perUniversity of Judicial Sciences and Administrative Services - Academic Association of University of Judicial Sciences and Administrative Servicesفصلنامه علمی قضانامه2025-12112333articleSajjad Norouzi Moghadamsnorozimoghadam@gmail.com1Department of Law and Judicial Sciences, Faculty of Law, Judicial and Administrative Services University of Tehran, Iran<p>This study examines and compares the concepts and effects of relative nullity and non-effectiveness in the private law systems of Iran and France. In Iranian law, the concept of non-effectiveness is primarily applied when a contract lacks valid consent, rendering it ineffective until confirmed by the parties involved. In contrast, in French law, relative nullity refers to a contract that, while having legal effects from the outset, can be annulled upon request by one of the parties. The key differences between these two concepts lie in how their legal effects are applied and how a contract can be modified after identifying a defect. This article provides a detailed analysis of both concepts and compares them with the laws of Iran and France. Finally, the paper offers suggestions for aligning Iranian legal provisions with the institution of relative nullity in the French legal system.</p>http://aujsas.ir/Article/52325Relative nullity non-effectiveness Iranian law French law contract annulment agreementperUniversity of Judicial Sciences and Administrative Services - Academic Association of University of Judicial Sciences and Administrative Servicesفصلنامه علمی قضانامه2025-12113446articleAhmadreza Pordervish MohammadiAhmadrezaPordervishMohammadi@gmail.com1Department of Jurisprudence and Islamic Law, Faculty of Islamic Theology, Shiraz University, Shiraz, Iran<p>This study examines the concept and limitations of immunity for government officials in international criminal trials. In the past, the immunity of high-ranking government officials from prosecution in international courts was considered a widely accepted principle. However, legal and judicial developments in the second half of the 20th century, particularly after the establishment of the International Criminal Court, have challenged this concept. According to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and recent judicial practices, government officials who commit international crimes such as genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity are no longer entitled to personal or official immunity. This paper investigates whether government officials continue to benefit from official immunity after being removed from office and how both national and international courts can address this issue. Additionally, it analyzes significant international cases, including the trials of Augusto Pinochet and Charles Taylor, and examines their legal implications on changes in the jurisdiction of national and international courts.</p>http://aujsas.ir/Article/52326Immunity Government Officials International Courts International Crimes International Criminal CourtperUniversity of Judicial Sciences and Administrative Services - Academic Association of University of Judicial Sciences and Administrative Servicesفصلنامه علمی قضانامه2025-1211222articleMasoumeh BarnourMasoumehBarnour@gmail.com1Ph.D. in Criminal Law and Attorney at Law<p>The crime of Moharebeh is specifically defined in Islamic jurisprudence and Iranian Islamic Penal Code and includes two fundamental elements: drawing a weapon and the intent to terrorize people. According to Article 183 of the Islamic Penal Code, for Moharebeh to be realized, the individual must draw their weapon against others and intend to create fear and intimidation. This crime is particularly related to the public security of individuals and is distinguished from the crime of "Baghy" (rebellion), which concerns opposition to the government. Under the law, Moharebeh is a crime that requires the achievement of a tangible result, such as the creation of fear and panic among the people. From the perspective of the mental element, the offender must have the intention and will to commit the crime. This study examines the components of the material and mental elements of the crime of Moharebeh and emphasizes the importance of accurately defining the scope of this crime. Additionally, the article analyzes the role of general and specific mens rea in the commission of Moharebeh.</p>http://aujsas.ir/Article/52327Moharebeh mental element material element specific intent Islamic Penal CodeperUniversity of Judicial Sciences and Administrative Services - Academic Association of University of Judicial Sciences and Administrative Servicesفصلنامه علمی قضانامه2025-12114758articleMohammad Ali Rezapourmarezapour@gmail.com1Department of Private Law, Faculty of Law, Islamic Azad University, Lahijan Branch, Lahijan, Iran<p>The use of artificial intelligence (AI) in judicial proceedings, as an emerging technology, has brought about a significant transformation in judicial processes. This technology aims to enhance accuracy, speed, and efficiency in handling cases, assisting judges and other stakeholders in the judicial system. AI can play a crucial role in various areas such as data analysis, predicting judicial outcomes, clarifying decisions, facilitating translation processes, and improving algorithm performance. However, challenges such as data transparency, algorithmic biases, and issues related to monitoring and controlling AI performance in proceedings persist. This study discusses the challenges and solutions for effectively using AI in judicial proceedings, based on experiences from advanced countries. It also provides recommendations for integrating AI into the judicial system in Iran, including careful data monitoring, algorithm transparency, and training judges for optimal use of this technology. This research could pave the way for improving judicial systems in various countries through AI and significantly contribute to enhancing justice and efficiency in judicial processes.</p>http://aujsas.ir/Article/52328artificial intelligence judicial proceedings data transparency algorithms monitoringperUniversity of Judicial Sciences and Administrative Services - Academic Association of University of Judicial Sciences and Administrative Servicesفصلنامه علمی قضانامه2025-12115993articleSayyed Nima Norouzin.nima1376@gmail.com1Department of Jurisprudence and Private Law, Faculty of Sciences and Knowledge, Al-Mustafa International University, Qom Seminary, Qom, Iran<p>&zwnj;This study analyzes and explains the system of judicial ethics in the thought of Grand Ayatollah Mohammad Yazdi (R.I.P.), a system founded upon Qur&rsquo;anic principles, prophetic traditions, and the conduct of Imam Ali (AS). In his view, adjudication (qaḍāʾ) is not merely a legal institution but a divine office and trust on earth, grounded in justice, integrity, and compassion. Ayatollah Yazdi classifies judicial ethics into three dimensions: the individual dimension (self-purification, inner tranquility, and control of anger and greed); the professional dimension (independence of judgment, accuracy in investigation, equality, and decorum in courtroom conduct); and the social dimension (defending the oppressed, resisting the oppressor, and preserving human dignity). The just judge, in his perspective, is one who balances the enforcement of justice with the protection of human honor and regards God as ever-present in issuing judgments. Employing a descriptive&ndash;analytical method and referring to Yazdi&rsquo;s primary writings, this article seeks to clarify the theoretical foundations of judicial ethics and to propose a practical model for training a just judge based on Islamic teachings. The findings show that judicial ethics in Yazdi&rsquo;s thought constitute the essential condition for realizing divine justice and ensuring the moral integrity of the judicial system in an Islamic polity.</p>http://aujsas.ir/Article/52329Judicial ethics justice observance of rights independence of judgment Islamic compassionperUniversity of Judicial Sciences and Administrative Services - Academic Association of University of Judicial Sciences and Administrative Servicesفصلنامه علمی قضانامه2025-121194124articleSeyyed Samsameddin Qavamisa.choupanpisheh@gmail.com1Sayyed Nima Norouzin.nima1376@gmail.com2Director of the Islamic Management Jurisprudence Foundation and External Lecturer, Qom Seminary, Qom, IranDepartment of Jurisprudence and Private Law, Faculty of Sciences and Knowledge, Al-Mustafa International University, Qom Seminary, Qom, Iran<p>The realization of sustainable judicial governance requires structural, cultural, and institutional reforms capable of simultaneously guaranteeing judicial independence, transparency, accountability, and social justice. Adopting a comparative approach, this article examines five countries&mdash;the United States, the United Kingdom, China, France, and Germany&mdash;as cases with differing legal and institutional contexts. The findings indicate that the United States enjoys a high degree of judicial independence but weak institutional cohesion; the United Kingdom, with its common law tradition and independent institutions, has achieved high social legitimacy, yet limited financial resources threaten comprehensive justice; China, through institutional centralization and technological innovation, has increased efficiency, but the independence of judges is constrained; France emphasizes social justice and administrative cohesion but exhibits lower local flexibility; and Germany has managed to offer a balanced model of independence, transparency, and cohesion. Ultimately, the article introduces twelve key principles&mdash;including structural transparency, meaningful participation, merit-based selection, financial transparency, clear delegation of duties, open communication, definition of responsibilities, a unified institutional voice, financial independence, positive inter-institutional relations, case management, and discourse-building&mdash;as a framework for sustainable judicial governance. This framework can serve as a guide for countries seeking to integrate international experiences with local conditions.</p>http://aujsas.ir/Article/52384sustainable judicial governance judicial independence institutional transparency inclusive justice comparative study discourse-building