علی اکبر اسماعیلی

Composition contracts are of great importance in international legal systems and are consideredto be an important tool for solving financial problems, as they contribute significantly toeconomic prosperity by preventing the complete dissolution of economic units. Therefore, acomparative study of composition contracts in different legal systems such as Iran, the UnitedStates and the United Kingdom can contribute significantly to the reform of commercial lawsand regulations in this field. Accordingly, the main purpose of the present study is to examinethe economic policies and challenges in composition contracts and their application in the legalsystems of Iran, the United States and the United Kingdom. The main question of the presentstudy is: “What are the main challenges of composition contracts in the legal systems of Iran,the United States and the United Kingdom?” In response, it can be hypothesized that the majorchallenge in the US and Iranian systems seems to be debt security, while in the UK, creditrestoration is considered a major challenge. The research findings indicate that in all threecountries, from a policy perspective, composition  agreements play a vital role in resolvingdebts and rebuilding the financial situation of debtors, but each of these countries faces its ownchallenges. In Iran, there are problems such as lack of transparency in assets and resistance fromsome creditors. In the US, challenges such as legal complexities and problems related to creditorcooperation are present. Despite having a modern legal framework, the UK also faces issuessuch as administrative complexities and the economic impacts of composition agreements.Given the problems in all three systems, it is suggested that policy and legal reforms be carriedout to facilitate the process of composition agreements in all three countries. This study uses adescriptive-analytical method and a comparative approach. Legal documents from Iran, the US,and England have been analyzed using library resources.

This study aims to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the Iranian and English legalsystems regarding the use of scientific evidence and to propose solutions for overcomingobstacles to its acceptance. The results indicate that within Iranian law, the acceptance ofscientific evidence is highly dependent on the judge’s personal judgment and the principleof “the judge’s personal knowledge,” which can lead to contradictory opinions. By contrast,the English legal system employs stricter criteria, such as the Daubert principles, whichhave enhanced the accuracy of scientific evidence evaluation but have also resulted in morecomplex and costly processes. Both legal systems face challenges, including the potentialmisuse of scientific evidence and a lack of specialized training for judges and experts.The study concludes by suggesting that the Iranian legal system, drawing on the Englishexperience, develop clear criteria for the acceptance of scientific evidence and standardizeits evaluation process. Reforms have also been proposed for the English context to reducecosts and streamline procedures. The study highlights the importance of specialized judicialtraining and international cooperation for improving the efficiency of judicial systems.