dallah Real Estate & Tourism Holding Co. v. Ministry of Religious Affairs, illustrating how courts interpret and uphold arbitration agreements. Finally, the paper provides practical recommendations for drafting effective arbitration clauses, emphasizing the importance of specifying arbitration rules, the seat of arbitration, applicable law, language, and interim relief provisions. By addressing potential challenges proactively, parties can significantly increase the likelihood that their arbitration agreements will be recognized and enforced internationally, thereby ensuring a reliable mechanism for dispute resolution and promoting greater confidence in cross-border commercial transactions.

Abstract Armed conflicts, both international and non-international, have historically been associated with extensive human rights violations, including extrajudicial killings, torture, sexual violence, forced displacement, and attacks on civilian infrastructure. Such violations not only inflict immediate physical and psychological suffering on affected populations but also undermine long-term socio-economic development and political stability. International law provides a critical framework for the protection of human rights during armed conflicts, primarily through International Humanitarian Law (IHL), human rights treaties, and the mandates of international bodies such as the United Nations. Instruments such as the Geneva Conventions, their Additional Protocols, and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court define obligations for state and non-state actors, establish standards for the treatment of civilians and combatants, and prescribe mechanisms for accountability. Despite these frameworks, enforcement challenges remain significant due to issues such as state sovereignty, lack of political will, insufficient monitoring, and difficulties in prosecuting non-state actors. This article examines the nature and scope of human rights violations in contemporary armed conflicts, highlighting case studies to demonstrate patterns of abuse and systemic challenges in protection. It also explores the role of international law in both preventing violations and ensuring accountability, emphasizing the importance of universal jurisdiction, international tribunals, and the complementarity principle of the International Criminal Court. The paper concludes by arguing that strengthening international legal mechanisms, enhancing compliance through domestic incorporation of treaties, and promoting robust civil society participation are essential to mitigating human rights violations during armed conflicts. The findings underscore that while international law provides vital protections, its effectiveness relies on a combination of legal, political, and humanitarian efforts.

Abstract The permissibility of a judge’s acceptance of gifts from litigating parties or from others is among the significant issues long debated within Islamic jurisprudence. Given the unanimous consensus among jurists regarding the prohibition of bribery, there is no dispute that a judge’s acceptance of bribes is categorically forbidden. Consequently, in the discussion of a judge’s acceptance of gifts whether from litigants or even from individuals with no pending dispute before the judge it is often presumed that any gift offered to a judge must necessarily be a bribe and cannot be motivated by any other legitimate intention. The majority of jurists have categorically ruled that it is impermissible for a judge to receive such gifts. Their principal argument is that a judge’s gift effectively constitutes a form of bribery and must therefore fall under the same prohibition. In contrast, some jurists distinguish, at the level of subject and definition, between bribery and gifting, and consequently deem the judge’s acceptance of gifts permissible. The central question raised in this article is whether the prohibition on bribery extends to gifts as well. A descriptive-analytical examination of juristic opinions indicates that a gift is not inherently equivalent to a bribe; however, certain types of gifts may, under specific circumstances, constitute bribery and thus fall under its legal ruling of prohibition.

Abstract Each This research assesses whether, and in what manner, broader access to the internet should be recognized as a human right in contemporary international law and practice. It first outlines how established human rights instruments, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and regional systems in Europe and the Americas, already link freedoms like expression, information, education, participation, and equality to the right to enjoy the benefits of scientific progress and its applications. Although these documents predate the digital age, they collectively provide strong normative support. This backing helps to conceptualize meaningful internet access as a component of existing rights, rather than as a new, additional entitlement. The manuscript next analyzes how expanding digital infrastructure raises privacy and data protection challenges. It explains the tension between using data collection to serve public interests, such as health or security, and the risks of surveillance, profiling, and discrimination that result. These issues are explored through debates over contact-tracing apps, mass surveillance, and algorithmic control, illustrating their complexities. This investigation shows that, in case studies of China, India, and selected sub-Saharan African states, internet shutdowns and internet control practices operate under distinct political contexts. In all three cases, governments use technical and legal mechanisms to reduce connectivity during protests, elections, or crises. These actions are frequently in violation of their international obligations. The investigation concludes that effective enjoyment of many human rights now clearly relies on secure, affordable, and continuous access to the internet. Future legal and policy reforms at international, national, and local levels must treat internet access and digital connectivity as key conditions of human dignity and democratic accountability.

Abstract Economic sanctions are an increasingly central instrument of statecraft. Their proliferation since the early 2000s — and particularly after 2014 and 2022 in response to high-profile geopolitical events — has created complex tensions between public international law, domestic sanctions regimes, and the private-law regime of international arbitration. This article analyzes how sanctions shape (1) the jurisdictional and arbitrability questions tribunals face, (2) procedural conduct and due process in arbitration, and (3) the recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards in domestic courts. First, the paper maps the legal architecture: the New York Convention, ICSID framework, UNCITRAL rules, domestic sanctions regimes (notably U.S. OFAC and EU restrictive measures) and counter-measures such as EU blocking statutes. Second, it examines doctrinal fault lines — choice of law, public policy defenses, supervening impossibility/frustration, and state immunity — and how tribunals and courts have addressed them. Third, it surveys practical impediments: asset freezes that render awards effectively unenforceable, restrictions on counsel/arbitrators caused by sanctions, seat selection and institutional compliance, and the chilling effect on dispute settlement. The analysis integrates recent scholarship and institutional guidance to show that (a) sanctions often convert solvable contractual disputes into multi-jurisdictional legal puzzles; (b) tribunals retain procedural and substantive tools to manage sanctions-related disputes but their remedies are uneven; and (c) enforcement of awards is increasingly contestable where sanctions and sovereign immunity intersect. The paper concludes with recommendations: refined drafting (sanctions clauses, payment/escrow mechanisms), tribunal powers to order interim relief cognizant of sanctions law, coordinated institutional guidance, and diplomatic-legal responses (blocking statutes, targeted licenses) to protect the effectiveness of international arbitration without undermining legitimate sanctions policy.

Abstract This article examines the principal legal, constitutional and practical obstacles to recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in the Islamic Republic of Iran, focusing on the twin concepts of public order (ordre public) and national sovereignty. Iran’s accession to the 1958 New York Convention in 2001 and the enactment of domestic arbitration legislation modelled on the UNCITRAL Model Law have, in principle, created a framework conducive to enforcement; however, constitutional constraints, state practice and policy considerations repeatedly complicate implementation. Central among obstacles is Article 139 of the Iranian Constitution, which conditions referral or settlement of disputes concerning public or state property to the approval of the Council of Ministers and—where foreigners are parties—to parliamentary notification or approval, thereby limiting the arbitrability and enforceability of awards touching on public/state assets. Courts applying the public-order exception under the New York Convention and domestic procedural rules have at times invoked Article 139 or broad public policy concerns to deny recognition or to delay enforcement; recent jurisprudence from Iran’s Supreme Court (2024) evidences incremental clarification but does not eliminate uncertainty. Other enforcement hurdles include ambiguities in statutory definitions (e.g., what counts as “international” or “public” property), procedural barriers (jurisdictional review, limited discovery, availability of interim measures), state immunity claims, and the impact of extrajudicial factors such as international sanctions and political relations. The article analyses doctrinal debates, major statutory provisions, representative case law and evolving administrative practice, and proposes targeted reforms—statutory clarifications, issuance of implementing regulations, internal approval protocols for Article 139 matters, judicial training, and treaty-level initiatives—to reconcile Iran’s commitment to arbitral enforcement with legitimate public-order and sovereignty concerns while improving predictability for foreign investors and creditors.

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 Youth movements have historically served as catalysts for political transformation, social reform, and democratic renewal. This paper examines the multifaceted role of youth activism in shaping political transitions, emphasizing its influence on governance structures, social justice, and civic participation. The study analyzes the dynamics of youth engagement in key political transformations across regions such as the Middle East, Eastern Europe, and Sub-Saharan Africa. It argues that youth movement’s function both as agents of mobilization and as moral forces that challenge entrenched political orders. Through digital communication, grassroots organization, and transnational solidarity, young people have reshaped the boundaries of political discourse, often acting as the vanguard of democratization efforts. The research employs a qualitative comparative approach, drawing from historical and contemporary case studies including the Arab Spring (Tunisia and Egypt), the Serbian Otpor! Movement, and the End SARS protests in Nigeria. Findings reveal that while youth movements are instrumental in initiating transitions, their long-term impact depends on institutional inclusion, leadership sustainability, and the capacity to translate protest into policy. Ultimately, this study concludes that youth movements represent not merely a phase of dissent but a transformative force capable of redefining political legitimacy and participation in the 21st century. Understanding their evolving role is essential for policymakers and scholars seeking to comprehend the dynamics of modern political change.

Abstract Medical crimes encompass a spectrum of wrongful acts in healthcare, ranging from unintentional negligence to deliberate harmful actions, which not only endanger patients’ health but also undermine public trust in the medical system. This paper provides a comprehensive analysis of the criminal and legal dimensions of medical crimes. Acts of medical malpractice, arising from failure to adhere to standard care protocols, are typically addressed under civil law; however, in cases where they result in severe injury or death, they may also attract criminal liability. Conversely, intentional acts, such as administering harmful substances, sexual abuse of patients, or falsification of medical records, are directly subject to criminal prosecution and carry severe penalties including imprisonment, fines, and revocation of medical licenses. Additionally, financial crimes and fraud within healthcare systems have widespread implications on public resources and societal trust. The examination of these crimes indicates that their consequences extend beyond individual patients, affecting overall public health, healthcare costs, and quality of medical services. Preventing medical crimes requires strengthening professional education, establishing transparent reporting systems, enforcing strict oversight, and implementing legal reforms that balance patient protection with the rights of healthcare practitioners. This analysis provides a comprehensive perspective on the intersection of law, ethics, and medical professionalism, highlighting the urgent need for preventive measures and accountable practices to safeguard both patients and society.

Abstract Legal precedents play a fundamental role in shaping the reasoning and outcomes of judicial decisions across various legal systems, particularly in common law jurisdictions. By adhering to the doctrine of stare decisis, courts ensure consistency, predictability, and fairness in the application of law. This reliance on precedent provides litigants and society with a sense of stability, allowing individuals and institutions to anticipate legal consequences and organize their affairs accordingly. Beyond stability, precedents also facilitate the gradual evolution of legal doctrines, enabling courts to refine or reinterpret principles in response to shifting social norms, political contexts, and technological innovations. At the same time, the use of precedent is not without challenges. Strict adherence may entrench outdated or unjust decisions, while excessive flexibility risks undermining legal certainty and judicial legitimacy. The globalized nature of contemporary legal practice further complicates this dynamic, as courts increasingly engage with transnational jurisprudence and comparative precedent. This paper argues that the true significance of precedent lies in its dual role as both a guardian of continuity and a catalyst for change. By balancing respect for established rulings with responsiveness to new realities, courts can ensure that the law remains both stable and adaptable, preserving its legitimacy while addressing emerging challenges. The broader implications of precedent extend beyond legal reasoning, shaping democratic governance, economic stability, and social justice in profound and lasting ways.

Abstract Artificial Intelligence (AI), as one of the most advanced technologies of the 21st century, has increasingly entered the world's judicial systems and has transformed judicial decision-making processes. With its ability to analyze large volumes of data, identify complex patterns, and predict outcomes, this technology enables the acceleration and increase of accuracy in the process of handling cases. In this regard, AI can help judges and lawyers make more accurate and objective decisions based on evidence and information, thereby promoting judicial justice. In addition, the use of intelligent systems in predicting the risk of committing a crime or returning to the criminal justice system greatly contributes to decisions related to conditional release or setting bail. Also, text analysis and behavioral pattern recognition tools in criminal and legal cases can reduce the possibility of human errors and unintentional biases. However, the use of AI in decriminalization also comes with significant challenges and concerns. The most important of these challenges is the issue of transparency and understandability of algorithms; because AI decisions may be ambiguous and uninterpretable for human users and even judges due to technical complexities. Also, the risk of algorithmic discrimination resulting from inappropriate training data or biases in the data can jeopardize judicial justice. Concerns related to privacy, data security, and liability in the event of errors are also important concerns. Ultimately, the impact of AI on judicial decision-making processes depends largely on how it is designed, monitored, and the legal and ethical frameworks governing its use.

Abstract Contract law, as one of the most fundamental branches of legal systems, has evolved significantly over centuries to adapt to changing economic, social, and technological contexts. Its historical development—from Roman law’s emphasis on ritualistic formalities, to the medieval lex mercatoria, and later the codifications of civil law and the precedent-driven common law—highlights the dynamic interplay between law and society. Core principles such as freedom of contract, pacta sunt servanda (agreements must be kept), good faith, consideration, and legality have remained central, though their application has been continually reshaped by shifting social needs and regulatory frameworks. In modern contexts, contract law faces profound challenges. Globalization has expanded cross-border transactions, necessitating harmonization efforts through international conventions such as the CISG. Meanwhile, consumer protection has become increasingly important in addressing power imbalances and ensuring fairness in contractual relationships. The digital revolution has further transformed contract formation, with e-contracts, clickwrap agreements, and electronic signatures raising new legal and ethical issues. Emerging technologies such as blockchain and smart contracts present both opportunities for efficiency and challenges related to enforceability, remedies, and accountability. Looking forward, contract law is expected to undergo significant transformation in response to rapid technological advancement, global harmonization efforts, and the growing importance of sustainability and social responsibility. The integration of artificial intelligence into contract drafting, negotiation, and enforcement will further reshape traditional practices, while simultaneously raising questions of liability, transparency, and fairness.

Abstract Contracts constitute the backbone of private law and commercial interactions, ensuring that individuals and entities can rely upon legally binding promises. This paper aims to examine the general rules of contracts in two distinct legal traditions: Iranian law, which is primarily based on the Civil Code influenced by Islamic jurisprudence and continental legal doctrines, and common law, which has developed through judicial precedent in England and later expanded in jurisdictions such as the United States. The comparative analysis highlights both convergences and divergences in key areas such as contract formation, validity, and consideration versus cause, performance, remedies, and doctrines of good faith. The research demonstrates that while Iranian contract law is deeply rooted in moral and religious values, emphasizing equity and good faith, common law reflects a pragmatic and case-based approach where judicial precedent and doctrines like consideration play a central role. Despite these differences, modern legal trends such as international trade law, UNIDROIT Principles, and the CISG have encouraged convergence between civil law and common law traditions. The paper concludes that comparative studies not only deepen understanding of domestic laws but also contribute to harmonization in global contract law.

Abstract This paper explores the intersection of civil law and commercial law in regulating international trade relations. In today’s globalized economy, legal systems must reconcile the foundational principles of civil law—such as contract freedom and private rights—with the dynamic and often complex requirements of international commerce. The article examines how legal frameworks rooted in civil law principles adapt to the demands of international business, including cross-border transactions, international arbitration, and multinational commercial agreements. It also analyzes the role of national legislations, treaties such as the CISG (United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods), and supranational institutions like the ICC (International Chamber of Commerce) in harmonizing civil and commercial legal norms. Special attention is given to challenges such as legal uncertainty, jurisdictional conflicts, and enforcement mechanisms. The study concludes that effective integration of civil and commercial law principles is essential for fostering legal predictability and economic efficiency in international trade relations.

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.