Civil law scholars primarily focus their efforts on interpreting and analyzing the provisions of the Civil Code. The Iranian Civil Code is based on heterogeneous foundations. Some of its provisions are derived from the French Civil Code and influenced by Roman law concepts, while others are based on Imamiyyah jurisprudence, and some are inspired by Swiss law. Due to these varied foundations, legal scholars have provided different interpretations of the Civil Code. Some initially praised and favored the French general theory of obligations, believing that Imamiyyah jurisprudence and the Iranian Civil Code also supported this theory, and they interpreted the law accordingly. Another group admired the general theory of obligations from German and Swiss law, and, despite their unfamiliarity with Islamic jurisprudence, considered it less effective. Others, recognizing the differences in the foundations of the Civil Code and the theory of obligations, pointed out the varying outcomes of these two approaches, explaining the numerous contradictions in the Civil Code based on these differences. Some Islamic jurists, while acknowledging the acceptance of the theory of obligations in Islamic jurisprudence, simply identified certain advantages of the Islamic theory of obligations over its Western counterpart. It appears that Imamiyyah jurisprudence and the Iranian Civil Code fundamentally accept the discourse of ownership, or in other words, the theory of ownership, and have based various provisions on it. Within the scope of the theory of ownership, the source of commutative contracts is considered the transfer of ownership, and viewing them as obligations is fundamentally incompatible with Islamic legal principles. Additionally, sources of involuntary liability are analyzed based on ownership rather than obligation or responsibility. The improper borrowing of provisions from the French and Swiss Civil Codes and Islamic law, and the fundamental differences between them, have resulted in numerous contradictions. Given the intent of the drafters of the Civil Code to align it with Imamiyyah jurisprudence, the resolution to these conflicts lies in the correct and principled adoption of legal provisions from this rich jurisprudence through appropriate use of comparative studies.
امامی، سید حسن، حقوق مدنی، جلد 1، تهران، کتابفروشی اسلامیه، 1340.
بابایی، ایرج، «مفهوم خطا و نقش آن در ساختار طبقهبندی مسئولیت مدنی: مقایسه حقوق رومی ژرمنی، کامنلا و اسلام»، دوفصلنامه دیدگاههای حقوق قضایی، شمارههای 79 و 80، 1396.
بیگدلی، «تفاوت مبانی نظریه تعهدات در دو نظام رومی ژرمنی و فقه امامیه و آثار آن در حقوق قراردادهای ایران و فرانسه»، رساله دکتری، دانشگاه امام صادق، تهران، 1392.
Ghanavaty,J. (2024). Theory of Ownership and Theory of Obligation from the Perspective of Legal Scholars. Judgment, 23(116), 1-17. doi: 10.22034/judg.2024.2039512.1322
MLA
Ghanavaty,J. . "Theory of Ownership and Theory of Obligation from the Perspective of Legal Scholars", Judgment, 23, 116, 2024, 1-17. doi: 10.22034/judg.2024.2039512.1322
HARVARD
Ghanavaty J. (2024). 'Theory of Ownership and Theory of Obligation from the Perspective of Legal Scholars', Judgment, 23(116), pp. 1-17. doi: 10.22034/judg.2024.2039512.1322
CHICAGO
J. Ghanavaty, "Theory of Ownership and Theory of Obligation from the Perspective of Legal Scholars," Judgment, 23 116 (2024): 1-17, doi: 10.22034/judg.2024.2039512.1322
VANCOUVER
Ghanavaty J. Theory of Ownership and Theory of Obligation from the Perspective of Legal Scholars. Judgment, 2024; 23(116): 1-17. doi: 10.22034/judg.2024.2039512.1322