The Distinction Between the Substantive Existence and Proof of Obligations: A Comparative Study of Iranian and French Law

Abstract

This study comparatively examines the distinction between the substantive existence and evidentiary proof of obligations in the Iranian and French legal systems. The research employs a descriptive-analytical method and a comparative approach. The data were collected through library research and the examination of legislation, legal doctrine, judicial decisions, and authoritative sources in Iranian and French law and were subsequently evaluated through comparative analysis. The theoretical framework is based on the conceptual distinction between substantive and procedural rules and the implications of this distinction for the law of obligations. The principal research gap lies in the fact that, despite the existence of numerous studies on the law of evidence or the substantive nature of obligations, few independent and comprehensive studies have comparatively examined the relationship and distinction between the existence and proof of obligations in Iranian and French law or analyzed their implications for the interpretation of obligations and judicial decision-making. The findings demonstrate that, in French law, the clearer separation between substantive rules and evidentiary rules has resulted in a more precise delineation between the existence of an obligation and its susceptibility to proof. By contrast, in Iranian law, these two domains are occasionally conflated in certain statutory provisions and judicial practices. The findings further indicate that a proper distinction between these concepts would enhance the consistency of judicial decisions, strengthen legal certainty, and improve the predictability of contractual relationships. The results suggest that drawing on the achievements of French law in clarifying the boundaries between the substantive existence and proof of obligations, while preserving the foundational principles of Iranian law, may contribute to correcting interpretative approaches, reducing conflicting judicial decisions, and improving the effectiveness of the law of obligations. Accordingly, the principal recommendations of this study include revising certain provisions concerning the law of evidence, developing interpretative guidelines for judicial authorities, expanding comparative legal research, and providing specialized training on the concepts of substantive existence and proof for judges, lawyers, and legal researchers.