Journal of Historical Research, Law and Policy

The Law on Reducing Ta’zir Imprisonment Sentences, enacted with the aim of moderating the criminal justice approach and prioritizing rehabilitation and reform over mere punishment, has brought remarkable transformations to Iran’s legal system. This law, particularly in the field of pardonable crimes (offences requiring the victim’s complaint for prosecution), introduces mechanisms to decrease the judiciary’s reliance on imprisonment, thereby creating new opportunities and challenges for legal scholars and society. Examining the achievements and shortcomings of this approach requires a precise analysis of its impact on reducing the prison population, expediting judicial proceedings, and its social and economic consequences. Accordingly, the central research question is: What criminological achievements do pardonable crimes have under the Law on Reducing Ta’zir Imprisonment Sentences? This study was conducted using a library-based (documentary) method and a descriptive–analytical approach. The findings indicate that the scope of pardonable crimes—regarding specified instances, the requirement of a victim’s existence, and various forms of criminal liability—faces several ambiguities. Under the Law on Reducing Ta’zir Imprisonment Sentences, pardonable crimes offer achievements such as enabling active victim participation in the adjudicatory process, improving the quality of offences relating to property, and considering the offender’s age when determining whether an offence is pardonable. However, this category of crimes also faces challenges, including lack of clarity in identifying the full range of applicable offences, ambiguities arising from the requirement of a victim in property-related offences, and complexities stemming from different forms of criminal liability. Additionally, the conditions established in Article 11 of the Law on Reducing Sentences and the role of the complainant’s pardon create further challenges, particularly in cases involving multiple similar material offences.

Oppression is among the grave sins, and cooperation in oppression is considered—both rationally and according to Islamic law—as a form of oppression, making it subject to the same corresponding rulings. Cooperation in oppression, in its broad sense encompassing participation and assistance, may occur in various forms. Jurists have examined assistance in oppression under the concept of ma‘ūnat al-ẓālimīn within the chapter on prohibited transactions (makāsib al-muḥarramah). Assistance in oppression is forbidden when it constitutes aiding the oppressor in his act of oppression or when it leads to the assistant being characterized as a supporter of a tyrant; according to the purport of certain narrations, such assistance may even entail exclusion from Islam. Participation in oppression results in all participants equally deserving the full punishment designated for that specific act of oppression. Assistance in oppression likewise incurs liability; and aside from specific instances in which mere assistance does not fully actualize the legal designation upon the assistant, wherever assistance in oppression occurs, the assistant is thereby characterized as an oppressor, and the designation of “oppressor” applies to that individual. Thus, in terms of the legal status of “oppressor,” both the direct perpetrator and the assistant share the same ruling and merit equal punishment. This treatise was conducted with the aim of undertaking a jurisprudential analysis of cooperation in oppression against the Ahl al-Bayt (peace be upon them), with special emphasis on the injustices inflicted upon Lady Fatimah (peace be upon her), using descriptive and analytical methods. The findings indicate that, both rationally and legally, the higher the status and rank of the oppressed party, the more reprehensible the act of oppression becomes and the more severe the corresponding punishment ought to be. Since the Ahl al-Bayt, endowed with infallibility and purity, occupy the loftiest ontological rank and the highest degrees of nearness to God and sanctity, the punishment for oppressing them—or cooperating in such oppression—is accordingly more severe. Likewise, the sacred law has deemed insulting them as warranting execution, and enmity toward them as constituting nusb and apostasy. Based on this, all individuals who directly or indirectly participated in the oppression of the Ahl al-Bayt—especially Lady Fatimah—are, if their cooperation in oppression extends beyond inner approval and assent and manifests in overt words or actions, categorized as nāsibī (one who harbors hostility toward the Ahl al-Bayt), thereby falling outside the fold of Islam and deserving the most severe punishment according to the sacred law. However, if such cooperation remains purely internal and has not outwardly manifested, no legal ruling applies to it in this world, although from a spiritual and eschatological perspective such a person is considered a hypocrite.

Mahmud Taleqani and Morteza Motahhari made significant efforts toward the realization of the Islamic Revolution and the establishment of a religious and popular government, and during the Pahlavi era they endured repeated imprisonment and severe torture at the hands of the ruling regime. Examining the political and social thought of these two Islamic thinkers, as well as the position of their ideas and practices, is of considerable importance because introducing their intellectual profiles as contemporary thinkers and freedom-seeking elites holds substantial scholarly value. In Taleqani’s political thought, religion is inseparable from politics; however, the establishment of despotism in the name of religion is likewise unacceptable. Motahhari, similarly, emphasized the reciprocal relationship between religion and politics in his political and social thought, viewing the two as fundamentally intertwined, and he placed strong emphasis on the role of the people in establishing and maintaining any political system. In line with conducting this research—written using a descriptive-analytical method—we seek to examine the political and social thought of Mahmud Taleqani and Morteza Motahhari.

Construction partnership contracts—particularly in modern forms such as joint ventures and consortiums—are today recognized as key instruments for the development of major economic infrastructure and national megaprojects. Countries facing legal challenges in drafting and implementing complex contracts require a fundamental revision of their contractual frameworks. The present research was conducted with the aim of formulating an indigenous legal framework for partnership-based construction contracts at the national level, grounded in international experiences and standards. The primary focus of the study is to examine structural weaknesses, legal gaps, and practical solutions for establishing an efficient contractual system in this domain. To achieve this objective, the research employed a qualitative approach using thematic analysis. The study population consisted of experts in construction law, architecture, and project management, selected through the snowball sampling method. Data were collected through semi-structured interviews and processed using a six-stage thematic analysis procedure, including coding, categorization, theme extraction, and thematic network analysis. Throughout this process, an interpretive approach was adopted to systematically represent expert perspectives and experiences and to develop a conceptual framework for designing joint venture and consortium contracts. The findings indicate that deficiencies in drafting obligations, the absence of a transparent legal structure, conflicts between domestic regulations and international requirements, and the lack of a specialized regulatory body constitute the most significant barriers to the implementation of partnership contracts in Iran. Accordingly, a conceptual model was proposed that, by emphasizing the standardization of contractual clauses, explicit definition of responsibilities, clarification of enforcement guarantees, and designing a dispute-resolution mechanism, can provide the foundation for effective execution of partnership arrangements. The results enable policymakers, project managers, and legal practitioners to more effectively draft and implement partnership contracts by developing a deeper understanding of the legal challenges and requirements.

This article examines the legal responsibilities of companies in the acquisition and takeover of competitor assets, focusing primarily on the Iranian legal framework. It explores the intersection of corporate law and competition law, emphasizing how Iranian regulations balance corporate freedom with public policy objectives. The study highlights the role of the Law on the Execution of General Policies of Principle 44 of the Constitution (Principle 44 Law), which integrates privatization, national economic policy, and socio-economic considerations into the oversight of mergers and acquisitions. The Competition Council (Shoraye Raghibat) is identified as the central authority responsible for monitoring and enforcing compliance, empowered to review transactions, impose administrative, civil, and criminal remedies, and ensure that acquisitions do not undermine market competition or the public interest. The article examines the specific responsibilities of companies in Iran, including disclosure obligations, protection of minority shareholders, prevention of abuse of dominant positions, and cooperation with regulatory authorities. Remedies for anti-competitive conduct are analyzed across administrative, civil, and criminal dimensions, illustrating a multi-layered enforcement system closely aligned with Principle 44 objectives. Comparative insights from the European Union and the United States provide context for understanding the strengths and limitations of the Iranian approach. While EU and U.S. frameworks emphasize market competition and consumer welfare, the Iranian model uniquely integrates socio-economic development and public policy objectives into corporate acquisition oversight. The article highlights both the strengths of this integrated approach and areas for improvement, including enhancement of technical capacity, procedural clarity, and transparency. Ultimately, the study concludes that the Iranian legal framework offers a distinctive and policy-oriented approach to regulating acquisitions of competitor assets, ensuring that while companies retain freedom to transact, their activities remain consistent with national economic goals, market fairness, and public welfare. The integration of Principle 44 and the oversight role of the Competition Council exemplify a harmonized model in which corporate governance, competition law, and public policy converge to support sustainable economic development.

Bahram Beyzaie’s cinema has consistently served as a space for rethinking the concepts of identity, history, and gender. Within this framework, women occupy a central position in his narratives—not as secondary elements or stereotypical figures, but as active agents possessing independent identities. This article, focusing on the films Killing Rabid Dogs and Bashu, the Little Stranger, seeks to explore the ways in which the social development of women is represented within Beyzaie’s worldview. The research aims to analyze the role of women in Bahram Beyzaie’s cinema and addresses the central question: how are women’s social development and cultural policy represented in Beyzaie’s cinematic discourse? This study employs an analytical–descriptive method, grounded in semiotics and gender studies, to examine the main female characters in the two films. It demonstrates how Beyzaie, through these characters, adopts a critical stance toward patriarchal and traditional structures. The findings indicate that Beyzaie portrays women as bearers of moral strength, seekers of truth, and symbols of resistance against domination.

All transactions carried out by members of a society are normally conducted with prior intention, planning, calculations, and consultations. However, due to miscalculations or changes in attitudes and circumstances, one of the parties to a contract may withdraw from the concluded transaction. In situations where no mechanism for reversal exists, compelling a party to continue a transaction may, in some cases, lead to dangerous and irreparable consequences. One of the contracts that existed prior to Islam and was subsequently recognized and formalized within Islamic law is the contract of hiba (gift). Like other transactions, the contract of hiba involves two parties—a donor (wahib) and a donee (mutahabb). Similar to other contracts, the contract of hiba includes mechanisms that allow for revocation. Through examining the relevant legal evidence and clarifying these mechanisms, both the donor and the donee can be informed of the permissible methods of revocation, as well as the obstacles that may bar revocation. This awareness enables the parties to act with full understanding should they decide to retract from the transaction.

Costs outside the scope of the contract constitute one of the most challenging issues in the law of oil and gas contracting agreements. Although these costs are not explicitly stipulated in the text of the contracts, the successful implementation of complex oil and gas projects cannot be achieved without incurring them. Using a descriptive–analytical method and relying on the doctrine of ancillary obligations, this article analyzes the legal nature of these costs and explains the foundations for obligating the employer to pay them. The findings indicate that, based on Articles 220 and 225 of the Iranian Civil Code, the Islamic jurisprudential rule of “permission for a thing is permission for its necessities,” and the principle of freedom of contract, costs outside the scope of the contract fall within the category of contractual ancillary obligations. Within the framework of the doctrine of contractual justice, the employer’s obligation to pay these costs is a legal necessity. Finally, practical solutions are proposed for institutionalizing these costs through contractual clauses and alternative dispute resolution mechanisms.