مهدی کردبچه حسین آباد

The authority of father and paternal grandfather in the marriage of the boy and a girl is one of the fixed rules of jurisprudence. Failure to respect the interest and expediency of the minor is in the conflict with  the great principles of jurisprudence.Jurists believe that in marriage by guardian permission, the absence of corruption is enough. The purpose of  present research is to analyze the compilance of the minor expediency regarding financial relations resulting from marriage.

The research method in present study is descriptive and analytical.
Ethical Considerations:In present study, the authenticity of the text trustworthiness and honesty  have been observed.

However, it should not couple the  minor for less than the dowry or a minor for more than that, then if it is so and there is expediency that requires such a marriage ,both marriage and dowry are valid but if there is expedient in marriage not the dowery, it is clear that the marriage  is correct and necessary after puberty though  it is suspended on permission.

The guardian's action regarding minor's marriage should be in the line with  the observance of expediency and minors benefits or should not involve corruption and harm to them, that is if the marriage is not in the interest of minor or is harmful to him ,the marriage is not valid.

The purpose of this research is to investigate the follow-up of Iran's complaint against Israel in international authorities regarding the assassination of nuclear scientist Shahid Fakhrizadeh, which is done in a descriptive-analytical way. During the years 2008 to 2019, six scientists related to Iran's nuclear technology were targeted by organized terrorist attacks by human rights violators, despite the prohibition and condemnation of these attacks according to Article 6 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights approved in 1966. The United Nations and by human societies, in the opinion of "Mother Dagan", the former head of the Mossad, it is much more ethical and efficient than creating a large-scale war, according to Dagan's belief, in the territory and sovereignty of Iran, leading to gross violations of human rights and taking the lives of five The target person became the perpetrators and their commanders. Despite these authors, they have studied the method of committing assassinations separately and analyzed them by using the capacities of domestic and international law in order to answer the question of what is the title of assassinations in domestic and international law. They are under criminal titles, and which authority is responsible for dealing with these crimes? And is it acceptable to claim that the behavior is a defense? The results of the research show that considering the passage of two decades since the approval of UN Security Council Resolution 1373 and the lack of criminalization of terrorism in Iran's legal system, each assassination has a different criminal title and punishment, so simply committing it creates the qualification for a special authority. It is not a domestic criminal offense. According to the circumstances of crimes against humanity in the Rome Statute approved in 1998, the behavior is an example of this international crime, which despite Iran not joining the International Criminal Court, this judicial authority can be considered competent to deal with it, also citing Article 51 of the United Nations Charter and Resolution 13314 of the United Nations General Assembly rejects the claim that the behavior is defensive and justifiable in any case.

Guardianship over the minors until the age of puberty is the responsibility of the paternal grandfather, the guardian, trustee and ruler, and this guardianship depends on the absence of corruption and harm, compliance with the principles of life and expediency for minors, and the only thing that limits the authority of the guardian is the expediency of the minor. Therefore, in his actions and decisions, he must respect the interests and expediency of the ward. Regarding retribution and criminal crimes, this is expedient in amnesty, retribution and asking for Diya (punitive compensations). From the point of view of contemporary jurists, receiving Diya is often in the interest of the minor, but in some cases, the expedient of the minor may be in amnesty or retribution. The purpose of the research is to explain the ideas of contemporary jurists. In this research, in a descriptive and analytical way, we deal with the issue of minor's expediency from the point of view of contemporary jurists. If a child is killed as a result of an intentional or unintentional crime, the guardian has the right to retaliate, take Diya or pardon, but if the crime against a minor is assault and battery, which causes retribution or Diya, the Islamic Penal Code is silent on this matter and according to Article 167 of the Constitution, one should refer to the famous fatwa of jurists. as a result In the case of retribution, the guardian's right to pardon is not fixed, and regarding remission the Dyia, the guardian only has the right in the cases where it is   for the minor's benefit, not for himself. But, contemporary jurists have different opinions regarding the expediency of the minor.

The United Nations Security Council, as an institution responsible for maintaining and ensuring international peace and security, has played an effective role in the crisis of the Iraq war against Iran. The current research aims to examine the responsibility of the Security Council for the identification of the belligerent aggressor. The question of the article is: Based on the peacekeeping operation, what duties did the Security Council have regarding the war between Iraq and Iran? The hypothesis is: introducing and identifying the threat from the aggressor, establishing a cease-fire, determining damages and handing over the aggressor to international institutions to establish justice, are elements of peacekeeping operations by the Security Council, which have never been strictly implemented against Iraq. has not been The results of the research indicate that taking responsibility for the identification of war aggressors as well as ensuring international peace and security, in addition to being responsible for governments, also creates responsibility for international organizations such as the Security Council. . For this reason, in addition to the country of Iraq, which initiated the war against Iran, the United Nations Security Council is responsible, both during the war and today, when the question of receiving compensation for Iran is raised. In addition, the neutral countries that did not respect the principle of neutrality during the war are participants in the war and are therefore required to pay compensation. The current research has used the descriptive and analytical method and the theoretical framework of peacekeeping operations.

The United Nations Security Council, as the Institution for Maintaining Global Peace and Security, Has an Important Role in International Conflicts and Disputes. Wars are Also One of the Cases in Which the Role of the Security Council is Prominent. Specifically, the Security Council has Expressed Various Positions and Approaches to the Iraq Wars Against Iran and Kuwait, and the Present Research Examines This Issue.

The method used in the present research is descriptive-analytical that the data analysis has been done by reasoning method.

 The Security Council, Considered as an Institution Responsible for International Peace and Security, Has Taken a Conflicting and Dual Approach Regarding Iraqchr('39')s Aggression Against Iran and Kuwait. So That at the Beginning of the War, During the War and Also Its End, a Duality is Evident in the Decisions of This Institution. The Lack of Explicitness in Issuing Resolutions Against the Adversary (Iraq) Against Iran and, of Course, Receiving Compensation From Iraq and Granting Them to Kuwait are Considered as Important Parts of This Duality.

 The Dependence of the Security Council Institution on Global and Western Powers, Lack of Independence in Voting, Disregarding the Rights of Developing and Independent Countries, Having Veto Right, and the Use of the Votes of the Five Main Powers to the Detriment of Independent and Free Countries are the Most Important Criticisms Proposed Against the Security Council That Can be Raised, Which Their Evident Manifestation have Been Reflected in the Iraq War Against Iran and Kuwait in the Stages of Issuing a Resolution, Managing the War and Receiving Compensation From the Aggressor. It Seems that Receiving Compensation From Iraq and Punishing Other Warring Aggressors in the Middle East Can Recreate Credibility for This Institution.