فصلنامه مطالعات حقوقی
سال پنجم شماره 2 (پاییز 1392)

Justifying grounds (justifications) refer to those objective circumstances wich justify an unlawful act. Grounds for excluding criminal responsibility (excuses)، on the othr hand، refe to personal characterisic of the defendant caused his not responcible. Distinction between justifying grounds and to grounds for excluding criminal responsibility accepted in municipal law of majority countries، particularly in civil law countries. Also in Iranian criminal law separation between justifing grounds and excuses is existence. But in international criminal law inexistence such separation. Concidering importance separaition between such grounds lookout particular juridical consequences that apiece own accordingly also in international criminal law separation between such grounds must be existence. Important question that arguable here is determination criterion for this separation. It seems for representation accorate criterion this separation is better to use from criterion that accepted in municipal law.

Beside the internal micro and macro offences، from the early days، human community has permanently faced international offences and crimes such as war crimes، genocide، and crimes against humanity. During the past years، extensive efforts have been made to fight against such crimes and criminals. In this article، it is assumed that individuals and groups that are in charge of these crimes should be broughtperpetrators to justice and punished based on their responsibilities. Because the international criminal law is still afflicted with some kinds of problems related to the lack of legality of penalties، in this study، some penalties that should be applied for such cases are investigated. It seems that the current system of international criminal penalties، does not match these crimes and it is necessary that the international community finds new remedies for this incompetence in order to establish justice and security in the world. For this purpose، the international community should either change current penalties or define theoretical basis and specific purposes for implemented penalties against international crimes

In the 1950s and specifically early 1960s، the critical thought of Social reaction criminology school joint to the particular concentration of Symbolic interaction approach on the role of judgments of others in shaping and changing the person''s identity and acts، and so formed a distinctive theory called Interactionism or Labeling theory. On the other hand، the susceptible circumstances، paved the way for appearance of this thesis in Northern America. This theory contested the traditional criminology، defined the deviance and deviant subjectively not objectively and argued that the formal and informal social reactions، by means of labeling، degrading and ostracizing a person، create secondary deviance، criminal identity and criminal career. Because of this opinion، it recommended the restriction of scope of intervention of criminal justice system and so opened a new view and vision in criminology and criminal policy. Nevertheless، some scholars criticize this theory and its key concepts (deviance، labeling، deviant status) in crime etiology. These criticisms، reveal the necessity of amendment and modification of this theory and also capability of leading it to a more moderate strand and proper profiting from it in a fair، human and efficient criminal policy in order to achieve the optimal management of crime.

In criminal proceedings، at the end of preliminary investigation and trial، a closing argument is heard by judge، if accused is guilty. The subject of question about a closing argument is about to ascribe the committed crime and presented evidence against accused، the subject of closing argument is doubting the proof or rejecting the elements of crime that are against the accused. Meanwhile، it may be proving or giving the circumstances which cause innocence، diminishing، probating، and excusing the criminal from punishment. Due to the attorney s limited responsibility، a closing argument in the prosecution office must be only given by the accused but in the trial both the accused and the attorney can present the closing argument or separately. With regard to the case، the duration of the closing argument should be reasonable and also should not be less than the time of asserting the claim and presenting evidence. Not having a closing argument in prosecution office is an incomplete proceeding، but it is not necessarily the cause for quashing the sentence in the appeal court، of course the mention court must sit for having the closing argument، then it makes a decision، but the supreme court quashes the sentence and returns the case to the court which make it، so as a closing argument of accused are heard، then judge makes decision.

Ambiguity emerges when one proposition has more than one meaning. Studying of ambiguity shows there are various varieties for it. Studying of these varieties proves that ambiguity is the adventitious condition and exists unintentionally. Thus it may be prevented from existing. In addition، although ambiguity is the subject of interpretation، the basic matter in the interpretation is eliminating of ambiguity. Therefore، absolute recognition as to the ambiguity can provide the situation for removing knowingly the ambiguity. Finally، recognition of causes of ambiguity provides this possibility for legislator to، in reforming the law، try to remove the root of ambiguity instead breaking the basis of the regulations

Legal person has valid existence and its character is distinct and independent from its incorporaters. Nevertheless it needs real persons to show its capabilities in outside world. So all legal and executive acts of these persons are done by their managers. But among imaginable actions of the managers، Vaqf of properties is an important one. We should investigate possibilities or impossibilities of vaqf of properties of legal entities by their managers. For this purpose، we investigate legal nature relationships of managers and legal persons and the extent of their authorities. This article wants to respond to the question whether directors and administrators of legal persons have the authority to make vaqf of its properties. Conclusion of the article is the negative answer to this question and the Authors believes that such a legal act is out of the authorities of managers of legal entities.

In the Islamic jurisprudence the vice of consent was not considered. Somebody said that Islamic jurists have dealt with this question، but the most of the jurists have said that duress destroys the consent. Duress is: Extraordinary and unlawful pressure from a human being on the other، with the intention of destroying the consent، so that the person under threat، because of fear، is persuaded that he will have a considerable damage، so that he will make a contract. Iranian lawmakers in this matter of duress and mistake have taken in consideration the French law and Islamic jurisprudence، but they have not said that duress and mistake are vice of consent. Consent، from a point of view، is twofold: consent to the contract (only)، and contract with satisfaction. Contract with consent only has the meaning that it is without gladness. It seems that، in the article 199 of the civil law، the consent following duress has the first of the above two meanings. Therefore، so that a contract