جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه "joint" در نشریات گروه "علوم انسانی"

One of the most important crimes is theft.This theft, depending on the case, may be done by one or more people.Obviously,one of the guarantees of the serious and main execution of the crime of theft is the restitution of the property by the thieves.In the assumption that several people commit theft, i.e. steal another's property together, the main question is, to what extent are these people responsible for returning the property?Is their responsibility joint and several or relative?In response to this question, there are many differences of opinion in the judicial procedure.The majority of courts, especially the Supreme Courts, have strongly opposed the joint liability of partners in theft.Of course, there are few judgments that do not agree with this, and this conflict of opinions provided the basis for issuing a unified judicial precedent.According to the unified judicial precedent No.799 dated 2020/10/06,the responsibility of the partners in theft is relative; this means that they are responsible for the amount of property they have stolen, and if it is not possible to determine the amount of property, their responsibility is equal.Despite this, the unified judicial precedent No. 799 can be criticized.In fact, it appears that the liability of partners in theft is joint and several.In other words, the thief is the usurper, and according to the rules of usurpation,the responsibility of usurpers is joint and several.Of course, the imposition of joint and several liability does not mean the final establishment of responsibility,rather, each thief is responsible for the amount of property she/he stole, and if it is not clear how much each thief stole, their responsibility is equal.However,the purpose of this article is to answer the aforementioned question in an analytical-descriptive manner and with a broad look at judicial opinions, jurists' opinions, doctrine and emphasizing on the mentioned unified judicial precedent.

Global development is the result of rapid, dramatic and unprecedented advances in science and technology and especially international communications. Undoubtedly the implementation of important development, industrial and economic projects requires the cooperation and interaction of various people and specialties and also investment security. The most important form of providing security for a country's foreign investment is achieved through national legislation. The Iranian legislature, following the developed countries, first in the article 107 of the Fifth Development Plan Act and subsequently in the article 24 of the Permanent Provisions of the Country’s Development Plans Act, has introduced the legal framework of the "Economic group with common interests" in one article and its following notes, to the legal and economic community of the country, stipulating the formation of these groups in the form of "Civil Partnership" and has explained the limits of the obligations and powers of the group’s members. However, in this law, cases have been raised by the legislator that are basically inconsistent with the rules of civil partnership and although this law is practically an adaptation of the law of France, the ratified text is fundamentally different from the French regulations. On the one hand, the legislative stipulation on the formation of a group in the form of a civil company implies the provisions of the civil law under the title of partnership contract which exclusively deals with the management of common property, but such rules are basically not enough to form and run a group. On the other hand, some of these regulations are not commensurate with the goals and functions of the group. In addition, the guarantee of non-compliance with the conditions set forth in this article is generally unexplained and it is not clear what responsibilities will be assigned to the members and managers of the group. It also emphasizes the joint and several liability of the members for the debts of the group

In the economic analysis of civil liability, efficiency, i.e wealth maximization is the basis for justifying rules. Civil liability by reducing administrative costs, distributing losses among members of society, forcing agents to internalize external costs of their activities and taking precautions to prevent accidents leads to a reduction in total accident costs and thus increase wealth and efficiency. In this essay, the rule of joint and several liability is examined with the approach of economic analysis and efficiency criteria, the results show that applying this rule, depending on whether multiple causes of the damage are aware of each other's solvency or not, and also depending on the nature of the accident, can have different effects that lead to efficiency in only a few cases: where multiple causes of damage are not aware about the solvency of each other, in both joint care accidents and successive care accidents, joint and several liability leads to efficiency through deterrence; where one of the multiple causes is solvent and the other is insolvent, and they are aware of this situation, the exercise of joint and several liability, in addition to leading to precaution and efficiency in joint care accidents, also reduces administrative costs and thereby leads to efficiency.

Being the litigant of the insurer together with the responsible of the accident is legally and economically justifiable for the injured party, but explaining the responsibility of multiple defendants to pay a single debt is one of the problems of the judge in issuing a verdict; In such a way that in some cases the subject of litigation to one of the defendants is silenced or the litigation is completely rejected. The purpose of this study is to explain the position of the insurer and the person who caused the accident in the lawsuit with descriptive and analytical methods, in addition to recognizing the need to decide on each of them, to explain their responsibility in the sentence and to provide logical theories for compensation. The inference of the independent or collective liability of the insured and the insurer is based on various reasons. Sharing liability between the insured and the insurer has no logical or legal basis, and the liability of the insurer's collateral does not serve the purpose of better compensating the injured party. Court waiting for invoking the injured party to the insurance contract also does not solve the problem of explaining the liability of multiple defendants, and differences in the type and amount of liability remain. Recognition of joint and several liability of the insured and the insurer in the Compulsory Insurance Law adopted in 2016 is compatible with the aim of better guaranteeing the injured party, and some law bases and legal justifications justify the need for the theory of joint and several liability of the insurer and person who caused the accident.

he "Sin" is one of the Qur'anic themes, the semantic field of which is very important due to the multiplicity of examples and applications. This article seeks with the descriptive-analytical method of the root, the lexical and idiomatic meaning of the word "junah", the characteristics of the letters and the function of the meaning of its sound, the morphological, syntactic and rhetorical structure of phrases from the Holy Quran in which the word is used. Examine the axis of substitution and companionship of the word and its derivatives. The findings of this study indicate that despite the differences of opinion on the eloquence and authenticity of the word "Junah", its attribution to the evolved form of the word "Vinas" in the ancient Persian language is more acceptable.The meaning of the letters also indicates that this word refers less to the meaning of its derivatives and the root "Jannah". Its structure in the verses is such that it is used in the form of negative noun sentences and in the civil verses of the Qur'an it is mostly used to express legal themes, customs and limits. Its companions do not have much variety and only the companion relationship that governs them is complementary. The two successors of "Atham" and "Harj" have been identified in a similar structure for "Junah", which are somewhat different in meaning. The derivatives used of this word, due to the different space and structure of the verses of "Junah", have different relations with "Jannah" with their companions and all of them have been used in verses with a positive semantic load.

In domestic legal systems, Joint and several liability provides the best assurance that the plaintiffs will be compensated for their loss. The rule means that when multiple defendants are found to have caused the same damage, each defendant can be obliged to pay up to the full amount of the loss suffered. It is common in international practice that several states or international organizations contribute together to the indivisible injury of a third party. Therefore, due to the fact that there are situations in which two or more international persons share responsibility for their contribution to an indivisible injury of third persons, is it possible to apply the principle of joint and several liability in the concept of domestic law regarding distribution of reparation in situations of share international responsibility? According to this study, based on the general principle of law as a source of international law in Article 38 of the Statute of the International Court of Justice and due to the relative lack of development of the rules of international responsibility in this field, comparison with domestic law is possible. Yet, the implementation of joint and several liability in the international law system will face the obstacle of the jurisdiction of international courts.

In the EU Council Directive to Protect the Consumer, ratified in 1985, strict liability is accepted as the basis for civil liability of the producer.In Iranian law, there is disagreement among jurists regarding the basis for the legislator's choice in the Protection of Consumers’ Right Act, ratified in 2009.The bases for producer’s liability in Article 2 of the aforementioned Act is not clear. Moreover, it is not clear whether in the production and distribution chain, the suppliers have joint liability or several liability, and to what extent such liability may be extinguished through exclusion or limitation of liability clauses.The results of the research show that civil liability in the EU Council Directive to Protect the Consumer, contrary to the general rule of liability, has been enshrined based on non-fault or strict liability. Thus, claiming damages from the producer and distributor does not require proof of fault.

In economic and commercial interactions, commercial instruments play a strategic and facilitating role between the parties to the transaction.The purpose of this article is to review, explain and analyze the legal nature of guaranty in terms of "transfer of obligation to obligation" and "add obligation to obligation" in jurisprudence, Geneva Convention and the Law of Other Countries, Civil Law and Commercial Law of Iran. The terms of the guarantee and the manner of intervention of the guarantor and the effects of the guarantee should known according to its status in the commercial documents. However, the interference and guarantee of the guarantor in commercial documents is not limited to the guarantee in the subject of Articles 237 and 238 of the Iranian Commercial Code. The research is of a qualitative type of content analysis, interpretiveness and hermeneutics, which guided by two research questions. The statistical population of the research formed by first-hand library resources.According to the findings of the survey, the legal intervention of the guarantor in you, which provided only in the mentioned articles in the promissory note and check according to Articles 309 and 314 of the Commercial Code, which refer to the rules governing you.They are not applicable by legal interference and guarantee of the guarantor, as a result of Articles 237 and 238 of the Commercial Code can not be enforced in promissory notes and cheques, and in this regard intervention and guarantee with origin. The law is different from the guarantor contract guarantee in commercial documents.

Although the principle of separability of obligations is not mentioned explicitly in the civil code, many cases of its application in the civil code leaves no doubt about the authenticity of separability of obligations. Interpretation of intention, induction in civil code and some regulations about right of rescission prove separability principle in the Iranian civil code, and when invalidity, ineffectiveness or termination of part of an obligation occur, according to the Separability principle, the invalidity, ineffectiveness or termination will be effective only in that part and the other parts of the obligation remain valid.separability of obligations occurs in regarding to subject of obligation, plurality of parties and source of obligation (contract and condition) and in some cases as inseparatable nature of subject of obligation or explicit agreement by the parties about inseparability of subject of obligation or joint and several liability, obligation separate is impossible and these cases considered as exceptions to principle of separability of obligations. This article attempts to clarify principle of separability of obligations position, scope and exceptions by research in Shiite jurisprudents point of view and induction in Iranian civil code in compare with modern French civil code (In accordance with the reforms 2016).

Distribution of reparation in situations of shared responsibility has always been one of the main challenges of responsibility in international judicial proceedings. In all cases of shared responsibility, the question arises as to which entity is responsible and how responsibility should be distributed among several factors. The Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (2001) and the Draft Articles on Responsibility of International Organizations (2011) provide only limited guidance on the distribution of reparation. Likewise, the international jurisprudence has made brief references to the sharing of reparation among joint agents. Distribution of reparation to joint agents is done separately, taking into account the extent of the responsibility of each of the agents for causing harm and damage. Although, as defined by the International Law Commission, causality has no place among the constituent elements of an international wrongfulness, it is one of the main means of distributing compensation. Moreover, the analysis of the relationship between different instruments in different situations of shared responsibility can be found to have an effective role in the distribution of reparation.

The aim of the present study was to compare the kinematics of the foot-ankle complex and knee joints in women with flexible and rigid flatfeet during stance phase of walking. Twenty-nine young women (10 healthy, 10 with flexible flatfeet and 9 with rigid flatfeet) participated in this study. Motion analysis system and a force plate were used to collect research data. The results showed that ankle dorsiflexion was significantly lower in subjects with rigid flatfeet than the other groups. The amount of ankle eversion was significantly higher in subjects with rigid flatfeet than healthy group. Subjects with flexible flatfeet had significantly more knee valgus than other groups. According to the findings, it can be said that subjects with flexible flatfeet were exposed knee injuries as subjects with rigid flatfeet, so it seems necessary to perform treatment in subjects with flexible flatfeet.

Attachment liability is one of a set of obligations in which several officials are committed to the ‎domain without the common interest and representation of one another, and each of them is ‎attached to the other. Of this kind of liability, there is no liability in the laws of the name of the ‎name, but some examples can be found in different laws. This has made it possible, in the sharing ‎of this responsibility with the‏ ‏joint and several responsibility from the aspect of the debt issue ‎unit, to consider the liability of the attachment as merely a branch of the joint and several ‎responsibility and make their separation unjustified. In this article, by analyzing these ‎responsibilities, their commonalities and differences were stated and the distinction between ‎these two responsibilities was discovered. Also, in order to identify the basis of attachment ‎liability and considering its social‎ implications, we have examined this in two categories social ‎basis and legal and given that the lack of advice on this responsibility, we have outlined a number ‎of important and controversial cases to provide a clear basis.‎

On December 11, 2008, the United Nations adopted the “Convention on Contracts for the International Carriage of Goods Wholly or Partly by Sea”, more colloquially known as the “Rotterdam Rules” for the city which hosted the convention’s signing ceremony on September 23, 2009. Definitely, one of the advantages of Rotterdam Rules in comparison with the former rules is providing new innovation with new requirements of industry and commerce. Rotterdam Rules also by adopting the “Door to Door” mode for carriage of goods, promoting the Electronic Transport Record, embedding the “Volume Contracts” and providing “Joint and Several Liability” between carriers and performing parties have opened new horizons in the carriage of goods by sea. Rotterdam Rules in spite of avoiding the excesses of “Hamburg Rules” retained its strength points and has tried to eliminate the defects of “Hague Rules”. Therefore, it can be said that this convention has caused a balanced approach among the benefits of shippers and carriers for providing the general fortuity.

Among very important and influential issues involved in automatic liability are two issues of “combination of perpetrator and cause” and “combination of multiple causes” in committing loss. Article 526 of Islamic penal code covers the former while Articles 533 and 535 address the latter. However, there are two important criticism that can be raised against the legislator: first, the legislator fails to hold one stance in these articles; and second, provisions of the said articles are intrinsically problematic and questionable. Explaining the reasons of and providing a critical analysis of the change of stance of legislator in the said articles, this research provided a comparative study and suggested the view we deemed to be better in terms of quality of liability of multiple perpetrators of loss.

The era of information exchange is identified as the virtual and cyberspace and is also taken as the national sovereignty and territory of the countries including air, sea and land. Moreover, its protection, preservation and defense are of crucial significance and are also taken as the national security as well. Cyber controversial issues are basically divided into military and non-military sphere including building and promoting the cyber security of critical infrastructure, confronting the cyber threats as well as taking actions against espionage and spying operations and also attacks and defense. The military sphere is aimed to defend the infrastructure of military information technology as well as seizing the opportunities of cyberspaces for military purposes along with managing the cyber war. This study was an attempt to investigate cyber commanding strategies of different countries as well as the army of Islamic Republic of Iran and also aimed to identify its significance. For this purpose, the study was conducted through administering a questionnaire among population of 147 managers and experts affiliated to the cyber units of the Iranian army which were selected based on purposeful sampling method. The findings revealed that cyber threats of the armed forces is identified as a crucial phenomenon of national security and these threats will jeopardize the survival of national interests and also destroy the crucial infrastructures of the country and its army. Finally, in an attempt to defend the sensitive nets and cyber spaces of Iranian army ICT centers against increasing cyber threats, some practical suggestions are made for cyber approaches of the Iranian army including using cyber spaces to support operational capabilities in cyber arena as well as enhancing the rate of cooperation in crisis management in cyber warfare along with having permanent interactions among the other identical units of the armed forces of Islamic Republic of Iran

The study shows that the joint and several liabilities in business companies is contractual. The nature of this liability is stipulation in favor of third party. The history of legislation and the ideas of famous jurists in relation to effect of guarantee have created the ambiguity in the acceptance of the joint and several liabilities. Before the victory of the Islamic Revolution, the joint and several liabilities were expressed in several cases. After the victory of the Islamic Revolution, the legislator deleted some of the legal joint and several liabilities and in some cases restated it. By studying the legal joint and several liabilities, it was found that the legislator has accepted it. This acceptance shows that the contractual joint and several liabilities arent in contrast with the law and Sharia, because the objection of jurists is available in legal joint and several liabilities, too. So, business companies with contractual joint and several liabilities are justifiable in the law and jurisprudence.

The legislator of the Islamic republic of Iran predicts bankruptcy of several liable in Article 251 of Commercial Law. According to this article، several questions are left unanswered: Whether the legislator protects from the holder in condition that several liable were bankrupt or not? Whether the holder has priority or not? What is the position of the United State’s law in the presumption that several liable were bankrupt? The just protection from the holder in Iranian law is joint and several liability of the liable. In Iranian law، the holder has not priority. In the United State’s law، liability of the liable is not joint and several، and also the holder has not priority. The legislator does not accept the theory of provision in the Iranian and the United State’s law.

Discussion on the possibility of rational and analytical usage of Dhimma or responsibility to own multiple units, generally known as “joint and several liabilities" in legal literature, has long been a matter of consideration in Fiqh and legal circles. The debate sounds more significant when such an institution confronts with proved and rational obstacles - at the stages of proof and interpretation of Fiqh and legal evidence - and inevitably, the possible reasons would be interpreted differently. Even some believe that Shiites theory about the nature of the contractual guarantee is based on this discussion. Among the Shia scholars, three major approaches can be seen in this regard: using different interpretations, some support the possibility of cross joint alternative responsibilities; but some others do not accept the rational possibility of cross joint and several liabilities and try to rationally prove it in a Linear joint alternative responsibilities framework, and finally a third group accepts the possibility of both views as being rational. Interpretations provided by the lawyers sounds to be incomplete.