اندیشه‌های حقوق عمومی

The present study undertakes a comparative examination of the causes of termination of agency (wakālah) in Imāmī jurisprudence and Iranian law, on the one hand, and Hanafi jurisprudence and Afghan law, on the other. The common causes in both systems include: the death or interdiction (ḥajr) of the principal (muwakkil) or the agent (wakīl), the disappearance of the subject matter of the agency, and the expiration of its term. However, there are also fundamental differences. In Imāmī jurisprudence and Iranian law, the dismissal of the agent is effected solely by the will of the principal; whereas in Hanafi jurisprudence and Afghan law, this is conditional upon the agency not being linked to the right of a third party. The resignation of the agent is likewise subject to this same condition in the Hanafi system, but no such condition exists in Imāmī jurisprudence. Regarding interdiction, Hanafi jurisprudence primarily considers permanent insanity as valid and disregards cases such as a coma, whereas Imāmī jurisprudence encompasses all types of interdiction. The death of the principal or the agent in Hanafi jurisprudence is conditional upon there being no right of a third party; however, in Imāmī jurisprudence, it causes immediate termination without any condition. By identifying the commonalities and differences, this comparative study provides an analytical framework for understanding the rules governing the termination of agency.