فصلنامه حقوق اسلامی
سال سیزدهم شماره 1 (پیاپی 48، بهار 1395)

If its historical ground is taken into account, the principle of territoriality has been established without relying on theoretical studies. Nevertheless, to understand the principle of territoriality and the ways it may be used in the form of laws in various fields of intellectual property, its theoretical and juridical foundations should be studied. Such study shows that this principle may be justifiably referred to in intellectual property. Results and consequences of applying the principle of territoriality are as follows: instances of intellectual property will have a national aspect and the legal systems which concern granting intellectual property rights will make decision about the foreigners in accord to national interests as well as religious and ethical restrictions. Of course, because of global development of intellectual property and necessity of international cooperation, this principle has undergone some improvements and modifications. For example, we may mention recognition of foreigners’ rights under special conditions, acceptance of the right of priority through applying economic policies in the form of parallel imports.

Factors involved in emerging a harmful result are restricted to three types as follows: cause, means, and condition; factors involved in liability, however, are restricted only to 'cause' and 'means'. Since there is no distinguishing standard and because these concepts have many similarities, there are many difficulties in distinguishing them from each other. To distinguishing these concepts from each other, and taking into account the consequences of involving of each of the above-mentioned factors, the impact and true nature of each of them are taken as the main standards to distinguish it; and, the other [minor] standards such asforcibility are introduced as a preliminary step to impact and 'the causation relation' as the channel of impact. Thus, cause is the efficient factor whose forcibility is typically present and has, by its essence, direct impact in harming; and, therefore, there is a causation relation between it and the harmful result. Means is an efficient factor the result has been realized not directly from its presence but from its impact and its forcibility is potentially present and may be relatively actualized depending on the situation. As a channel for penetration of impact, the causation relation is established when impact of means in harming is actualized. Also, condition is an inefficient factor which has no impact in harming directly or indirectly and its forcibility is not present typically or relatively. Thus, it never has an impact in realization of the result. And, since it has no impact, it is not able to establish the causation relation as the channel of impact.

After finding that a hadith relates to the Infallible (A), the jurisprudent(faqih) discusses its significance. Sometimes, the content of hadith does not seem to be compatible with generally accepted principles and a scientific way should be found to solve this problem. One of the solutions which is mostly found in penal jurisprudence is to say that a hadith is a particular (and not general) one and, thus, a general juridical statement cannot be deduced from it; and, as a matter of fact, it is issued from the Infallible's legal aspect. Now, it may be asked: 'are hadiths which cannot be referred to in the jurisprudence of punishment restricted to those which have been issued from the Infallible's legal aspect?'
In the present writing, this question is discussed in the light of various aspects of the Holy Prophet (S) and Imams (A) and, in conclusion, it is said that hadiths may be classified under three groups:a) Hadiths which should be referred to in deducing juridical verdicts; in other words, hadiths issued through aspects such as communicating, interpreting, and legislating aspects;
b) Hadiths which cannot be referred to in deducing juridical verdicts, in other words hadiths issued through aspects such as conventional and leading aspects of the Infallible;
c) Hadiths which may be conditionally referred to in deducing juridical verdicts, in other words hadiths issued through aspects such as judging and ruling aspects.

To justify punishment, sometimes its objectives and philosophy are spoken of. In penal schools, discussions are made to find which the objectives and philosophy of the decreed punishments are. When objectives of punishment as viewed by Islam are spoken, however, what is intended is things to attain them punishment is predicted and executed; and, it is better to study and discuss these issues under 'wisdoms of punishment'. By 'wisdom of punishment', interests are meant which have been introduced as interests determined by the Origin (wisdom, hikmah). Sometimes wisdom of a verdict (the standard interest) has been stated in the evidence for verdict and the verdict depends upon it. Of course, importance of 'wisdom of the Islamic punishment's is not the same as that of the reason behind enacting these punishments; explication of the wisdom of punishment, since it helps the legislator to specify punishments or since it describes the goal pursuing by the legislator, is noteworthy and helpful. In legal literature, to mention this concept, the term 'philosophy of punishment' is used. In the present writing, 'philosophy of punishment' is discussed in three sections: 'hudud (Islamic punishments)', 'qisas (retaliation)', and 'tazirat (punishments having maximum and minimum limits determined by law and judge)'; for each of which has its own characteristics and objectives. Then, philosophy of punishment as viewed by Islam has been discussed. The present article has been put in writing in accord to intra-religious literature; and, since it has its own worldview, ontology, and epistemology, sources and teachings of the clear religion of Islam has been referred to and discussed.

Since the time the ‘ban the use of satellite reception equipment’ has been approved, many discussions have been made about it; and its contradiction with some fundamental concepts and rights (which have firm juridical grounds) such as ownership, privacy, lawfulness of using devices with dual use, human rights, and the right of free access to information has caused important challenges for it. On the other hand, emphasis put by those who support execution of this ban has intensified the controversy. Also, the way this ban may be executed has turned into a serious problem and this adds to ambiguities and complexities of the issue. Based on library methodology and through making a comparison between the above-mentioned ban and other laws and while describing the present method of struggling against satellite reception equipment, the present writing proposes alternative ways instead of gathering satellite reception equipment. The results of this study shows that execution of the above-mentioned ban, since they are of dual use and considered as devices with dual use, is according to Muslim jurisprudents in contradiction to laws concerning people’s privacy, Islamic Penal Code, Statement of Islamic Human Rights and many international conventions which have been accepted by Iran. What is proposed in this study is putting emphasis on alternative ways and in particular cultural ones.

Issues which are taken as the subjects of statements in legislating and in religious reasoning are either conventional or invented by the legislator. Conventional subjects taken from general or particular convention which have not been mentioned by the legislator are divided into ‘deduced conventional’ and ‘simple conventional’. What the present article claims is that in simple conventional issues unconditionally and in deduced conventional issues depending upon proofs, their functions in individual and social relationships are certainly or with a reasonable and notable probability, subjects for statements. Thus, if as changes occur in time or place, their primary functions vanish, the previous statements cannot be proved for them on the basis of previous reasons; for if proving argument which proves the statement is verbal, since its appearance has been disturbed, it can be no more referred to; and if it is not verbal, the statement will not fall within the circle of its certainty. Thus, to find their new statements, one has to refer to other proofs.