جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه « Evidence » در نشریات گروه « علوم سیاسی »

The evaluation or validation of the evidence of the arbitration parties, considering the expansion of transactions and a huge amount of data, has a significant impact on determining the fate of conflict resolution and issuing fair votes. The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) and arbitration is a new approach, in order to better and accurately evaluate the documents of the parties to resolve the dispute. In this regard, some countries have started to establish rules and regulations in the field of artificial intelligence and arbitration. The purpose of this article is to investigate the place of artificial intelligence and its impact on the process of authentication of arbitration documents. This research proceeds with a descriptive-analytical approach and after analyzing the issue, it concludes that artificial intelligence tools directly and indirectly facilitate and accelerate the process of verifying evidence. It should be noted that, considering the ethical, legal, and technical challenges, human supervision is necessary to ensure the process of verifying the evidence.

This paper touches upon the intertwining of AI technology and criminal justice systems and assesses especially the issue of using AI as an evidence-generating mechanism in criminal trials. The paper revolves, in particular, around three focal points. Firstly, it sets the context for the following analysis and gives a short definition of AI. Secondly, it examines some thorny parameters of the evidentiary proceedings and focuses on the most important AI weaknesses that could jeopardize the smooth incorporation of AI in the criminal justice systems. Thirdly, it presents the ways in which AI could affect basic procedural rights of the defendant and concludes with some safety requirements and suggestions that could facilitate the transition to an AI-criminal-justice-era.

It is our right to keep various aspects of life hidden from others, and both the Shari'a and the law forbid spying on the work of others; But sometimes secrecy is not only not protected, but it is also a crime and punishable. Secrecy is not a crime in itself, but sometimes because we secretly endanger public order and security, the legislature has criminalized some forms of secrecy. The purpose of this study is to investigate Iran's criminal policy towards crimes based on secrecy with emphasis on the elimination or concealment of evidence and evidence of a crime. The method of compiling this research is descriptive-analytical. Findings indicate that the current and conventional criminal approach, given the growth and development of technology and the possibility of using it to conceal these crimes, is not comprehensive and sufficient and the criminal justice system in the process of detecting, prosecuting, and punishing perpetrators Crimes born of secrecy face hardship; Therefore, careful identification and investigation of such crimes is necessary due to the multiplicity of crimes and the difficulty of discovering, investigating and evaluating the evidence. Therefore, in the absence of such a policy, the legislature does not react to these major crimes, and the law needs to be amended in this regard, which can only be discovered and investigated through scrutiny and transparency in the constituent elements. It will be possible to punish these crimes.

Islamic jurisprudence in different periods is a manifestation of the Islamic Ummah's care for Sharia; A law that represents justice, mercy, and reform. Ways of proving the evidence as a protector of rights, the manifestation of mercy and effective tools, the realization of justice and one of the most common issues in implementation and the most widely used jurisprudential-legal issues are among the most important methods on which the proof of justice depends on justice. But martyrdom, like other Islamic rules and issues, has rules and conditions, one of which is that, if the testimony is proven, is it conclusive news that the ruler should rule according to it? Is number and justice a condition? What are the pillars of testimony? What are the terms and conditions of testimony? How many witnesses are there? Is the testimony of a witness with an oath acceptable? Another question is what will be the legitimacy of proving the testimony of witnesses or the testimony of a witness with an oath? Therefore, in the present article, which has been written with a descriptive-analytical approach, different dimensions of the subject of martyrdom and its rulings and conditions have been comparatively studied from the perspective of different religions of Islamic jurisprudence and by analyzing the opinions of jurists of five religions in this field The proof of martyrdom and its sub-issues have been studied and finally it has been concluded that the subject of martyrdom in Islam .

The main sources applicable to the International Court of Justice set forth in Article 38 of the Statute include treaties, custom and general legal principles and Subsidiary sources include judicial decisions and doctrine and fairness if agreed upon by the parties. Judicial decisions, as one of the sources of international law, can be applied by the Court in the issues raised. The practical issue is to explain precisely the status of the legal nature of judicial decisions in the jurisprudence of the Court. There are ambiguities about the role of judicial decisions among sources and especially in judicial procedure. This descriptive-analytical research seeks to find this role and position. The main question is whether the judicial decisions of the International Court of Justice are considered as an independent source of international law or not. The purpose of this study is to determine the function and status of judicial decisions in the jurisprudence of the Court. International Justice concluded that judicial decisions retain a minor role among the applicable sources in determining rights; In the justifiable causes of the verdict and the arguments of the parties, they have a justification function and in no way, like other sources, they are judged, but they are more useful in strengthening the meaning and logic of the issued verdicts.

In the Iranian law, the legal evidence system has been accepted in the legal proceeding, so that the evidence that the prosecutor must use to prove the dispute is cited in the Article 1258 of the Civil Code and Articles 248 and 257 of the Civil Procedure Code. In the British legal proceedings, unlike many other countries, oral evidence – such as testimony - is more common than written evidence. Compared to many other countries - including Iran - the issue of litigation based on the progressive judiciary system has created a more appropriate freedom for the judge to deal with claims and assess evidence of legality in legal proceedings. The question that arises in this study is that how is the evaluation of the evidence of the claims in Iranian and British law? If the method of obtaining the evidence is illegal, can the judge consider it in the overall assessment of the proceeding? In response, it can be said that the assessment of evidence in English law has more freedom, so that the evidence is not imposed on the judge and the judge can assess any type of evidence, while in the Iranian law, some evidence is imposed on the judge and he must inevitably make a verdict on the same grounds. In the case of illegality, the evidence can affect the general assessment of the judge of the matter considering the circumstances of the matter and the situation governing the issue, and in the event of a fault or mistake by the prosecutor, the judge will be liable to criminal, legal, and civil liability in assessing the evidence.

Good data as one of the most effective evidence for policy-making is able to remove policy barriers and provide policy reforms. However, many policy makers face barriers for using data to formulate policy. So, the aim of this study is to identify barriers and appropriate features of data for using in policy-making. In this regard, the barriers facing policy makers for using data in policy-making are identified by interview, and then appropriate features of data to overcome barriers are presented in three categories as dimensions, elements, and indicators by using framework analysis approach. The results show that the most important dimensions of data quality for using in policy-making are: availability, reliability, relevance, and presentation quality. Also, the most important elements of data quality for using in policy-making are: accessibility, timeliness, accuracy, consistency, integrity, independency, transparency fitness, and readability.

The relationship between research and policy making is one of great interest in the public policy field, especially since a large number of actors seek to influence the government (lobbyists, academic researchers, NGOs). These partnerships are not without difficulties, caused mainly by the many differences that remain between the worlds of researchers and policymakers. So, in addition to express the incompatibility aspects among the researchers and policy-makers, the barriers of interaction between the research and policy have been identified by documentary study. The results show these barriers can be summarized in four categories as: Ineffective communication among policy makers and researchers, non applicability of research in policy making, Lack of capacity to conduct policy research and Problems in the dissemination of research findings. Finally, recommendations for resolving these problems are presented that are useful for policy-makers and researchers.

“Fiqh council or Counciliary legal decision in deducing legal prescripts” is an issue which has been open to discussion in certain scientific circles. The council, which consists of a group of jurisprudents, is intended to deduce fiqhi or legal prescripts. In this article an attempt has been made to take the “fiqh council” as an “evidence” and explores all arguments which can support it. The council in question will be analyzed and scrutinized in this article in terms of varying views on the correction of evidence making offered by the scholars who are expert in the principles of fiqh.