Background and Aim: One of the most important concerns of human is childbearing. Advanced infertility techniques have introduced new approaches to infertile couples. Fetal donation is one of the techniques that have posed major challenges and questions for Islamic scholars. In this study, based on the Imamiyyah jurisprudence, we try to answer the question whether the parent's relationship with their frozen fetus is ownership or allocation right? Does only parents’ right to the fetus legitimize its transfer to them? Materials and Methods: The present study is based on a descriptive-analytical method that has tried to explain and examine the type of relationship between parents and fetus and the extent of their possession of the fetus by analyzing legal and jurisprudential texts. Conclusion: Although some Western jurists believe that the parents own the fetus and consider them as their property, but it seems that this approach does not prevail in the teachings of Islamic jurisprudence. In Islamic jurisprudence, due to inherent dignity of the fetus, the right to own a fetus is stronger. In this view, all effects of the right to allocate isn’ t achieved on the fetus, because the father’ s right to the child is an irrevocable right, and in fact being a father is the perfect reason for the realization of the element of guardianship, that is why its forced and voluntary transfer is prohibited.

In lease contracts where the landlord grants the tenant the right to build construction or planting trees, article 504 of the Civil Code provides for the right to retain the accessions after the expiration of the lease, following one of the two main jurisprudential views. But it leaves unanswered the question of whether or not the tenant will have priority in re-leasing by owning the accessions. Jurisprudential and legal doctrines have also sufficed to examine the right of retention of accessions. However, the tenant’s priority in re-leasing the area can be considered as an implicit customary condition, as the judicial and administrative procedure has a serious tendency to recognize this right. Moreover, the priority in renting due to the ownership of the standing property also has a legal background.

This essay recognizes three historical concepts for hagh (=right):1. Right as truth and justice: There is no difference Here between theoretical and practical reasoning and everything which is beautiful or corresponds to the reality is "right" . The good or beautiful act is exactly a priori (=natural = human) rights. This concept of right is not born by the will of governmental authorities.2. Right as power and profit: according to this concept, arising from the authority of the state, the right is a privilege rather than right, and the authority may decide to abate this right as he has already decided to give this privilege to the citizens.3. Right as property: the concept of right has gradually been reduced to the most obvious meaning of profit which is the private property. We can trace this concept in the theories of John Lock and Robert Nozick who define justice somehow by ownership, and the theory of traditional Islamic jurisprudence which introduces the right as a weak level of the ownership.

The ownership of personal data in private law is one of the complex issues that have given rise to new legal challenges following the expansion of the digital space and new technologies. The main question is whether personal data should be considered as intangible property or should it be protected by personality rights? This issue becomes important when personal data not only serves as a means of identifying individuals, but also as an economic resource for companies in the digital world. The hypothesis of this research is based on the fact that personal data can be considered as personality rights and immaterial property at the same time, but to realize this, precise legal frameworks must be developed to determine how to own, use, and protect them. In this regard, important questions are raised that require careful consideration: should a person own his data and be able to have full control over it? Or do commercial entities, which collect and process this data, have the right to use and exploit it? The answer to these questions requires a comparative study of different laws in the field of private law. In particular, regulations such as the EU General Data Protection Regulation, which protect individual rights against misuse of data, can be appropriate models for national legislation. Finally, the aim of this research is to achieve a balance between the rights of individuals in privacy and the economic benefits resulting from the use of data, which can create a coherent and efficient legal framework.

The rapid advancement of intelligent technologies and the widespread application of artificial intelligence across various domains have raised fundamental questions in the field of cyber law. One of the most significant issues concerns the ownership of data generated by AI systems, which is crucial not only in the realm of private law but also in terms of public law and national sovereignty. The main research question of this article is to determine the legal status of AI-generated data in the Iranian legal system and to propose an appropriate framework for its ownership. The necessity and importance of this study stem from the fact that data, as the key asset of the digital economy, play a decisive role in the political and economic power of nations, and the absence of a clear legal framework may result in the violation of users’ rights, the monopolization of big tech companies, and threats to national sovereignty. The primary aim of this article is to explain the legal foundations of ownership over AI-generated data, analyze the existing gaps in Iranian law, and propose reformative solutions in light of international experiences. The research method is descriptive–analytical and comparative, relying on documentary study, examination of domestic laws, judicial opinions, and international instruments. The findings reveal that although Iranian laws, including the Civil Code, the Electronic Commerce Act, and the Computer Crimes Act, have addressed the protection of data, they remain silent on the ownership of machine-generated data. Moreover, Iranian judicial practice has no precedent in this regard, focusing only on the admissibility of electronic data as evidence. Comparative analysis shows that advanced legal systems such as the European Union, the United States, and China, despite taking steps toward data protection, have not yet provided a definitive answer to the question of AI-generated data ownership. The novelty of this article lies in proposing a hybrid approach whereby the ownership of AI-generated data should be designed in a multi-layered and conditional manner to simultaneously safeguard users’ rights, clarify companies’ responsibilities, and strengthen national data sovereignty.

Today, one of the most important factors for attracting foreign investments is protecting the ownership of the foreign investor in the host country. The lack of respect for the foreign investor's ownership and the fear of violating it in various forms of expropriation, nationalization, confiscation and seizure of property has been the biggest concern for international commercial law. The present article, by explaining the status of private property, seeks to answer the question of whether the protection of the right to own foreign investors in the Islamic and Iranian legal system has been identified as a rule and principle. It is also desirable to know how to protect this right, while investigating the issues of sharing and differentiating in Iranian and international law in order to find out its weaknesses or strengths. The findings of this research, through library and analytical descriptive studies, show that the private property rights of foreign investors, in accordance with Islamic and Iranian law, can be fully respected. Meanwhile, Iran's law in relation to the strategies of protecting the rights have benefited both from Islamic teachings and has brought it closer to international law, So that the violation of the private property right of foreign investors will have a responsibility for the government.

The Civil Code which is considered to be the most significant source of rights of individuals in Iranian legal system has paid a special attention to right in its particular meaning (property rights) and its classifications. Most of the authors have dealt with the imported classification of rights (corporeal right, incorporeal right and spiritual right) and mistakenly have attempted to interpret the Civil Code and comparing it with the aforementioned classification. This fact necessitates studying the classification of right in the view of the Civil Code. The question which could be asked here is that on what grounds and how the Iranian Civil Code has classified financial rights? In achieving the answer of the said question, this article, through using a descriptive-analytic method, firstly analyzes and critiques the common classification of rights as an imported classification and with a view to law of the west as the source of the classification. Thereafter, the basis and howness of this classification in accordance with the Civil Code is explained. Consequently, it becomes clear that the common classification of rights is not compatible with that of Civil Code and the Iranian Civil Code has classified rights based on their subjects: the rights which their subject is property in its narrow sense (corporeal right) and the rights which their subject is human act or property in its broad sense (contractual right).

The contract of sale is among the most frequently used agreements in society. In Irsn's legal system and under Imamiyyah jurisprudence, lack of legal parity exists between the rights of the seller and those of the buyer. Due to the proprietary nature of sale, ownership of the subject matter transfers to the buyer immediately upon formation of the contract, enabling the buyer to exercise both legal and material powers of disposition, including subsequent sale to a third party, even if not a portion of the price has been paid. The seller’s recourse to remedies such as the right of retention or the option for rescission due to late payment is limited to cases where the sale is unconditional and no specific deadline for payment has been stipulated. However, in most real-world transactions, payment is not immediate or in cash, which may result in the seller being deprived of his entitlement or facing significant difficulty in its recovery. The seller may be compelled to initiate legal action against the buyer, which—even if resulting in a favorable judgment—may be rendered ineffective due to the buyer’s insolvency or bankruptcy. To address this legal imbalance, parties often incorporate contractual clauses aimed at safeguarding the seller’s position. One such provision is the retention of title clause, under which the seller stipulates that ownership shall not pass to the buyer until the full purchase price is paid. The key legal question arises as to the validity of any conflicting transaction entered into by the seller with regard to the subject matter prior to satisfaction of the condition. A definitive answer to this question requires a clear analysis of the legal nature of the retention of title clause. Three prevailing views exist among jurists: one considers such a clause to render the sale contract suspended, whereby ownership remains with the seller until the condition is fulfilled. Another treats it as a resolutory condition, where title passes upon formation of the contract but the failure to pay terminates the agreement forcibly. Some scholars regard a sale with a reservation of title (retained ownership) as a type of sale in which the subject matter is pledged by the seller. Obviously, in the latter two scenarios, since upon the conclusion of the sale the buyer becomes the owner of the goods, the sale of the aforementioned goods by the seller to a third party after the sale constitutes a case of unauthorized transaction. However, if the sale with a conditional validity—keeping ownership reserved—is accepted, some jurists argue that such sale lacks effect by the seller. The finding of this research is that the sale including the condition of retention of ownership is of a suspended nature, therefore, by the conclusion of this sale, the sold item remains in the seller's ownership, but due to the customer's right to the transaction, the sold item is not unconditional, consequently, a transaction concluded by the seller faces an obstacle due to the fact that the sold item is not unconditional, the said obstacle is the customer's objective right to the sold item, the legal status of a transaction that faces an obstacle is controversial in Iranian law and Imami jurisprudence, most jurists and lawyers do not distinguish between unathourized transaction and contract under duress which are unenforced and transactions that face the obstacle of a third party's right; Some Imami jurists and lawyers have distinguished between unenforced transactions and transactions that face an obstacle. In suspended transactions, such as unathourized transaction and contract under duress, the contract is voidable due to the lack of a part of the necessary requirements, but in transactions facing an obstacle, the contract is not problematic in terms of necessary requirements, rather the necessary tequirement of the contract exists, but the obstacle also exists. Transactions that face obstacles are in the status of a morae’i (considerate contract) from the perspective of this group of jurists and lawyers. A morae’i transaction (considerate contract) is a valid transaction whose survival is at risk of being annulled, so on the contrary, contract has legal effects during the so-called waiting period for the removal of the obstacle (before determining the obligation of the third party’s right), but if the right is exercised by a third party, it is annulled from the same date. On the other hand, another difference between a suspended and a considerate contract (mora’ei transaction) is that a suspended transaction is invalidated if rejected, but a considerate contract (mora’ei transaction) is not invalidated if the transaction is rejected by a third party (the owner of the right), but rather, the problem of the aforementioned contract is completely resolved due to the disappearance of the obstacle. The result of this research is that transactions contradicting the customer’s right in a sale that include a condition for maintaining ownership are in the status of a mora’ei, this sale is properly formed and has legal effects, if the price is settled by the customer, the said sale is annulled from the same date, but if the customer does not settle the price due to the disappearance of the obstacle, the mora’ei contract continues to be valid without any problems.   

Field and Aims: The transaction with the right of restitution and the condition of retaining ownership is one of the controversial issues in Iranian law. In English law, the condition of retention of ownership is explicitly stated in the law, and according to the said condition, the transfer of ownership is not transferred to the buyer until the condition is fulfilled. But in Iranian law, this issue remains silent. In this article, an attempt has been made to examine the transaction with the right of restitution and the condition of maintaining ownership in Iranian law and British law. Method: The present article is descriptive and analytical and the library method was used. Finding and Conclusion: In Iranian law, it is not possible to sell a condition regarding registered immovable property and real estate, and if such a sale takes place regarding this property, the legislator assumes it as a transaction with the right of restitution. In Iranian law, the term "transaction with the right of restitution" subject to Article 33 of the Real Estate Registration Law is not limited to sales and refers to real estate. In English law, mortgage in the form of a mortgage contract is crystallized in two ways, legal mortgage and compulsory mortgage, while in Iranian law, such arrangements were not achieved by extracting the provisions of the collateral contract in the set of numerous and scattered laws. Regarding the security right, with a comprehensive approach, it is necessary to accept the certification of all material and immaterial property, which requires the creation of different contracts from the civil law mortgage contract. Of course, the establishment of the trading institution with the right to return the registration law is considered a positive step in this field.

Introduction: Arbitration has a contractual nature and is subject to the sovereignty of the will of the parties, but in some cases, the legislator imposed the referral of claims to arbitration on the will of the parties and caused the contractual nature of the arbitration clause to disappear or be limited. By doing this, he has placed the arbitration outside the will of the parties. This issue causes some moral conflicts in the discussion of compulsory arbitration. Therefore, this research has been done with the purpose of examining the position of compulsory arbitration in Iran's legal system and the ethical challenges in it with a descriptive-analytical approach. Material and Methods: The research was a review method, in order to achieve the goal of the research, in addition to electronic education books and virtual education in this field, articles related to the research keywords from 2004 to 2022 from the databases of Civilica, Magiran, Sid, Researchgate, Science direct, was reviewed Conclusion: Based on the findings of the research, it can be concluded that compulsory arbitration in Iran has ethical challenges in the field of implementation and interpretation, the most important of which is the issue of the right to action and judicial justice. In the context of ambiguities in mandatory arbitration, even if the method of arbitration becomes ambiguous, the arbitrator has the duty to find out the will of the legislator with the principles and rules of interpretation, which creates a moral conflict for the arbitrator.