Judicial Jurisdiction in Disputes Arising from International Electronic Contracts: A Comparative Study Between Iraqi and Iranian Law
Keywords:
Judicial jurisdiction, electronic contracts, private international law, electronic commerce, Iraq, Iran, forum, selection clauses, cyberspace jurisdictionAbstract
This article examines judicial jurisdiction in disputes arising from international electronic contracts through a comparative study of Iraqi and Iranian law. The expansion of electronic commerce has weakened the adequacy of traditional jurisdictional connecting factors such as domicile, place of contract formation, and place of performance, because electronic contracts are often concluded through digital platforms, automated systems, and cross-border data exchanges. The study adopts a comparative-analytical method to evaluate how Iraqi and Iranian legal systems respond to jurisdictional challenges created by electronic contracting. The article argues that although traditional rules remain relevant, they must be adapted to the realities of cyberspace. In both legal systems, jurisdiction should not be based merely on website accessibility, server location, or incidental data routing. Instead, courts should focus on substantial connection, deliberate targeting of the forum market, electronic performance, reasonable foreseeability, valid electronic consent, and protection of weaker parties. The study finds that Iranian law has a relatively clearer statutory basis for recognizing electronic communications through its Electronic Commerce Law, whereas Iraqi law requires stronger integration of electronic transaction principles into jurisdictional analysis. However, both systems still lack comprehensive and explicit rules for international electronic jurisdiction. The article concludes that Iraqi and Iranian law should develop a balanced jurisdictional framework that respects party autonomy in commercial contracts, scrutinizes unfair forum-selection clauses in consumer contracts, recognizes reliable electronic evidence, and avoids excessive assertions of jurisdiction based on purely technical digital contacts. Such reform would enhance legal certainty, improve access to justice, and support the growth of cross-border electronic commerce.
Downloads
References
1. Fawcett J, Carruthers J. Cheshire, North & Fawcett: Private International Law: Oxford University Press; 2017.
2. Reed C. Internet Law: Text and Materials: Cambridge University Press; 2018.
3. Murray A. Information Technology Law: The Law and Society: Oxford University Press; 2019.
4. Briggs A. Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments: Informa Law from Routledge; 2015.
5. Hill J, Chong A. International Commercial Disputes: Commercial Conflict of Laws in English Courts: Hart Publishing; 2021.
6. Iranian P. Electronic Commerce Law of the Islamic Republic of Iran: Official Gazette of Iran; 2003.
7. Goldsmith J, Wu T. Who Controls the Internet? Illusions of a Borderless World: Oxford University Press; 2006.
8. Svantesson DJB. Private International Law and the Internet. Journal of Private International Law. 2019;15(1):1-25.
9. Geist M. Is There a There There? Toward Greater Certainty for Internet Jurisdiction. Berkeley Technology Law Journal. 2001;16(3):1345-406.
10. Kohl U. Jurisdiction and the Internet. International Journal of Law and Information Technology. 2007;15(3):233-61.
11. Fitzgerald B. International Jurisdiction and Cyberspace. University of New South Wales Law Journal. 1998;21(3):101-26.
12. Uncitral. UNCITRAL Model Law on Electronic Signatures: United Nations; 2001.
13. Garner BA. Black's Law Dictionary: Thomson Reuters; 2019.
14. Kessedjian C. Electronic Commerce and International Jurisdiction. International and Comparative Law Quarterly. 2000;49(4):769-802.
15. Schultz T. Carving Up the Internet: Jurisdiction, Legal Orders, and the Private/Public International Law Interface. European Journal of International Law. 2008;19(4):799-839.
16. Schmitthoff CM. Export Trade: The Law and Practice of International Trade: Sweet & Maxwell; 2000.
17. Dicey AV, Morris JHC, Collins L. Dicey, Morris and Collins on the Conflict of Laws: Sweet & Maxwell; 2012.
18. Dickinson A. The Rome II Regulation: Oxford University Press; 2008.
19. Zekos GI. International Commercial and Marine Arbitration: Routledge-Cavendish; 2008.
20. Perritt HH. Jurisdiction in Cyberspace. Villanova Law Review. 1996;41(1):1-78.
21. Weber RH. Internet of Things: Privacy Issues Revisited. Computer Law & Security Review. 2015;31(5):618-27.
Downloads
Publication Timeline
- Submitted
- Revised
- Accepted
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Abdolreza Lotfi; Ali Taresh Hamad, Hayder Shakir Mutashar (Author)

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.