به آیینی و به سامانی:
درستی - سازش - شادی
نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
نویسنده
استادیار گروه حقوق خصوصی و اقتصادی، دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی، دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی، تهران، ایران
کلیدواژهها
موضوعات
عنوان مقاله English
نویسنده English
This study engages in a comparative analysis of Iranian and French law to scrutinize the foundations of connected claims (connexité) and incidental claims (demandes incidentes), as well as the influence of these foundations on the definition and scope of the concept of "connection." The central inquiry of this article is whether the two renowned rationales—prevention of the repetition and renewal of litigation (lis pendens), and the prevention of contradictory judgments—can fully justify the existential philosophy of connected claims. Furthermore, it investigates the extent to which these rationales are realized within the current procedural structures of Iran and France.
Additionally, the article questions whether complementary rationales, such as the "proper administration of justice" (bonnie administration de la justice) and empowering the court to achieve a comprehensive dispute resolution, could lead to a more precise explication of this institution's objectives. It also examines how the adoption of each rationale impacts the definition of "connection," particularly regarding the distinction between "unity of origin" and "complete connection."
کلیدواژهها English
