Thesis:

A comparative study of the nature of nomination and its legal effects in the legal systems of Iran and France

The aim of this study is a comparative analysis of the legal institution of engagement and the explanation of its nature and legal consequences in the legal systems of Iran and France. Engagement, as a stage preceding the conclusion of a marriage contract, is a subject of controversy regarding its binding or non-binding nature and the scope of responsibilities it entails. This research, using an analytical-comparative method and based on jurisprudential, legal, and judicial sources, seeks to answer the question of whether engagement constitutes merely a moral obligation or can also produce legally binding effects. The main hypothesis posits that engagement, in both systems, is considered a non-binding and revocable agreement with respect to marriage, although the parties are obliged to observe commitments based on good faith and mutual respect during this period. Additionally, the subsidiary hypotheses suggest that, firstly, if engagement is revoked without valid reason, the injured party may claim compensation; and secondly, unlike the French legal system, which does not recognize such liability, Iranian law allows for civil liability in this context. The structure of the research includes a review of theoretical concepts, an analysis of Iranian law, and a comparative examination of the French legal approach. The findings indicate that although engagement does not constitute a commitment to marry in either system, under certain conditions, Iranian law—unlike French law—permits compensation for damages resulting from the revocation of engagement.

Keywords: Engagement, Marriage, Nature, Legal Effects, Iranian Legal System, French Legal System