Comparative Studies in Jurisprudence, Law, and Politics

The differentiation of criminal procedure, as one of the most profound conceptual and structural developments in contemporary criminal policy, concerns the deliberate transition from a uniform and rigid model of adjudication toward a flexible, purposive system based on the diversification of criminal justice responses. This approach, which has emerged with the claim of enhancing the efficiency of the criminal justice system and guaranteeing fair trial, possesses considerable theoretical and practical capacities; nevertheless, it faces fundamental and multidimensional challenges that simultaneously affect its normative legitimacy and institutional effectiveness. At the theoretical level, ambiguity in the concept and scope of differentiation, the absence of transparent, rational, and controllable criteria for distinguishing between types of proceedings, and its potential conflict with fundamental principles such as equality before the law, legality of procedure, legal security, and predictability of rules cast serious doubt on the philosophical and legal foundations of this approach. At the practical level, the concentration and broad flexibility of the powers of prosecutorial authorities, the discretionary application of differentiated regulations, weak effective judicial oversight, the absence of uniform judicial practice, and institutional inconsistency—and, at the jurisprudential level, ambiguity regarding the manner of applying Qur’anic verses, hadiths, and rules related to justice—challenge the coherent and fair implementation of procedural differentiation. Using an analytical-critical method and a comparative approach, the present article systematically examines the most important theoretical, practical, and jurisprudential challenges of differentiating criminal procedure across all stages of the criminal process. It emphasizes the necessity of reconsidering the theoretical foundations, formulating transparent and binding criteria, strengthening judicial oversight, and effectively guaranteeing individuals’ fundamental rights as prerequisites for the realization of legitimate, coherent, and sustainable criminal justice.

In some countries, including Austria, laws on euthanasia have been enacted to accelerate the death of incurable patients. The Iranian legislator has adopted a passive approach; in other words, in this regard, neither criminalization nor decriminalization is observed. In the Iranian legal system, no explicit position can be found concerning euthanasia. However, it appears that in cases such as ending a non-stable life, where the individual is legally deemed to be in the status of a deceased person, such as individuals diagnosed with brain death, the legislator has accepted euthanasia. In late 2020, the Constitutional Court of Austria permitted assisted suicide from the beginning of 2021; however, this may be carried out only subject to certain conditions. The important point is that in Austria, religion and Sharia have no place in legislation. Rather, because religion is separated from politics, Austria is a federal state, and each state legislates independently; accordingly, conditions for the implementation of euthanasia were approved.

With the expansion of information and communication technologies, cyberspace has become the primary platform for social, economic, and cultural interactions in contemporary societies. Alongside its numerous benefits, this transformation has generated new legal challenges, particularly concerning civil liability arising from online activities. The present study examines the various dimensions of such liability within the Iranian legal system and evaluates its strengths and weaknesses. In Iran's legal framework, civil liability is founded upon traditional principles such as the doctrine of causation and the principle of the personal nature of liability. However, these principles face significant challenges when applied to the distinctive characteristics of cyberspace, including user anonymity and the rapid dissemination of information. In particular, in cases involving violations of privacy and the dissemination of false information, the absence of comprehensive legislation results in extensive interpretations of traditional legal rules and, consequently, inconsistent outcomes. This study also examines efforts undertaken to formulate cyberspace-related legislation in Iran, including the “User Rights Protection Plan,” and demonstrates that substantial legal gaps still remain. Ultimately, the research emphasizes the necessity of revising Iranian laws and developing specific regulations governing cyberspace in order to establish a coherent and effective legal framework for protecting individual rights in this environment. Based on the findings, it is recommended that, given the unique characteristics of cyberspace, codified laws be enacted to specifically address civil liability arising from online activities, privacy violations, and the dissemination of false information. Furthermore, the implementation of educational programs for users and online service providers regarding their rights and responsibilities in cyberspace can enhance awareness and strengthen their ability to protect both their own rights and those of others.

Many classical, later, and contemporary Islamic jurists, including Ruhollah Khomeini, have paid particular attention to the significance of custom (ʿurf). The position of custom and its dynamic nature in jurisprudential and legal discussions become evident when considered in light of the elements of time and place. The principal question of this study is: What position does custom occupy within substantive criminal law? The study is based on the hypothesis that the specific concept of custom in substantive criminal matters has established a distinct and special status for it compared to other branches of law. The objective is to examine the concept of custom from both jurisprudential and legal perspectives and to explain its validity within the domain of substantive criminal law, particularly with regard to criminal liability and the determination of punishments. The research adopts a descriptive–analytical method. The findings indicate that although custom cannot serve as a jurisprudential or statutory source of criminal law and therefore cannot constitute the legal basis for criminal prosecution or conviction, it can nevertheless play a significant role in three areas: the formation of legal rules, the interpretation of legal provisions, and the application of legal rules.

The JCPOA (Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action), as one of the most complex and challenging issues in the foreign policy of the Islamic Republic of Iran, has consistently been a subject of dispute among different perspectives in the field of diplomacy. Using a descriptive-analytical approach, this article evaluates the performance of Iranian diplomacy in interaction with Western governments regarding the JCPOA. The main focus of this study is to explain and analyze these relations based on the discursive axes of the Supreme Leader (may his shadow be extended), who has consistently emphasized principles such as “distrust of the West,” “reliance on domestic capabilities,” “vigilance against infiltration,” and “preservation of national interests and sustainable security.” This article demonstrates that the experience of the JCPOA, particularly the unilateral withdrawal of the United States from the agreement in 2018 and the failure of European countries to fulfill their commitments, clearly confirmed the accuracy and validity of the strategic analyses of the Leader of the Islamic Revolution regarding the treaty-breaking and unreliable nature of Western governments. An examination of recent developments from 2023 to 2025 further supports the argument that any form of illusion and Western orientation in diplomacy not only fails to resolve economic problems but also places the country in a state of deeper passivity and dependence. The findings of this study indicate that successful diplomacy toward the West is a diplomacy based on “engagement from a position of strength” and “complete independence,” rather than a diplomacy founded on appeals and compromise. The discourse of the Leader of the Islamic Revolution, by emphasizing political realism and avoiding misplaced optimism, outlines a roadmap in which negotiation is merely a tactical instrument and should not replace macro-level strategies aimed at strengthening domestic capabilities. Ultimately, adherence to the discursive axes of the leadership will prevent the repetition of the bitter experiences of the JCPOA and ensure the security and sustainable progress of the Islamic Republic of Iran in the international arena.

Moral vices are among the social harms that can challenge the ethical and social well-being of society and create conditions that weaken human and religious values. In this regard, Imami jurisprudence, as one of the most significant normative systems in Islamic thought, not only explains individual legal rulings but also possesses substantial capacities for guiding social behavior and preventing the spread of moral vices within society. The main issue addressed in this study is the examination of the role of Imami jurisprudential teachings in controlling and reducing moral vices and the clarification of the effective jurisprudential mechanisms in this regard. The present research was conducted using a descriptive–analytical method based on library resources and jurisprudential texts. The findings indicate that teachings such as enjoining good and forbidding evil (al-amr bi al-ma‘ruf wa al-nahy ‘an al-munkar), the prohibition of assisting in sin, the prohibition of spreading immorality, and certain jurisprudential principles related to preventing corruption and preserving social order constitute some of the most important instruments of Imami jurisprudence for controlling and reducing moral vices. Based on the results of this study, Imami jurisprudence, through the provision of a set of normative principles and legal rules, can play a significant role in strengthening moral values, preventing the expansion of moral vices, and promoting the ethical health of society.

Fair trial is one of the important and key concepts of justice in the judicial system, which has numerous dimensions and examples. Numerous studies have been conducted on fair trial and its various dimensions. The purpose of the present article is to examine fair trial in pre-Islamic Iran in comparison with Islamic teachings. The following article is descriptive and analytical and uses a library method to examine the subject in question. The findings indicate that both in ancient Iran during the Achaemenid and especially Sasanian rule and in Islamic teachings, fair trial was of great importance and emphasis. The obligation of judges to be impartial and to judge fairly and the right to object to the verdict are among the most important evidences of fair trial in pre-Islamic Iran. The impartiality of the judge and the equality of all before the law, the right to a lawyer, and the defendant's defense rights such as citing witnesses are among the most important examples of fair trial that have been emphasized in Islam. The richest Islamic source in this regard is perhaps the life of Imam Ali (AS), who always emphasized the observance of justice in proceedings and even advised judges to treat both parties to the dispute equally.

The transfer of the benefits of immovable property, as one of the most common forms of property exploitation, plays a significant role in economic and social relations. Nevertheless, the absence of an effective obligation to execute an official deed, or the practical disregard for registration formalities, has resulted in serious challenges at the stage of proving such transfers before courts. Differences concerning the evidentiary value of unofficial documents, conflicts between unofficial and official deeds, and inconsistencies in judicial practice regarding the admissibility of evidence are among the issues threatening individuals’ legal security. The present study, employing a descriptive–analytical method and relying on legal sources and judicial practice, examines the evidentiary challenges relating to the transfer of the benefits of immovable property arising from the execution or non-execution of official deeds. The findings demonstrate that the lack of consistency in the interpretation of registration regulations and evidentiary rules has led to contradictory judgments and has revealed the necessity for legislative reform and the unification of judicial practice. As stipulated in the Law on the Mandatory Official Registration of Transactions Relating to Immovable Property, a system has been established for individuals lacking official deeds concerning the ownership of benefits exceeding two years in order to organize unofficial documents and register them within the system. In the subsequent step, it is argued that the restriction of “more than two years” for the registration of ownership of benefits should be amended, and that the ownership of benefits, regardless of any temporal limitation, should be subject to organizational registration measures so that the legal ownership rights of individuals lacking official deeds may be guaranteed. Finally, practical legislative, judicial, and procedural solutions are proposed in order to reduce disputes and enhance legal security.