Comparative Analysis of Spousal Rights in Imami Jurisprudence, Iranian Law, and Selected Countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
According to the Iranian Civil Code, as soon as a marriage contract is validly concluded, marital relations are established between the parties, and the rights and duties of the spouses toward each other are defined. These rights and duties vary significantly across the laws and legal systems of different countries. This study employs a descriptive-analytical method to examine the comparative rights of spouses under Iranian law, rooted in Imami jurisprudence, and the laws of selected countries (such as Canada, the United States, and European countries like France and the United Kingdom). The findings reveal fundamental differences between spousal rights in Iran and the selected countries, except for areas such as the mutual obligation for good conduct and child custody rights. One significant difference lies in mahr (dowry), which is a critical financial right of spouses in Iran, where the wife owns the mahr as a debt owed by the husband. In contrast, countries like the United States, Canada, and many European nations do not recognize the concept of mahr but instead apply marital property division laws. Additionally, rights such as the husband’s authority as head of the family, the wife’s right to work, and the unilateral right of divorce (exclusively held by the husband) differ from the selected countries, which base spousal rights on gender equality, granting equal and shared rights and responsibilities to both spouses.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".