اخبار و اعلانات
آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 20 |
| تعداد شماره‌ها | 546 |
| تعداد مقالات | 4,725 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 10,460,021 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 6,047,935 |
بررسی انتقادی تعریف عقد در حقوق ایران با تمرکز بر تفسیر ماده 183 قانون مدنی، بر اساس ماهیت عقد در فقه امامیه، حقوق انگلیس و حقوق فرانسه | ||
| پژوهشنامه حقوق اسلامی | ||
| مقاله 4، دوره 24، شماره 1 - شماره پیاپی 59، فروردین 1402، صفحه 53-80 اصل مقاله (580.84 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.30497/law.2023.244082.3343 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| عطاءالله بیگدلی* 1؛ محمدرضا محمدی2 | ||
| 1استادیار، گروه حقوق، دانشکده علوم اجتماعی و فرهنگی، دانشگاه جامع امام حسین علیه‌السلام، تهران، ایران. | ||
| 2دانشجوی دکتری حقوق عمومی، گروه حقوق عمومی و حقوق اقتصادی، دانشکده حقوق، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی «ره»، تهران، ایران. | ||
| چکیده | ||
| تعارض در تعریف کلی عقد در ماده 183 قانون مدنی ایران و نیز تعارض این تعریف با تعریف مصادیق عقد مانند عقد بیع در ماده ۳۳۸ این قانون از مباحث بحث برانگیز است. ماده 183 قانون مدنی در تعریف عقد به صورت یکپارجه عمل نکرده است. از طرفی در این ماده عقد از جنس تعهد تعریف شده است، امّا در ماده ۳۳۸ مذکور، مصادیق همین عقد از جنس «تملیک» تعریف شده است. این ثنویت در تعریف سبب شده که بحث حول این مسأله شکل بگیرد که چگونه تملیک را می‌توان به صورت «عهدی» فهم کرد. در زمینه حل تعارض دو مفهوم تملیک و تعهد نظریاتی از سوی حقوقدانان ایرانی ابراز شده است امّا این نظریات در رفع اشکالات وارده توفیقی نداشته‌اند. از این روی، پرسش تحقیق حاضر، امکان‌سنجی حل این تعارض می‌باشد. فرضیه این مقاله را این‌گونه می‌توان صورت‌بندی کرد که: «تعارض موجود، از مصادیق تعارض‌های بنیادین قانون مدنی است که امکان حل آن نیست.» و این فرضیه در طول تحقیق با بررسی ریشه‌های دوگانه قانون مدنی در سنت رومی - ژرمنی و سنت فقهی بررسی و نمایان می‌گردد. این تحقیق با روش استنباطی تفسیری در موضوع مقاله به اقوال فقهاء و حقوقدانان رجوع کرده، سپس با تقریر و نقد نظریات ایشان، روایی فرضیه اخیر‌الذکر را اثبات می‌کند. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها | ||
| تعریف عقد؛ عقود تملیکی؛ عقود عهدی؛ نظریه عمومی تعهدات؛ تعریف عقد در فقه | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| Critical Study of the Definition of Contract in Iranian law with a Focus on the Interpretation of Article 183 of the Iranian Civil Code based on the Nature of Contract under Imamiya Jurisprudence, English law and French law | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| Ataollah Bigdeli1؛ Mohammad Reza Mohammadi2 | ||
| 1Assistant Professor, Department of Law, Faculty of Social and Cultural Sciences, Imam Hussein University, Tehran, Iran. | ||
| 2PhD Student in Public Law, Department of Public Law and Economic Law, Faculty of Law, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran. | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| ∴ Introduction ∴ Conflict in the general definition of ‘contract’ found in Article 183 of the Iranian Civil Code and its discordance with the definitions of specific contracts, such as the sale contract in Article 338 of the Iranian Civil Code, constitute controversial legal issues. Article 183 of the Iranian Civil Code defines 'contract' as having an obligatory nature, defining it as an agreement where one or more persons undertake an obligation to another party. Conversely, Article 338 defines the sale contract by referencing the vesting of ownership. This duality in the definitions of contract has given rise to the debate of how ‘vesting ownership’ can be perceived as an ‘obligatory’ nature. This research critically examines the interpretation of Article 183 of the Iranian Civil Code by drawing upon Imamiya Jurisprudence, English law, and French law to understand the definition of contract. ∴ Research Question ∴ The central question of the present research focuses on the feasibility of resolving this conflict between the two concepts of obligation (Ta'ahhud) and ownership (Milkityat) that are embodied within the definitions of contract found in the Iranian Civil Code. ∴ Research Hypothesis ∴ The hypothesis posits that the existing conflict is one of the examples of fundamental conflicts in the Iranian Civil Code which cannot be resolved. This hypothesis is supported by examining the dual ideological roots of the Iranian Civil Code, which stem from both the Roman-Germanic tradition and the jurisprudential (Fiqh) tradition. ∴ Methodology & Framework, if Applicable ∴ The study utilizes an inferential-interpretive method combined with a descriptive-analytical approach. The methodology involves referencing the viewpoints of jurists (Fuqaha) and lawyers, and critically interpreting and criticizing their theories to prove the validity of the hypothesis. The framework specifically analyzes the dual nature of the Iranian Civil Code by contrasting contract definitions within the Roman-Germanic system with the concepts of contract and covenant (Ta'ahhud) found in Imamiya Jurisprudence. ∴ Results & Discussion ∴ The research confirms that the conflict is fundamental, as the categories of materials in the Iranian Civil Code related to the concept of contract originate from different intellectual foundations, making them generally non-collectable. The Roman-Germanic tradition (e.g., French Civil Code, Art. 1101) maintains an obligation-centric approach, viewing the contract's purpose as creating an obligation (Ta'ahhud) to perform or transfer. Conversely, Imamiya Fiqh emphasizes ownership (Milkityat) as the core justification for transactions, particularly for sale contracts, which are inherently transactional and ownership-based. Article 183’s definition, derived from the Roman-Germanic tradition, faces critical issues, including its failure to clearly include ownership contracts and its confusion of the contract itself with its legal effect (the obligation). Proposed solutions by Iranian legal scholars—such as interpreting 'Ta'ahhud' broadly or assuming that the obligation in ownership contracts is immediately executed—have been unsuccessful in reconciling this foundational difference. ∴ Conclusion ∴ The general definition of contract in Article 183 of the Iranian Civil Code, which emphasizes the obligatory nature, stands in fundamental contradiction to the ownership-based nature defined for specific contracts like sale (Article 338). This dichotomy arises from the Iranian Civil Code's adoption of two distinct and largely incompatible legal traditions: the Roman-Germanic obligation theory and the Fiqhi ownership theory. Consequently, attempts by legal scholars to achieve a satisfactory unified definition have largely failed. To reform the legal framework, it is proposed that the Iranian Civil Code should establish a clear distinction between the legal institution of "contract" (as a framework created by the law/Shar'iah) and the "act of concluding a contract" (as the act performed by the parties). The definition should ideally prioritize the transfer of ownership or legal rights rather than solely focusing on the creation of obligations. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها [English] | ||
| Definition of Contract, Ownership Contracts, Covenant Contracts, General Theory of Obligations, Definition of Contract in Jurisprudence | ||
| مراجع | ||
| ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 4,777 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 1,050 |
||