Legal Studies in Digital Age

The excessive exploitation of groundwater in recent decades has become one of the fundamental environmental and legal challenges in Iran. This issue, beyond threatening vital resources and destroying ecosystems, has created a profound conflict between individual interests and public welfare. The present study, through a critical and comparative approach, examines the foundations of Imamiyyah (Shiʿi) jurisprudence and the Iranian legal system concerning the exploitation of groundwater, seeking to clarify their relationship with environmental obligations and the principle of la-zarar (no harm). The findings indicate that in Imamiyyah jurisprudence, the principle of ownership and dominion (tasallut) over one’s property is restricted by the rule of la-zarar and the consideration of public interest; therefore, it cannot8serve as justification for harming shared resources or the environment. On the other hand, although Iranian legal documents and higher-order policies emphasize the protection of natural resources and sustainable development, their implementation suffers from structural weaknesses and conflicts between private rights and public interests. Consequently, to achieve environmental justice and prevent public harm, it is necessary to reinterpret and institutionalize the jurisprudential foundations of the la-zarar rule alongside the principles of environmental law in the country’s water management policies.

Administrative integrity is one of the fundamental pillars of good governance and sustainable development, whereas administrative corruption represents the most serious threat to the efficiency of legal and political systems. The present study, titled “Ontology of Crimes Against Administrative Integrity in Iran’s Islamic Penal Bill with Reference to Afghan Criminal Law,” aims to explain the theoretical foundations, identify manifestations, and comparatively analyze the criminal policy of both countries concerning administrative crimes. The research method is descriptive–analytical, based on documentary study and comparative analysis between the criminal laws of Iran and Afghanistan. The findings indicate that although both countries share jurisprudential and cultural commonalities, they face institutional weaknesses and implementation deficiencies in enforcing anti-corruption laws. In Iran, the dispersion and inconsistency of provisions within the Islamic Penal Bill and the lack of criminalization for certain cases stipulated in the Merida Convention—such as bribery of foreign officials and illicit enrichment—have resulted in incomplete alignment between domestic legislation and international standards. In Afghanistan, political instability, weak judicial oversight, and the absence of institutional independence have hindered the full realization of administrative integrity. According to the study’s results, legislative reform through revision and harmonization of the Islamic Penal Bill, strengthening independent oversight bodies, decriminalizing minor offenses while focusing on major crimes, enhancing ethical and professional education of public servants, expanding information transparency, and protecting whistleblowers could constitute effective steps toward compliance with the Merida Convention and improvement of the administrative integrity system. Overall, achieving administrative integrity depends on political will, transparent legislation, and an organizational culture grounded in accountability and fiduciary responsibility—essential prerequisites for attaining social justice and public trust.

This article examines Iran’s legislative criminal policy in the fields of transport, urban development, and land management, with particular emphasis on its preventive and regulatory dimensions. It explores how fragmented and reactive legislation has limited the effectiveness of crime prevention in key sectors such as intercity road safety, illegal construction, and land grabbing. The study identifies major gaps in legal coherence, enforcement capacity, and institutional coordination, while highlighting areas of progress such as the 2013 Comprehensive Cadastre Law and the integration of digital monitoring systems. By analyzing the theoretical foundations, historical evolution, and practical implications of Iran’s legislative criminal policy, the article argues that modernization requires a shift from punitive deterrence to proactive prevention. Technological instruments such as smart surveillance, GPS tracking, and big data analytics offer promising tools for reducing crime and improving transparency, but their success depends on clear legal frameworks governing privacy, accountability, and data governance. The findings emphasize the need for comprehensive codification of criminal provisions, the adoption of restorative and alternative sanctions, and the strengthening of inter-institutional collaboration among legislative, judicial, and executive bodies. The article concludes that Iran’s criminal policy can achieve greater coherence and public trust by embracing integrated governance, preventive technology, and principled legislative reform aligned with international standards of legality, proportionality, and justice.

This article examines the legal nature of contracts concluded by artificial intelligence (AI) within the frameworks of Iranian and English law. To achieve this, it conducts a comparative legal analysis aimed at clarifying the juridical basis of such contracts. The study adopts a qualitative approach, utilizing data collected through library-based (documentary) research and applying an analytical–descriptive methodology. The findings reveal that in both the Iranian and English legal systems, when artificial intelligence functions as an electronic agent, the intelligent and autonomous characteristics of such contracts become evident. This autonomy allows contractual obligations to be executed automatically and without human intervention, thereby ensuring inflexible self-performance. As a result, the parties benefit from enhanced contractual certainty through the guaranteed execution of obligations—particularly within blockchain-based platforms. These contracts reduce dependency on financial market infrastructures, mitigate default risk, and strengthen the financial services sector due to the inherent flexibility and adaptability of AI-driven agreements. However, the comparative examination indicates notable divergences between the two systems. In English law, the moment of contract conclusion is governed by the dispatch theory of acceptance, whereas Iranian law also recognizes the reception theory of acceptance. Additionally, a difference arises concerning the determination of the time of contract formation: under English law, formation occurs at the moment the data message is dispatched, while under Iranian law, it is deemed to occur upon the signing of the document embodying acceptance.

A partnership agreement is a contract in which two or more individuals agree to share their financial resources, expertise, and responsibilities to initiate or continue a joint business venture. In this type of contract, each partner is committed to their respective share of the profits and losses of the business and jointly assumes management and decision-making responsibilities. Under Iranian law, partnerships can take various forms, such as civil partnerships and commercial partnerships, each of which is subject to specific legal provisions. In this context, the sharing economy, as a manifestation of transformation in the contemporary economic system, has provided a framework in which natural persons deliver goods and services through digital platforms. These developments have challenged the traditional structuring of contractual relationships and require reconsideration within existing legal frameworks. One of the most significant manifestations of this transformation is the formation of decentralized distribution networks and novel contracts characterized by reciprocity, vertical structure, adhesion, and, in some cases, exclusivity. This article adopts a descriptive approach to examine the legal principles governing partnership agreements.

This article examines the obstacles to criminal liability arising from disciplinary and punitive actions in Iran and Egypt. Despite the existence of child protection laws in both countries—such as the Law on the Protection of Children and Adolescents in Iran and Law No. 126 of 2008 in Egypt—significant barriers remain to holding individuals criminally liable for acts of discipline and punishment. Corporal punishment is still widely accepted as an educational tool, and parents’ right to discipline their children is broadly interpreted. As a result, such interpretations form a major obstacle to establishing meaningful criminal liability for corporal punishment, ultimately affecting the health and rights of children. A comparative analysis shows that, in practice, both legal systems recognize the parents’ right to punish without criminal responsibility, although this right has been severely restricted in educational settings. The article recommends a structural revision of existing laws, the gradual elimination of the parental right to corporal punishment, and the mandatory implementation of legal controls and public awareness initiatives to ensure genuine protection of children.

The metaverse, as a three-dimensional and interactive virtual environment, has created a remarkable transformation in digital technologies and provided a platform for economic, social, and cultural activities. With the expansion of this space, the issue of intellectual property rights and the civil liability arising from their infringement has become one of the major legal challenges. This article examines the foundations of civil liability in the metaverse and compares them with existing legal principles to analyze how intellectual property laws and compensation mechanisms can be applied within this environment. The findings of the study indicate that the decentralized, transnational, and anonymous nature of users in the metaverse makes it difficult to pursue intellectual property violations. Intellectual property rights in the metaverse encompass copyright, trademarks, patents, and industrial designs, all of which can be easily infringed due to the rapid copyability and modifiability of digital content. The main challenges in this regard include a lack of legal transparency, difficulty in identifying offenders, determining judicial jurisdiction in cross-border contexts, and the liability of hosting platforms. To address these challenges, several solutions are proposed, including the development of specific metaverse regulations, the use of blockchain technology for registering ownership of digital works, the establishment of artificial intelligence–based monitoring systems, and user education programs.

This study, employing a descriptive–analytical and inferential–maqāṣidī (objectives-based) approach, reexamines one of the most fundamental and controversial penal rulings in Islam—Qisas al-Nafs (retribution for murder). Drawing on the principles of Imamiyyah jurisprudence, it aims to reinterpret the philosophy of Qisas through the lenses of the Maqāṣid al-Shariah (objectives of Islamic law) and human dignity, exploring the feasibility of fully substituting organ donation for the execution of retribution in kind. The central question of this research arises from the Qur’anic declaration that the ultimate purpose of Qisas is the realization of justice and the preservation of collective life, as expressed in Surah al-Baqarah (2:179): “And there is life for you in retribution, O people of reason.” If the divine objective of Qisas is to sustain life, the study asks whether it is possible—by moving beyond the traditional method of taking life—to give life a concrete meaning through the donation of the offender’s organs to those on the brink of death. Could such a transformation not only maintain the deterrent and just nature of Qisas, but also embody its deeper meaning of life more profoundly? The research is founded on the distinction between the immutable essence of the ruling (ḥukm thābit) and the mutable method of its execution, providing a legitimate foundation for innovation in penal mechanisms. From this perspective, Qisas, as a divine principle, remains intact at the level of its essence, yet at the level of enforcement it could be realized not through the physical taking of life but through the continuation of life via organ donation. This substitution thus becomes an expression of the Qur’anic objective of life in Qisas—transcending the dichotomy of death and life, and seeking justice through the regeneration of life rather than its elimination. Findings of the study indicate that within Imamiyyah jurisprudence, principles such as ihsān fi al-qatl (benevolence in execution), the prohibition of mutilation, ḥurmat al-muʾmin mayyitan ka-ḥurmatihi ḥayyan (the sanctity of the believer after death equal to his sanctity in life), and al-ḍarūrāt tubīḥ al-maḥẓūrāt (necessity permits the prohibited) collectively provide the jurisprudential capacity for such transformation—provided that a rigorous institutional framework is established. This framework must include the verification of death according to recognized scientific and religious criteria, the obtaining of informed and voluntary consent, strict separation between judicial and medical authorities, and enhanced ethical and religious oversight. Under such a model, the offender’s body would not serve as an instrument of vengeance but as a source of life for others, elevating the Qur’anic principle “and in retribution there is life for you” from a moral slogan to a tangible social reality. The final conclusion of the research asserts that the full substitution of organ donation for the execution of Qisas, when carried out under rigorous religious, ethical, and institutional supervision, is not inconsistent with the principles of Islamic justice. Rather, it represents a manifestation of rationality and humanism within the Shariah.