مبانی و محدودیت‌های اصل حاکمیت ارادۀ در وصیت در فقه امامیه و حقوق ایران با مطالعه تطبیقی در نظام حقوقی آمریکا

انشای وصیت از‌سوی موصی و قبول یا ردّ آن از‌طرف موصی‌له و وصی نیازمند اعمال اراده است. این امر که از آن تحت عنوان «اصل حاکمیت اراده» یاد می‌شود، اکنون این پرسش‌ها را در ذهن نویسندگان ایجاد کرده است: نخست، مبنای اصل حاکمیت ارادۀ موصی، موصی‌له و وصی چیست؟ دوم، آیا می‌توان محدودیت‌هایی برای ارادۀ این اشخاص تصور کرد؟ اگر پاسخ مثبت است، مصادیق این محدودیت‌ها کدامند؟ در این مقاله، ضمن مطالعۀ تطبیقی فقه امامیه، حقوق ایران و آمریکا سعی می‌شود با روش توصیفی-تحلیلی و با مراجعه به منابع کتابخانه‌ای به پرسش‌های فوق پاسخ داده شود. در پایان، پس از مطالعۀ تاریخچۀ اصل یاد‌شده، این نتایج حاصل می‌شود: نخست، حقّ طبیعی موصی، افزایش انگیزۀ او، تامین منافع موصی‌له، تنظیم رفتار ورثۀ احتمالی و تکلیف به تعاون اجتماعی؛ مبانی حاکمیت ارادۀ موصی محسوب می‌شوند. همچنین، حفظ استقلال موصی‌له و وصی، همکاری موصی‌له در مدیریت توزیع اموال و تامین منافع موصی در ردیف مبانی حاکمیت ارادۀ موصی‌له و وصی قرار دارند. دوم، در‌حالی‌که تشریفات انعقاد وصیت، سهم اجباری برخی از اشخاص در ترکه، مقررات آمره و دین از محدودیت‌های حاکمیت ارادۀ موصی به‌شمار می‌آیند، تشریفات قبول یا ردّ وصیت و قتل موصی به‌وسیلۀ موصی‌له، محدودیت‌های حاکمیت ارادۀموصی‌له و وصی هستند.

the basis and limitations of the sovereignty of the intention in the “will” in imamia jurisprudence and iranian law with a comparative study in the american legal system

making a will by the testator and accepting or disclaiming it by the donee and executor requires the intention. as a rule, the main element of any juridical act (whether a contract or a unilateral juridical act) is the intention. as one of the types of juridical acts, the testamentary (will) is not exempted from this rule. indeed, as one of the judges of the supreme court of virginia stated: “intention being the life and soul of a will, it can hardly be imagined, i presume, that a man can make a will without intending to do so, or give by it more than he means to give&.in iranian law, when discussing the intention of individuals in a testamentary (will), it is important to take care of the intention of the testator, donee, and executor. thus, in the will, on the one hand, the testator wants to bring his wish to the fore to manage the affairs and property after death. on the other hand, the donee or executor (of course with exceptions) can disclaim the will for various reasons. therefore, the principle of sovereignty of the intention in the will can be examined from the angles above.american law is almost similar to iranian law. in this legal system, when the principle of sovereignty of intention is considered from the perspective of the testator, the term &freedom of disposition& is used. on the contrary, when the topic under discussion is related to accepting or disclaiming the will by the donee, the term &freedom of inheritance& is used. based on this, the principle of sovereignty of the testator’s intention means the testator is a person who decides which property to transfer to whom and to what extent. the principle of sovereignty of the donee’s intention also means the testator’s authority to accept or at least disclaim the will. in this legal system, the &testamentary trust& is also used to fulfill the testamentary. in the testamentary trust, the testator accommodates the desired property to a person named &trustee& so that he can manage the said property as a &fiduciary& in favor of the &beneficiary&.&principle of sovereignty of the intention& has now created these questions in the authors’ minds: first, what is the basis of the principle of the sovereignty of the intention of the testator, the donee, and the executor? second, can we imagine limitations for the intention of the testator, donee, and executor? if the answer is “yes”, what are the examples of these limitations?in this article, by a comparative study of imamia jurisprudence, iranian and american law, an attempt is made to answer the above questions with a descriptive-analytical method and by referring to library sources. the reason for adapting this issue to american law can be summed up in two ways: first, in the legal system of this country, issues related to wills (especially the sovereignty of the will) are very important and have been examined in detail by scholars in the field of inheritance and wills. second, iranian jurists consider imamia jurisprudence when examining the challenges raised in the realm of wills, contrary to the approach that exists in the law of contracts and civil liability. although this approach seems to be acceptable and good considering the iranian civil law based on islamic jurisprudence, but it cannot stop the curious mind from comparing the will rights with the western legal systems. in the end, after studying the history of the mentioned principle, the following results are obtained: first, the testator’s natural right, his motivation, securing the interests of the testator, setting the behavior of potential heirs, and duty to social cooperation are considered the basis of the testator’s will. also, preserving the independence of the donee and executor, the cooperation of the donee in managing the distribution of the estate, and ensuring the interests of the testator are the basis of the sovereignty of the testator’s will. second, while the formalities of making a will, the necessary heirs, the mandatory rules, and religion are the limitations of the sovereignty of the intention of the testator, the formalities of accepting or disclaiming the will and killing the testator by the donee are the limitations of the sovereignty of the intention of the donee and executor.