کاربرد نیت زیان‌زننده در قواعد صلاحیت بین‌المللی در دعاوی افترا با مطالعۀ حقوق ایران و ایالات متحدۀ امریکا

مقالات آماده انتشار

نوع مقاله : مقاله علمی - پژوهشی

نویسنده

دانش‌آموختۀ دکتری رشتۀ حقوق خصوصی، گروه حقوق، دانشکدۀ ادبیات و علوم انسانی، دانشگاه گیلان، رشت، ایران

چکیده

گاهی حیثیت اشخاص از سوی کسی هتک می‌شود که در کشور دیگری حضور دارد و با اقامۀ دعوا از جانب زیان‌دیده، دعوایی بین‌المللی پدید می‌آید که نیازمند تعیین صلاحیت است. با توجه به عمدی بودن افترا، به‌کارگیری قاعدۀ صلاحیتی که بر نیت زیان‌زننده و آثار آن در محل خاصی توجه داشته باشد، سودمند به‌نظر می‌آید. اما چنین قاعدۀ صلاحیتی چگونه می‌تواند به‌طور مطلوبی به‌کار گرفته شود؟ آیا در حقوق ایران و ایالات متحدۀ امریکا به ضابطۀ یادشده توجه شده است؟ نگارندۀ این پژوهش با استفاده از روش توصیفی- تحلیلی و بهره‌گیری از منابع کتابخانه‌ای تلاش دارد تا ضمن مطالعۀ رویکرد نظام‌های حقوقی یادشده، به‌کارگیری قاعدۀ صلاحیت مبتنی بر نیت زیان‌زننده و آثار آن را ارزیابی کند. یافته‌های پژوهش نشان می‌دهد، حقوق ایالات متحدۀ امریکا قاعدۀ صلاحیتی را مقرر کرده است و مطابق آن، دادگاه محلی صلاحیت رسیدگی به دعوای افترا را دارد که نقطۀ کانونی لطمۀ واردآمده به حیثیت زیان‌دیده و رفتار زیان‌بار عمدی زیان‌زننده است. اما در حقوق ایران، چنین ضابطه‌ای مورد توجه قانون‌گذاران قرار نگرفته است. تحلیل یافته‌های این پژوهش آشکار می‌سازد، به‌کارگیری ضابطۀ یادشده می‌تواند عدالت را میان طرفین برقرار سازد، اما انعطاف‌پذیری زیاد آن سبب چندگانگی رویکرد دادگاه‌ها در اعمال صلاحیت خواهد شد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات

عنوان مقاله [English]

The Role of Wrongdoer’s Intent in the Rules of International Jurisdiction in Defamation Claims with a Study of Iranian and United States Law

نویسنده [English]

  • Sayyed Hussein Safaei Moafi
Ph.D. in Private Law, Department of Law, Faculty of Literature and Humanities. university of Guilan. Rasht. Iran
چکیده [English]

Sometimes, a person's reputation is harmed by someone in another country, and when the victim files a lawsuit, an international claim arises that requires the determination of jurisdiction. Considering that defamation is an intentional tort, applying a jurisdictional rule that focuses on the defendant’s intent and its effects in a specific place seems beneficial. However, how can such a jurisdictional rule be applied effectively? Has this jurisdictional rule been recognized in Iranian and U.S. law? Using a descriptive-analytical method and library resources, this research examines the approaches of these legal systems and evaluates the application of a jurisdictional rule based on the defendant’s intent and its effects. The findings of this research indicate that U.S. law has established a jurisdictional rule whereby the court has jurisdiction over a defamation claim if the focal point of the harm to the victim's reputation and the defendant’s intentional harmful act is within its territory. However, Iranian law has not recognized such a rule. The analysis reveals that while applying this rule could promote fairness between the parties, its high degree of flexibility may lead to inconsistencies in judicial approaches when exercising jurisdiction.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • defamation
  • intentional tort
  • Iran
  • jurisdiction
  • Untied states of America

مراجع

  1. Anderson, W. S. (1969). Ballentine’s Law Dictionary with Pronunciations. 3rd Rochester: Lawyers Co-operative Publishing Company.
  2. Ballentine, J. A. (1923). A Law Dictionary of Words. 1st Rochester: Lawyers Co-operative Publishing Company.
  3. Babaei, I. and Azadbakht, S. (2024). A Comparative Study of Tortious Liability Caused by Defamation in Iranian, American and English Law. The Judiciarys Law Journal 88(125), 363-397. DOI: 22106/jlj.2024.2007631.5376 (In Persian).
  4. Belfield, E. (2018). Establishing Personal Jurisdiction in an Internet Context: Reconciling the Fourth Circuit ‘Targeting’ Test With Calder V. Jones Using Awareness, University o f Pittsburgh Law Review 80(2), 457-479. DOI: 5195/lawreview.2018.606
  5. Cook, Gregory C. & D’Entremont, Andrew Ross (2022). No End in Sight? Navigating the “Vast Terrain” of Personal Jurisdiction in Social Media Cases after Ford, Alabama Law Review 73(3), 621–656.
  6. Conley, A. (2025). Navigating Personal Jurisdiction Based on Social Media Activity – Tips for Practitioners, Belmont Law Review 12(2), 405-425. DOI: 2139/ssrn.5245725
  7. Erbsen, A. (2015). Personal Jurisdiction Based on the Local Effects of Intentional Misconduct, William & Mary Law Review 57(2), 385-453.
  8. Floyd, C. D. & Baradaran-Robison, Sh. (2006). Toward a Unified Test of Personal Jurisdiction in an Era of Widely Diffused Wrongs: The Relevance of Purpose and Effects. Indiana Law Journal. 81 (2), 601-666. DOI: 2139/ssrn.1516163
  9. Garner, B. A. (2009). Black`s Law Dictionary. 9th Saint Paul: Thomson Reuters.
  10. Genetin, B. B. (2015). The Supreme Court's New Approach to Personal Jurisdiction, SMU Law Review 68(1), 107-167.
  11. Gholamloo, J. and Daryaee, R. (2022). Defamation Crimes: From Criminalization to Decriminalization and Civil Law Model. Criminal Law Doctrines 19(23), 203-240. doi: 30513/cld.2023.4836.1779 (In Persian).
  12. Gifis H., S. (2011). Law Dictionary. 6th China: Barron’s.
  13. Goldman, L. (2015). From Calder to Walden and Beyond: The Proper Application of the “Effects Test” in Personal Jurisdiction Cases, The San Diego Law Review 52(2), 357-398.
  14. Google Scholar (n.d.). Calder v. Jones, 465 US 783 - Supreme Court 1984. last visited: 26/01/2025. Available at:  https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=4950422313567496732&hl=en&as_sdt=2006&as_vis=1.
  15. Google Scholar (n.d.). Yahoo! Inc. v. La Ligue Contre Le Racisme, 433 F. 3d 1199 - Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit 2006. last visited: 23/07/2025. Available at: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17104253064900002207&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr.
  16. Google Scholar (n.d.). Bancroft & Masters, Inc. v. Augusta Nat. Inc., 223 F. 3d 1082 - Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit 2000. last visited: 23/07/2025. Available at: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=9465444819535320064&q=Bancroft+%26+Masters,+Inc.+v.+Augusta+Nat.+Inc&hl=en&as_sdt=2006&as_vis=1
  17. Google Scholar (n.d.). Zippo Mfg. Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc., 952 F. Supp. 1119 - Dist. Court, WD Pennsylvania 1997. last visited: 23/07/2025. Available at: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2622455915709061368&q=Zippo+Mfg.+Co.+v.+Zippo+Dot+Com,+Inc.,+952+F.+Supp.+1119,+1124+(W.D.+Pa+1997)&hl=en&as_sdt=2006
  18. Google Scholar (n.d.). Revell v. Lidov, 317 F. 3d 467 - Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit 2002. last visited: 23/07/2025. Available at: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12105780563122712640&q=Revell+v.+Lidov,+317+F.3d+467+(5th+Cir.+2002).&hl=en&as_sdt=2006#r[14]
  19. Google Scholar (n.d.). Briskin v. Shopify, Inc., 135 F. 4th 739 - Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit 2025. last visited: 23/07/2025. Available at: https://scholar.google.pl/scholar_case?case=17500697981474747508&hl=en&as_sdt=6&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr.
  20. Jafari Langroodi, M. J. (2023). Legal Terminology. 37th Tehran: Ganj Danesh Publications (In Persian).
  21. Jasper, M. C. (2006). The Law of Libel & Slander. 1st New York: Oceana Publications.
  22. Justia (n.d.). Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974). last visited: 25/1/2025. Available at: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/418/323/.
  23. Justia (n.d.). Jones v. Calder (1982). last visited: 27/02/2024. Available at: https://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/3d/138/128.html.
  24. Justia (n.d.). Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783 (1984). last visited: 28/02/2024. Available at: https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/465/783/.
  25. Justia (n.d.). Zippo Mfg. Co. v. Zippo Dot Com, Inc., 952 F. Supp. 1119 (W.D. Pa. 1997). last visited: 23/07/2025. Available at: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/952/1119/1432344/ .
  26. Justia (n.d.). Revell v. Lidov, 317 F.3d 467 (5th Cir. 2002). last visited: 23/07/2025. Available at: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/317/467/484358/.
  27. Khaleghi, Ali (2016). Essays on International Criminal Law. fifth edition. Tehran: The SD Institute of Law Research & Study (In Persian).
  28. Ludington, S. H. (2012). Aiming at the Wrong Target: The “Audience Targeting” Test for Personal Jurisdiction in Internet Defamation Cases. Ohio State Law Journal. 73 (3), 541-574.
  29. Mirmohammad Sadeghi, H. (2014). Offences Against The Person. 16th Tehran: Mizan (In Persian).
  30. Oyez (n.d.). Calder v. Jones. last visited: 27/02/2024. Available at: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1983/82-1401.
  31. Rhodes, C. W. “Rocky” & Robertson, Cassandra Burke (2014). Toward a New Equilibrium in Personal Jurisdiction, C. Davis Law Review 48(1), 207-269.
  32. Safai, S. H. (2014). Studies of Private International Law. 3rd Tehran: Mizan publishing (In Persian).
  33. Safaei Moafi, S. H.; Maghsoudi, R. & Daryaee, R. (2024). Conflict of Laws in Civil Liability Claims Caused by Defamation in the Laws of England, European Union and Iran. Private Law. 21 (1), 55-69. DOI: 22059/jolt.2024.365936.1007231 (In Persian).
  34. Safaei Moafi, S. H. , Maghsoody Pashaki, R. and Daryaie, R. (2025). Presenting the Appropriate Connecting Factor for the Uniformization of Conflict of Laws Rules for Civil Liability Lawsuits Caused by Defamation by Looking at Rome 2 Regulations. Journal of Comparative Law, 11(1), 81-107. DOI: 22096/law.2024.2017081.2191 (In Persian).
  35. Safaei Moafi, S. H. , Maghsoudi, R. , & Daryaee, R. (2024). Proposing an Appropriate International Jurisdictional Rule for Preventing Libel Tourism: A Comparative Study of Iranian and English Law. Journal of Comparative Law, 8(4), 141-160. DOI: 22080/lps.2024.23887.1598 (In Persian).
  36. Safaei Moafi, S. H.; Maghsoudi, R. & Daryaee, R. (2023). Jurisdiction in tort claims for cross-border defamation in the laws of ‎Iran, England and the European Union. Comparative Law Review. 14 (2), 859-882. DOI: 22059/JCL.2023.356095.634475 (In Persian).
  37. Safaei Moafi, S. H. , Imanpour, A. and Daryaee, R. (2022). Criteria for claiming compensation for secondary psychiatric victims in English law and its application in Iranian law. Comparative Law Review 13(1), 257-278. doi: 22059/jcl.2022.334558.634278 (In Persian).
  38. Shams, A. (2015). Civil Procedure. 34th Tehran: Derak publishing (In Persian).
  39. Singleton, P. (2008). Personal Jurisdiction in the Ninth Circuit, Hastings Law Journal 59(4), 911-942.
  40. Spencer, A. B. (2006). Jurisdiction and the Internet: Returning to Traditional Principles to Analyze Network-Mediated Contacts. University of Illinois Law Review. 1, 71-126.
  41. Spencer, A. B. (2004). Terminating Calder: "Effects" Based Jurisdiction in the Ninth Circuit After Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co. Whittier Law Review 26, 197-223.
  42. Trammell, A. M. & Bambauer, D. E. (2015). Personal Jurisdiction and the "Interwebs", Cornell Law Review 100, 1129-1190.
  43. University System of Georgia (n.d.). Evaluating Internet resources. GALILEO last visited: 27/02/2024. Available at: https://www.usg.edu/galileo/skills/unit07/internet07_02.phtml.
  44. Yelmini, Gretchen (2023). Internet Jurisdiction and the 21st Century: Zippo, Calder, and the Metaverse, Connecticut Law Review 55(4), 1-28. https://digitalcommons.lib.uconn.edu/law_review/578
  45. Yost, Ellen Smith (2020). Tweet, Post, Share. . .Get Haled into Court? Calder Minimum Contacts Analysis in Social Media Defamation Cases, SMU Law Review 73(3), 693-724. https://scholar.smu.edu/smulr/vol73/iss3/14/
  46. Young, J. C. (2015). The Online-Contacts Gamble after Walden v. Fiore. Lewis & Clark Law Review 19(3), 753-766.
مطالعات حقوق تطبیقی

مقالات آماده انتشار، پذیرفته شده
انتشار آنلاین از تاریخ 01 دی 1404

فایل ها

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار