a comparative analysis of the concept of goods in iranian civil law and the cisg s it really an obstacle to ratification

The principle of sovereignty is a fundamental principle of international law; according to which a state can generally control all activities within the territory over which it has sovereignty. as a general rule, the state’s sovereignty can be waived or limited through agreements with other countries. a relatively recent example of such agreements is the convention on contracts for the international sale of goods (‘cisg’) which is a multilateral treaty that establishes a uniform framework for international commerce. many developing countries including iran have not yet ratified the cisg. although each government may have its own excuses for such omission, more and more countries are ratifying this convention, including north korea. however, the cisg does not define the meaning of ‘goods’, which is the main subject of this convention. this article with qualitative research methods, analytically describes the provisions of the cisg, including the preamble, and articles 2 and 3, in terms of its compatibility with the iranian civil law. the main question is how the concept of goods under the cisg is considered consistent with the corresponding term in iranian civil law? to bring an answer to this question, this article, following an introduction and conceptology of the issue, describes a few of the prominent approaches of the jurists. thereafter, the concept of goods in iranian civil law and the cisg is discussed. finally, it is concluded that the inconsistencies appear to be superficial; since the approach of many jurists to the subject of sale has changed and they no longer consider tangibility as a necessary condition for the sale, the scope of goods in the convention and the iranian civil law is not inconsistent