Journal of Historical Research, Law and Policy

During the reign of Reza Shah Pahlavi (1925–1941), nationalism became one of the central components of the discourse of the modern state in Iran. This article focuses on state nationalism and examines its role in the reproduction of political authority and the weakening of constitutional institutions. The principal research problem concerns how, and through which mechanisms, state nationalism during Reza Shah’s rule contributed to the concentration of power and the strengthening of authoritarianism. The central question addressed is: What role did state nationalism play in legitimizing political authority and in eliminating or weakening independent institutions? The main hypothesis of the study posits that Reza Shah’s state nationalism, through redefining national identity around the central state and the person of the monarch, functioned as an instrument for legitimizing power centralization and restricting political and institutional pluralism. The objective of the research is to analyze the relationship between nationalist discourse and mechanisms of political authority within the process of state-building under Reza Shah. From a theoretical perspective, the article draws upon the state nationalism approach and theories of the authoritarian state, treating nationalism not merely as a cultural phenomenon but as an active element in the construction of political power. The independent variable of the study is state nationalism, while the dependent variable consists of the reproduction of political authority and the weakening of constitutional institutions. The research adopts a qualitative–historical methodology, and its data were collected and interpreted through documentary analysis, historical texts, and authoritative scholarly works. The findings indicate that state nationalism during Reza Shah’s rule, through emphasizing national unity, strengthening the authority of the central state, and highlighting the role of the monarch, created the institutional and discursive foundations necessary for establishing a modern authoritarian order. The innovation of this article lies in examining Pahlavi nationalism as an explanatory variable in the analysis of authoritarianism, thereby contributing to bridging the gap between nationalism studies and analyses of authoritarian state formation in contemporary Iran.

Inflation in economic literature is predominantly analyzed as a monetary and financial phenomenon. Nevertheless, its extensive social consequences indicate that inflation is not merely a macroeconomic variable; rather, it can be examined as a form of structural and self-reproducing harm within a system of governance. The present study, drawing upon the theoretical framework of social harm within the tradition of critical criminology and by developing the concept of cognitive social harm, seeks to explain chronic inflation in the Islamic Republic of Iran beyond purely economic analyses. The research adopts an analytical–theoretical methodology grounded in conceptual reconstruction and proposes a conceptual model explaining the relationship among cognitive biases of monetary policymakers, institutional distortion, liquidity expansion, and the reproduction of social harm. The findings demonstrate that chronic inflation is the product of specific perceptual patterns within the governance system which, through interaction with institutional structures, lead to the production and institutionalization of social harm. Within this framework, the concept of the state’s cognitive responsibility is introduced as a complement to legal and economic responsibility. By extending the literature on social harm, this article provides a foundation for future empirical testing of the proposed model.

The phenomenon of standardized contracts in immovable property transactions represents one of the prominent manifestations of transformation within the private law system and the transition from the absolute dominance of individual autonomy toward institutional governmental regulation in transactional relations. These contracts are designed with the objective of harmonizing contractual provisions, reducing ambiguity, and enhancing predictability in transactional relationships. Within the framework of the Law on Mandatory Official Registration of Immovable Property Transactions (enacted in 2024), they function as an effective instrument for ensuring transparency and legal security. At the same time, although contractual standardization contributes to acceleration and efficiency within the registration system, it raises fundamental challenges from the perspective of contractual justice and the protection of the weaker party’s autonomy of will. Employing a descriptive–analytical approach grounded in comparative examination, the present study explains the nature, functions, and limits of the juristic and legal legitimacy of standardized contracts in immovable property transactions and demonstrates that the legitimacy of such contractual frameworks depends upon compliance with principles of transparency, procedural justice, and the public interest.

The guarantee condition (shart-e zeman) in Islamic contracts has, in recent years, emerged as one of the most effective mechanisms for strengthening contractual obligations and managing transactional risk, gaining a prominent position in juristic–legal analyses and the structuring of modern contracts. The present study aims to examine the juristic nature of the guarantee condition, clarify its legal foundations within the Civil Code, and analyze its role in reducing transactional risk, thereby offering a coherent account of the functional dimensions of this legal institution. The research first examines the concept of guarantee and distinguishes it from other security mechanisms, including contractual suretyship, personal guarantee, and collateral arrangements. Subsequently, through an analysis of Articles 234–246 of the Civil Code and the prevailing opinions of Imami jurists, the framework governing the validity, limitations, and legal consequences of the guarantee condition is clarified. The findings indicate that the guarantee condition—particularly when formulated as a condition of result—can facilitate risk transfer, strengthen the creditor’s legal position, reduce the likelihood of default, and enhance predictability in contractual performance. Nevertheless, challenges remain, including ambiguity regarding the validity of guarantee conditions in fiduciary contracts, potential tension with the principle of fault-based liability, and certain juristic constraints, all of which underscore the need for clearer legislative regulation and precise contractual drafting. In the final section, the practical applications of the guarantee condition in sale contracts, lease agreements, civil partnerships, as well as financial and Islamic banking contracts are examined, and recommendations are proposed to enhance transactional efficiency and legal security based on this condition. The study concludes that, when properly structured and aligned with both juristic principles and legal norms, the guarantee condition can function as a central pillar of risk management in contemporary contractual relations.

Civil liability in traditional Iranian law has predominantly been grounded in a compensatory function, and its primary objective has been regarded as restoring the injured party to the status quo ante. However, contemporary social and economic developments indicate that mere compensation for damage—particularly in cases involving intentional harmful conduct, profit-driven wrongdoing, or gross negligence—does not possess sufficient effectiveness in preventing and correcting harmful behaviors. Under such circumstances, the fundamental question arises as to whether the institution of “punitive damages” may be employed as a complementary instrument within the Iranian civil liability system and whether such an institution is compatible with the legal foundations and jurisprudential principles governing Iranian law. The present article, adopting a descriptive–analytical methodology and employing a comparative jurisprudential–legal approach, examines the nature of punitive damages and their deterrent function, and analyzes the feasibility of recognizing this institution within the framework of the Iranian civil liability system. The findings of the research demonstrate that although punitive damages appear, at first glance, to extend beyond the scope of compensatory reparation, reliance on their deterrent and preventive functions allows for their justification in light of certain jurisprudential principles, including the rule of no harm (lā ḍarar), the prohibition of abuse of rights, and the doctrinal foundations of financial taʿzīr (discretionary monetary sanctions). The study concludes that the acceptance of punitive damages in Iranian law—provided that their application is limited, regulated, and confined to specific instances such as intentional or gross fault and harm to public interests—not only does not conflict with jurisprudential principles and the foundations of civil liability, but may also contribute to strengthening the deterrent function and enhancing the overall efficiency of the legal system.

This article examines the transformation of the hegemonic logic underlying United States foreign policy in the Persian Gulf region from the early 1990s to 2021. The primary focus of the study is the process of transition from the unipolar order that emerged following the end of the Cold War to the complex and increasingly multipolar framework characterizing recent years. Drawing upon major international relations theories, including hegemonic stability theory and offensive realism, the article analyzes shifts in U.S. policy orientations and investigates the role of domestic, regional, and international factors in redefining Washington’s strategic approaches. The research method is based on qualitative analysis of documentary and scholarly sources. Four key stages in the transformation of American hegemonic logic are examined: consolidation of the unipolar order, redefinition of threats after the September 11 attacks, emergence of signs indicating the erosion of unipolarity, and the beginning of a multilateral engagement trajectory. The findings indicate that U.S. foreign policy in the Persian Gulf has gradually shifted from direct interventionism toward interactive strategies, indirect instruments of influence, and a reconfiguration of regional roles, developments that have had significant implications for the United States’ strategic position and regional order-building processes.

Financial supervision is a core function of the modern administrative state, ensuring legality, accountability, transparency, and the proper management of public resources. In Iran, this function operates under sustained external regulatory pressure arising from international sanctions and the requirements of the Financial Action Task Force. This article examines how the simultaneous presence of these two external forces reshapes the independence and effectiveness of government financial supervision within Iran’s public law system. Using a scientific narrative review and descriptive legal analysis, the study explores the structural consequences of sanctions for domestic financial governance, including restricted access to financial data, limited international cooperation, institutional distortion, and the expansion of informal financial mechanisms. It also analyzes FATF standards as a normative and regulatory framework that promotes transparency, risk-based supervision, and enhanced detection capabilities while imposing compliance costs and influencing domestic regulatory priorities. The findings demonstrate that sanctions and FATF obligations operate through opposing yet interacting logics: sanctions encourage opacity, emergency governance, and centralization, whereas FATF requirements incentivize formalization, disclosure, and procedural oversight. Together, they generate a complex regulatory environment in which supervisory institutions may gain technical tools but lose functional autonomy. The article argues that supervisory independence in this context cannot be assessed solely on the basis of formal legal status, as functional independence is deeply shaped by external constraints and resource limitations. Ultimately, the study highlights the need for a public law perspective that recognizes financial supervision as a dynamic institution situated between sovereignty, global regulatory integration, and domestic accountability.

Social developments and the expansion of the State’s role in managing public risks have moved governmental responsibility for unforeseen incidents beyond the traditional framework of force majeure and transformed it into a legal issue with ex ante and institutional dimensions. The central question addressed in this study is whether the omission of the State’s preventive obligations in the face of foreseeable risks can constitute a basis for civil liability, and how such liability has been conceptualized in different legal systems. Focusing on the legal systems of Iran and the United States, this article examines the issue in light of the evolution of tort liability concepts, the limitation of sovereign immunity, and the institutionalization of prevention. The findings indicate that in United States law, the State’s ex ante obligations have gradually evolved from the realm of administrative policymaking into legally assessable standards, and preventive omissions, under specific conditions, have been recognized as a breach of the public duty of care. By contrast, in Iranian law, despite the existence of jurisprudential foundations and constitutional principles aimed at protecting the life and property of citizens, the predominance of an ex post approach, ambiguity in liability standards, and judicial caution have hindered the effective linkage between prevention and governmental civil liability. The comparative analysis suggests that although the United States experience is not entirely replicable, it may provide a basis for the gradual redefinition of governmental liability in Iranian law on the foundation of ex ante obligations and the legal management of risk. Employing a descriptive–analytical method and a comparative approach, this study seeks to develop a conceptual framework for the transition from a purely compensatory model of liability toward a forward-looking form of responsibility aligned with the requirements of the contemporary State.