Public Law Researsh

Abstract 1. Introduction Capital gains tax (CGT) is an important component of modern tax systems because it broadens the tax base and serves several interrelated purposes, including promoting tax justice, generating public revenue, reducing tax avoidance, encouraging productive investment, and curbing speculative transactions. It is generally imposed when a capital asset is transferred, with the taxable gain calculated as the difference between the asset’s acquisition price and its sale price. Capital assets subject to such taxation may include real estate, shares, automobiles, foreign currency, and precious metals. However, this approach can become problematic in economies experiencing persistent inflation. Inflation can increase the nominal price of an asset without increasing the owner’s real purchasing power. If tax is imposed on such nominal appreciation without an appropriate adjustment for inflation, the tax base may partly reflect monetary depreciation rather than a genuine real gain, causing the tax to function economically as a tax on wealth. The present study intended to examine why inflation should be taken into account when calculating CGT and which approach best reconciles the principles of tax justice, distributive justice, and economic efficiency across developed and underdeveloped financial markets. 2. Literature Review Systematic legal research in Iran on the direct relationship between inflation and CGT remains limited. Existing scholarship has more commonly focused on the general design of CGT, its anti-speculative function, or the adverse consequences of taxing nominal gains. International debates, meanwhile, have addressed a broader range of issues, including the lock-in effect, savings, capital formation, revenue generation, administrative complexity, distributive justice, preferential tax rates, exemptions, and indexation. The current study sought to bridge these strands of scholarship by combining a justice-based analysis of the tax base with a comparative examination of the legal techniques employed in countries with varying levels of financial-market development. 3. Materials and Methods This study employed a library research method and a descriptive–analytical approach grounded in legal–economic analysis. The analysis distinguished between nominal and real gains and evaluated the arguments for and against inflation adjustment in light of tax justice, distributive justice, and the Kaldor–Hicks criterion. Under the Kaldor–Hicks criterion, a policy is considered preferable when its broader and longer-term benefits are sufficient to outweigh its costs or, at least hypothetically, compensate those who bear them. Moreover, a comparison was made between regulatory models adopted in developed and underdeveloped financial markets. The comparative analysis examined various approaches, including preferential tax rates, partial inclusion of gains, holding-period exemptions, and direct inflation adjustment. 4. Results and Discussion Taxing nominal rather than real gains can generate several mutually reinforcing effects. Because CGT is typically triggered upon realization, taxpayers may postpone selling assets when inflationary appreciation results in a substantial tax liability. This lock-in effect can reduce market mobility and, over time, diminish tax revenue. It may also weaken incentives to save and to channel funds into banks, securities markets, housing, productive enterprises, and infrastructure. These consequences are particularly significant in underdeveloped financial markets, where reliable investment alternatives are limited and domestic savings play a greater role in financing economic development. In high-inflation economies, the additional tax burden imposed on inflationary gains may also exacerbate capital flight. Opponents of inflation adjustment argue that indexation complicates tax administration, may disproportionately benefit wealthier asset holders, and could weaken the anti-speculative function of CGT. According to the findings, however, these concerns do not justify taxing gains that do not represent a real increase in economic wealth. Advances in computational and administrative technologies have also reduced the force of the complexity objection, while the distributional implications of indexation should be assessed over a longer time horizon. From a Kaldor–Hicks perspective, inflation adjustment may provide immediate benefits to asset owners, but its longer-term effects—including stronger saving, greater capital formation, increased investment, improved voluntary compliance, and reduced capital flight—may generate broader social benefits. By contrast, taxing nominal gains may appear more progressive in the short term while imposing longer-term costs through reduced investment, employment, access to financing, and economic growth. The comparative analysis confirms that no single technique is universally applied. Developed markets often mitigate the tax burden through indirect mechanisms. The United States and Japan, for example, provide preferential treatment based on holding periods and other conditions, while Australia and Canada have adopted partial-inclusion models. Ireland has also introduced indexation following periods of high inflation, allowing tax liability to more closely reflect changes in the real value of assets. Concerning underdeveloped and emerging markets, Turkey and North Macedonia provide relief linked to longer holding periods, whereas Chile and Mexico directly adjust capital gains for inflation. India has applied indexation to certain long-term assets and has permitted taxpayers in some circumstances to choose between an indexed rate and a lower non-indexed rate. Iran’s Law on Taxation of Speculation and Speculative Transactions also recognizes the concept of inflationary gain and provides for its deduction from taxable capital gains. The comparative analysis suggests that preferential tax rates and exemptions may mitigate the effects of low inflation, but they do not reliably distinguish real gains from inflationary gains under conditions of high inflation. Direct indexation, therefore, provides a closer correspondence between the tax base and the taxpayer’s actual economic benefit. Anti-speculative objectives can instead be pursued through rules targeting short holding periods and speculative behavior, rather than by treating the erosion of monetary value caused by inflation as taxable profit. 5. Conclusion According to the present analysis, the fairness and effectiveness of CGT depend fundamentally on the accuracy of its tax base. A tax intended to promote justice and generate public revenue loses part of its normative justification when it applies to nominal appreciation that does not represent a real increase in wealth. This problem is particularly acute in high-inflation economies and underdeveloped financial markets. In such economies, taxable capital gains should therefore be calculated on a real, inflation-adjusted basis through a clear, transparent, and administratively feasible mechanism. This approach better advances tax justice and the Kaldor–Hicks conception of long-term welfare because it limits taxation to genuine economic gains while preserving incentives to save, invest, retain capital domestically, and comply voluntarily with tax obligations. The Iranian legislature’s recognition of inflationary gains is significant in principle, although its practical effectiveness depends on accurate and consistent implementation in an environment where inflation may absorb most or even all of the nominal appreciation. More broadly, anti-speculative objectives should not be pursued by taxing the erosion of monetary value as though it were genuine economic profit.

Abstract 1. Introduction The international legal architecture governing climate change has undergone significant transformation over the past three decades. Beginning with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), followed by the Kyoto Protocol and culminating in the Paris Agreement, the international climate regime has shifted from rigid, top-down mandates to a more flexible, nationally determined approach. Despite being a party to the UNFCCC and the Kyoto Protocol, Iran has not ratified the Paris Agreement—placing it among a small minority of states outside the contemporary consensus on climate governance. The present study aimed to provide a legal analysis of Iran’s domestic climate-related actions in light of its international commitments, assessing the extent to which its national laws and policies align with the evolving obligations of the international climate regime. 2. Literature Review The literature on international climate law increasingly emphasizes the normative significance of the Paris Agreement’s soft-law mechanisms, particularly the principles of Highest Possible Ambition (HPA) and Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs). In “The Power of the Paris Agreement in International Climate Litigation,” Voigt (2023) argues that, although these principles are not formally binding, they carry significant interpretive weight and increasingly inform international adjudication, as illustrated by the European Court of Human Rights’ (ECtHR) 2024 decision. Further insights can be drawn from the distinction made between conduct-based and result-based obligations, as discussed in Mayer’s contributions titled “Obligations of Conduct in the International Law on Climate Change: A Defence” (Mayer, 2018) and International Law Obligations on Climate Change Mitigation (Mayer, 2022). Moreover, in “Climate Change Mitigation and the Role of Law,” Reins and Verschuuren (2022) explored the interaction between climate policy and domestic legal frameworks. Nevertheless, the existing literature has yet to provide a focused legal critique of Iran’s climate policies within this broader trajectory of international climate governance, particularly in the post-Paris context. 3. Materials and Methods This study employed a descriptive–analytical research design grounded in two complementary qualitative methodologies: document analysis and critical discourse analysis. The document analysis was used to examine both primary and secondary sources. The primary sources included the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), the Kyoto Protocol, and the Paris Agreement, as well as relevant Iranian national legislation, including the Clean Air Act (2017), the Energy Consumption Reform Act (2011), and successive national development plans. The secondary sources comprised academic literature on international and domestic climate law, reports published by non-governmental organizations, and assessments of climate policies. Moreover, critical discourse analysis was used to examine how key principles of international climate law—including due diligence, transparency, cooperation, and the principle of Common but Differentiated Responsibilities (CBDR)—are articulated and reflected in Iran’s legal and policy discourse. Particular attention was given to the extent to which these principles are incorporated into Iran’s domestic climate governance and to how their interpretation and application have evolved in the context of the emerging normative framework established by the Paris Agreement. 4. Results and Discussion The evolution of the international climate regime—from the binding emission targets of the Kyoto Protocol to the procedural and participatory framework of the Paris Agreement—reflects a paradigm shift toward conduct-based obligations rooted in nationally determined efforts and good faith. Although the Paris Agreement does not impose binding emissions reductions, it nevertheless establishes a legal architecture characterized by procedural obligations concerning transparency, reporting, and progressively increasing ambition. These obligations, although often characterized as soft law, are increasingly treated as legally relevant by courts, thereby contributing to the normative force of the Agreement. Within this evolving legal framework, Iran’s position is complex. As a non-party to the Paris Agreement, Iran remains outside the core mechanisms of the global climate regime. However, at the domestic level, it has taken notable legislative and institutional steps that partially align with the objectives of the Agreement. These include mandates promoting renewable energy development, legislation on energy efficiency, and the establishment of Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Organization (SATBA) to oversee implementation. In addition, Iran’s national development plans contain measurable targets, including a target of generating 5% of its electricity from renewable sources. Despite these advancements, Iran continues to face significant challenges. Persistent fossil fuel subsidies, weak enforcement, international sanctions, and limited access to finance and technology undermine the effectiveness of its energy transition policies. These deficiencies raise questions about Iran’s long-term credibility and legal exposure in the context of future international reviews and the evolving normative framework of climate law. Iran’s current trajectory suggests a willingness to engage with global climate objectives, yet its structural and geopolitical constraints continue to hinder full alignment with the international climate regime. The hybrid nature of this regime, which combines binding and non-binding norms, permits legal assessments even in relation to states that have not ratified the relevant instruments. Nevertheless, without formal ratification and comprehensive policy reform, Iran risks being perceived as non-compliant, potentially foregoing opportunities to access climate finance, strengthen capacity, and enhance international cooperation. 5. Conclusion Iran’s climate governance exhibits a dual character. While its formal exclusion from the Paris regime persists, its substantial body of domestic legislation indicates a degree of normative convergence with international climate objectives. The evolution of international climate law toward soft obligations does not absolve states of responsibility; rather, it redefines that responsibility in terms of conduct, due diligence, and transparency. For Iran, bridging the gap between domestic efforts and international expectations requires legal integration, policy coherence, and institutional capacity. Ratification of the Paris Agreement, rationalization of subsidies, and creation of transparent oversight mechanisms would significantly enhance Iran’s alignment with the evolving framework of international climate law.

Abstract 1. Introduction Law, in its true sense, is a manifestation of the public will and a safeguard of citizens’ rights and freedoms against arbitrary actions by the state and public officials. The judicial system serves as a forum for resolving disputes between citizens and the state; however, under authoritarian regimes, it may become an instrument for suppressing citizens’ rights and freedoms. The independence of attorneys within the judiciary is one of the fundamental guarantees of the rule of law. It also facilitates oversight by a specialized and professional civil society of the conduct of judges and public officials, contributing to the effective functioning of the judicial system in protecting and realizing citizens’ rights and freedoms. In this respect, the present study aimed to examine the independence of attorneys within the judiciary, its impact on the rule of law, and its status within the Iranian judicial system. 2. Literature Review A review of Persian-language books and articles suggests that there is no significant research on the independence of attorneys within the judiciary and its relationship to the rule of law in the Iranian judicial system. 3. Materials and Methods The present study used a descriptive–analytical method and library-based sources to examine the independence of attorneys within the judiciary and its relationship to the rule of law in the Iranian judicial system. 4. Results and Discussion In the Iranian judicial system, the independence of attorneys is not guaranteed, and lawyers cannot perform their professional duties independently. According to the Note to Article 48 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, only lawyers approved by the Head of the Judiciary may represent litigants in certain proceedings. The requirement for such approval fundamentally undermines the independence of lawyers, while those who receive approval remain at risk of having it revoked at any time. Furthermore, the establishment of the Center for Judiciary Lawyers under Article 187 of the Third Development Plan has fundamentally undermined the independence of the legal profession. The possibility of denying access to a judicial file under Article 191 of the Code of Criminal Procedure—based on the investigating authority’s determination and in the absence of a specific legal criterion for the necessity of discovering the truth—further restricts the lawyer’s role. Similarly, the possibility of expelling a lawyer from a hearing under Article 354 of the Code of Criminal Procedure—in the absence of a clear legal criterion for observing court order—creates another significant limitation. In addition, the absence of in-person advocacy by litigants’ lawyers in cases brought before the Supreme Court on appeal, as well as the lack of participation of independent lawyers in the drafting and consideration of opinions presented to the General Assembly of the Supreme Court, has further weakened the role of independent lawyers in the three realms of the rule of law. 5. Conclusion The independence of attorneys within the judiciary prevents the instrumentalization of the judicial system by powerful individuals and institutions, protects the rule of law against the arbitrary exercise of judicial power, and ensures a fair environment for litigation and trial. When bringing legal actions against the state or powerful public officials, citizens are often hesitant or fearful of initiating proceedings. The deterrent effect of legal rules depends largely on their effective enforcement. Powerful officials are more likely to comply with the law when they know that they may be held legally accountable and prosecuted at any time for violations of legal rules. Undoubtedly, in order to preserve their social legitimacy and prestige, states generally maintain the appearance of lawful social control and avoid openly suppressing human rights and civil liberties. For this reason, however, they may use legal and judicial mechanisms as instruments of domination and repression. In such circumstances, the rule of law is replaced by the rule by law, whereby law and the judicial system become instruments for establishing and maintaining political authority. The independence of attorneys within the judiciary helps prevent the judicial system from being used to suppress civil rights and liberties under the influence of powerful political, security, religious, or other individuals and institutions. It also limits the use of prosecution and punishment as instruments of political domination and of state power.

Abstract 1. Introduction The advantages and efficient performance of sovereign wealth funds (SWFs) have led to their widespread adoption across various countries, particularly oil-rich nations. However, countries have adopted different legal approaches to the legal nature and status of these funds, giving rise to uncertainties regarding their legal implications. These uncertainties range from the jurisdiction of International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) over disputes to questions concerning judicial and enforcement immunity. In Iran, the approach adopted with respect to the legal nature of the National Development Fund of Iran (NDFI) presents not only significant ambiguities but also numerous practical challenges, particularly in the current environment of sanctions. It is thus essential to interpret the relevant regulations to determine the legal nature of the NDFI, assess its legal status under current circumstances, and ultimately develop an appropriate legal model in this regard. The present study sought to answer the following questions: What is the legal nature of sovereign wealth funds? What approaches and methodologies have been adopted internationally in this regard? What are the legal implications of this nature in international disputes? What is the legal nature and status of the National Development Fund of Iran? What are the implications thereof? And what effective strategies for legal reform can be adopted in this area? 2. Literature Review Research on SWFs in Iran remains limited and relatively sparse. There are a few attempts with a financial and economic focus, such as “Sovereign Wealth Funds, Sovereign Risk, and External Financing Costs of Financial Intermediaries” (Feghikashani & Yahyavi, 2018). Moreover, a number of studies have specifically addressed the NDFI, such as “Governance Model and Resource Allocation in the National Development Fund of Iran” (Mahmoudi et al., 2020). Published in 2024, the Persian translation of Truman’s well-known monograph titled Sovereign Wealth Funds: Threat or Salvation? (Truman, 2010) also deal with SWFs and their implications. Furthermore, several studies have been undertaken by public institutions in Iran. These include the report entitled An Introduction to the Currency Reserve Account and the National Development Fund (Pilehforoush, 2012) and The National Development Fund and the Outlook for Achieving New Governance in Addressing Seven Fundamental Challenges published by the NDFI in 2023. Nevertheless, the existing literature predominantly focuses on the economic and financial dimensions of SWFs and pays comparatively limited attention to their legal aspects. Accordingly, the novelty of the present research lies in its focus on examining the legal implications of SWFs in international disputes, analyzing the legal nature and status of the NDFI, and proposing potential legal reform strategies in this area. 3. Materials and Methods This study employed a descriptive–analytical approach and a library research method. It first identified and analyzed the various approaches to determining the legal nature of SWFS in the international context, drawing on reports and materials published by international organizations. It then examined the implications of the legal nature of SWFs in light of legal doctrines and ICSID arbitral practice concerning its personal jurisdiction. Particular attention was given to the implications of such legal characterization for judicial and enforcement immunity, based on records of international disputes, relevant international instruments, and the laws of various countries. Finally, the study analyzed the legal and regulatory framework governing the NDFI and identified the model adopted with respect to its legal nature. On this basis, it went on to propose corrective and reform strategies within the NDFI’s desirable legal framework. 4. Results and Discussion SWFs, regardless of their particular form, satisfy the technical and legal requirements of the international financial system and the Santiago Principles. In this respect, there is no significant distinction between SWFs that lack an independent legal personality separate from the state and those that possess such independent legal personality. Concerning the implications of the legal nature of SWFs for the personal jurisdiction of ICSID, the consolidation of the Broches criterion in ICSID arbitral practice, together with the principles embodied in the Santiago Principles, indicates a shift away from structural criteria toward an emphasis on the state’s control and managerial role, as well as the fund’s financial and legal independence from the state. Consequently, the legal nature of an SWF has become a secondary factor in determining the jurisdiction of ICSID over investment disputes brought against host states. With respect to the impact of the legal nature of SWFs on judicial and enforcement immunity, no significant distinction appears to exist between funds possessing independent legal personality and those lacking such personality. Nevertheless, in cases of uncertainty, the fund’s management structure and the extent of oversight exercised by the state may serve as secondary indicators in determining whether the fund is engaged in commercial or non-sovereign activities. It should also be noted that national legislative systems and practice of arbitral tribunals generally tend to adopt a more flexible approach when determining the criteria of statehood for the purposes of immunity. The NDFI is regarded as a pool of state-owned assets and does not possess an independent legal personality. To establish an optimal legal model for SWFs under the Iranian law, it is first necessary to recognize and clearly define the NDFI’s independent legal personality and the specific legal implications arising from such status. Furthermore, given the increasing number of SWFs, the necessary legal and executive powers should be provided to establish appropriate legal frameworks for private investment based on a non-sovereign model. Priority should also be given to portfolio investments. 5. Conclusion There are deficiencies and ambiguities surrounding the Broches criterion, particularly with regard to the concept of representation and its interpretation in a manner that is inconsistent with the prevailing understanding of the term across various legal systems and under international law. It is thus necessary to develop an effective interpretation of this concept and to clearly delineate its scope and dimensions. In determining whether judicial and enforcement immunity, as well as other limitations and privileges accorded to states in the context of foreign investment and international trade, apply to SWFs, the general principle should be that—where reasonable efforts by arbitral tribunals or the relevant authorities of the host state fail to establish the legal nature of the fund with sufficient certainty—its subject and actions, and consequently the assets associated with them, should not be presumed to be sovereign in nature. The development of an effective strategy concerning the legal nature and regulatory framework of SWFs under the Iranian law currently requires legislative reform. In this regard, it is recommended that Article 16 of the Law on Permanent Provisions of National Development Plans be amended to recognize the independent legal personality of the NDFI and the specific legal implications arising from such status, particularly its independence with respect to assets and management. Such reform should also provide a legal basis for establishing other national investment entities and for creating a chain of investment companies in which private shareholders hold controlling interests, ultimately allowing foreign individuals and entities to participate in such companies. Furthermore, with respect to surplus revenues derived from oil and other natural resources, and taking into account monetary and fiscal policies as well as national development priorities and budgetary considerations, additional national investment entities should be established pursuant to a unified legislative framework or dedicated enabling legislation.

Abstract 1. Introduction China’s re-emergence as a global power, together with the far-reaching transformations of recent decades, has significantly enhanced its importance in international affairs. Its permanent membership of the United Nations Security Council, expanding presence in West Asia, and increasingly consequential relations with Iran make China a subject requiring systematic attention across a range of fields. China, one of the world’s oldest civilizations, is the second most populous country and accounts for nearly one-fifth of the global population. It is also the fourth-largest country in the world by land area. For more than eighteen of the past twenty centuries, China has occupied a prominent position in global gross domestic product (GDP) relative to other nations. It is also noteworthy that various predictions made at the turn of the second and third millennia anticipated a decline in China’s legal and political system within a fifteen-year period. These predictions, however, did not materialize. Instead, China’s relatively sustained economic growth has led some scholars to argue that the country is on a trajectory toward becoming the world’s leading economic power. Today, China accounts for nearly one-fifth of global GDP and is the primary trading partner of numerous countries around the world, including almost all states in the Middle East. Taken together, these factors underscore the need for all countries, including Iran, to pay close attention to China and to develop and manage their relations with it with clarity and strategic foresight. Against this background, the legal study of China is significant for at least two reasons. First, China has exerted considerable influence on the development and evolution of international law and, consequently, affects all international legal actors, including Iran. Second, understanding the Chinese conception of law is essential for structuring bilateral and multilateral relations within appropriate legal frameworks and in a manner consistent with national interests. Moreover, China has increasingly transitioned from a rule-taking actor to a rule-making one in international law. This shift is reflected in, inter alia, its increased exercise of veto power, its role in establishing new international institutions such as the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, and its promotion of approaches to dispute settlement informed by Eastern legal traditions—in contrast to conventional methods that predominate in various areas of international law. In this respect, the present study sough to address the following questions: What legal traditions underlie the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China? How do these traditions shape the interpretive frameworks of the two constitutional texts, particularly with respect to the distribution of power, legislative logic, and institutional accountability? And what implications do these differences have for understanding institutional behavior and designing legal interactions between Iran and China? 2. Literature Review Existing literature on the constitutional systems of Iran and China has generally examined the two legal orders independently. Scholarship on Iran typically analyzes the Constitution within the framework of Islamic legal traditions and theories of religious governance, whereas studies of China tend to focus on the role of the Communist Party, East Asian intellectual traditions, and the Chinese conception of the rule of law. However, a review of the existing literature reveals a lack of comprehensive, systematic, and direct comparative research examining the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China side by side. In particular, the constitutional texts and structures of the two systems, the logic underlying the distribution of political power, and the mechanisms and models of institutional accountability have not been systematically compared. Moreover, previous studies have not examined the legal traditions that have shaped both constitutional orders within a unified analytical framework. Consequently, the existing literature lacks both a comprehensive comparative constitutional analysis of Iran and China and a tradition-based approach that interprets both constitutions in light of their respective legal and intellectual heritages. The present study sought to address this gap by developing a comparative analysis grounded in these foundational legal traditions. 3. Materials and Methods This study used a comparative legal research methodology to examine and compare the constitutional systems of the Islamic Republic of Iran and the People’s Republic of China. The comparative approach focused on the analysis of similarities and differences in legal–political systems in relation to the constitutional texts and traditions. 4. Results and Discussion China’s Constitution is shaped by both Neo-Confucian and Romano–Germanic legal traditions, whereas Iran’s Constitution is influenced by Islamic and Romano–Germanic legal traditions. The similarities between the two constitutional systems primarily stem from their shared roots in the Romano–Germanic legal tradition, while their differences can largely be attributed to the distinct Neo-Confucian and Islamic legal traditions that inform each system. The Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran reflects elements of the Romano–Germanic legal tradition while being more fundamentally grounded in the principles of Islamic law and adherence to Islamic norms. In a similar fashion, the Chinese Constitution incorporates elements of the Romano–Germanic legal tradition—particularly in its treatment of individual liberties and its integration of socialist doctrines—while also being significantly

shaped by the Neo-Confucian legal tradition and its core principles, including harmony and service. This influence is particularly evident in the role of the National People’s Congress (NPC), which functions as the central coordinating authority within the state structure, with other state organs positioned beneath it and accountable to it. Members of the Congress are likewise expected to serve society and act as exemplary figures. 5. Conclusion It may thus be concluded that treating the constitution as the foundational text of the legal–political order makes it possible to identify the overarching rules governing the distribution of authority, the logic of legislation, and models of accountability, thereby rendering institutional behavior more intelligible. From this perspective, a comparison of the Chinese and Iranian constitutions revealed two distinct layers: (1) a shared layer influenced by the Romano–Germanic legal tradition, particularly with respect to certain individual liberties and legislative mechanisms; and (2) a distinctive layer rooted in the respective Neo-Confucian and Islamic legal traditions. This distinction is reflected in differing approaches to governance, including an emphasis on harmony and vertical accountability as opposed to horizontal separation and independence of powers; in models of economic regulation, particularly the coexistence of state and market mechanisms oriented toward collective benefit; and in approaches to dispute resolution, where dialogue and mediation are generally preferred to adversarial procedures. On this basis, several practical implications can be identified for Iran, including enhancing the precision and effectiveness of cross-border legal decision-making, improving the assessment of institutional risks, strengthening the design of legal instruments and dispute-resolution mechanisms, and avoiding hasty analogies or unwarranted transfers of concepts between the two legal systems.