1
1. Ph.D. Student of Public International Law, Allameh Tabatabaei University, Tehran, Iran
2
2. Ph.D. Student of Politic Science, Allame Tabatabaei University, Tehran, Iran
Abstract
Right of reply has been made for creating a balance between two values: freedom of right information and right to access to right information. Media may intentionally or un intentionally publish distorted and misleading information and, consequently, endanger others' legitimate interests. The affected persons from the false information in media can correct the information in accordance to available legal potentials. Domestic and international laws contain mechanisms with which states and private persons can claim the responsibility of media-governmental or independent-based on right to reply.
Although the Islamic Republic of Iran has not ratified the Convention on International Right of Correction, however, the present rules in Iran confer this right to nature and judicial persons like individuals and states against Press, Radio and TV. The legal system on right of reply in Iran has accepted most conditions of this right in domestic and international drafts. The law of Iran explicitly confers right of reply to legal (judicial) persons, which involve states as well.
Ziaee1,S. Y. and Tabbakhi Mameghani2,J. (2011). Right of Reply in Media in the International Law and the Iranian Law. Comparative Law Researches, 15(4), 57-76.
MLA
Ziaee1,S. Y. , and Tabbakhi Mameghani2,J. . "Right of Reply in Media in the International Law and the Iranian Law", Comparative Law Researches, 15, 4, 2011, 57-76.
HARVARD
Ziaee1 S. Y., Tabbakhi Mameghani2 J. (2011). 'Right of Reply in Media in the International Law and the Iranian Law', Comparative Law Researches, 15(4), pp. 57-76.
CHICAGO
S. Y. Ziaee1 and J. Tabbakhi Mameghani2, "Right of Reply in Media in the International Law and the Iranian Law," Comparative Law Researches, 15 4 (2011): 57-76,
VANCOUVER
Ziaee1 S. Y., Tabbakhi Mameghani2 J. Right of Reply in Media in the International Law and the Iranian Law. Comparative Law Researches, 2011; 15(4): 57-76.