جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه « امریکا » در نشریات گروه « فقه و حقوق »

America assassinated the martyr Major General Qassem Soleimani at Baghdad Airport on January 3, 2020. Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, one of the leaders of the Iraqi Popular Mobilization Forces, and ten other people were also martyred in this attack. The US Department of Defense announced that this attack was ordered by US President (Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Armed Forces) Donald Trump. The assassination of high-ranking military figures from Iran and Iraq is a clear example of the government's terrorist act, which is a clear violation of the rules of international law such as the right to life, prohibition of the use of force, respect for national sovereignty, and non-interference in the internal affairs of other countries. Also, by carrying out this act "without coordination with the US Senate," the Trump administration committed a violation of US national laws. In this article, we will discuss the legal methods that can be resorted to in order to prosecute the perpetrators of this crime and bring them to justice to receive their punishment. After studying and analyzing, we have found that it is possible to resort to national courts (Iranian, Iraqi, American) and international courts; however, resorting to each of these courts faces obstacles and problems that we will discuss in detail.

Criminalization in the legal systems of Iran and the United States has taken an extreme or maximal form, and therefore the author in this article tries to investigate the various aspects of the maximization of criminal legislation in the legal systems of Iran and the United States. In today's era, many countries have faced the phenomenon of maximum criminalization. The damages caused by this problem in various dimensions have affected not only third world and developing countries, but also a country like America. Expressing the fact that this issue means criminalization. Today, maximumism has become one of the most important challenges of many countries, including Iran and the United States, and has forced many to analyze and research the issue. The study of the effect of this phenomenon has been the subject of many researches. This research is also from the angle of His vision has looked at the subject. The research method is descriptive and analytical.

The awarding of damages as compensation for trademark infringement has increasingly gained importance in the modernized economies of the world. The calculation and assessment of damages resulting from trademark rights violations have always posed a challenge for both judicial courts and official experts, as well as for the owners of these rights in proving the causal link between the infringing act and the incurred damage. For this reason, some countries' laws have introduced the concept of nominal or statutory damages alongside actual damages. Generally, the benefit that the infringer gains from violating trademark rights exceeds the damage suffered by the rights holder. Consequently, in England, the trademark owner has the option to choose between receiving actual damages and the infringer's profits. However, with the increase in trademark infringements and the growth of counterfeit goods, courts in the United States have recognized that awarding punitive damages may serve as a necessary deterrent to protect the interests of trademark owners.

The civil responsibility of the doctor in Iranian and American law is based on the theory of fault. With the difference that according to Article 495 of the Islamic Civil Code, the fault of the doctor is assumed and he must prove his innocence. According to the Good Samaritan Laws, to remove the civil and criminal liability from the doctor, the mere act of good faith is sufficient, provided that he has not committed a gross fault, even if there are emergency conditions in the hospital environment or outside of that environment. According to Iran's laws - based on Article 509 of the Islamic Civil Code - including the implementation of the rule of beneficence towards the doctor and the loss of the guarantee from him, in addition to having good intentions, this means that he should not commit fault and aggression in practice. The mere act of good faith only causes his criminal liability (and not civil liability) to be removed. The prohibition of beneficence in citing harm to the benevolent doctor and the conventional proportionality between benevolent action and avoided harm are among the elements of benevolence.

Positive discrimination implies any action such as admission to universities, employment, public contracts, commercial loans, and the right to buy or sell land on the basis of membership in a particular group for the purpose of fostering greater equality. These actions go beyond anti-discrimination policy. Their existence may be a result of constitutional requirements, administrative laws and regulations - such as requirements for public contracts court orders or voluntary action. The goal of positive discrimination is to counter social behaviors that reproduce group inequality even in the absence of intentional discrimination. This descriptive-comparative study is intended to examine the experience of positive discrimination in higher education in the United States, India, and Iran. The paper will argue that positive discrimination programs in the field of higher education, regardless of the terms that are supposed to eliminate them over time, will create double discrimination.

One of the most important thematic studies in the field of political psychology studies is the study of the personality and political intelligence of leaders. The present study is an analysis of the personality of political leaders with emphasis on the role of mindfulness and political intelligence and has examined the political personality of one of the leaders of the United States and North Korea in this regard. The main question of the present study was how political intelligence and mindfulness influenced the decisions of the political leaders of the two countries (Trump) and North Korea (Kim)? In this descriptive-analytical study, the relationship between political intelligence and mindfulness with transformational leadership and its components in the personality context of leaders were analyzed. The results showed that leaders' personality traits play an important role in leadership style and their individual and social interactions. Based on the findings, political intelligence and mindfulness of leaders influenced by their political personality in the light of ways of influence, sources of power, individual adjustments and incompatibilities and identity values affect the decision-making and interests of political leaders of the US and North Korea. It has been a transition and it can be said that this concept has had an effective role on the relations between the two countries due to the complexity and challenges of the relations between the two countries, the United States and North Korea.

Islamophobia refers to fear, hatred or discrimination against the religion of Islam or Muslims, especially when viewed as a geopolitical force or source of terrorism. Many scholars see Islamophobia as a form of xenophobia or racism. The question we are looking for in this article is whether Islamophobia can be placed under the category of hate crimes. The findings of this research, which were conducted by descriptive-analytical method and by collecting information from library sources, indicate that Islamophobia is equivalent to racism and in other words, in the United States we are faced with a race called Muslim regardless of other components related to race. To combat this view, a regulation has been adopted to counter religious hate behavior.

Since the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, there have been significant changes in the direction of the development of basic human rights. However, despite the great progress, there are still countless gaps and defects, and there are disagreements among international actors for its implementation. One of the most important of them is the Imposing of unilateral economic sanctions. This type of sanctions is inherently a violation of human rights and a tool of negative imposition against the target country and brings irreparable consequences for innocent civilians in the target country. In addition, it leads to restrictions on access to food, disrupts the vital infrastructure of health and life, disrupts the national economy, and it will cause women and children to be deprived of their daily necessities. One of the most important effects of sanctions on countries that are under the pressure of all kinds of sanctions is the reduction of the right to enjoy living standards, that the main victims of this right are women, children and the elderly of every society, as a vulnerable group. In this research, the researchers will examine the behavior of the American government during the Obama and Trump presidency in imposing sanctions that violate the human rights of women and children, and will examine and study its effects on women, children, and the target society.

After the Cold War, the Security Council has widely used the tool of sanctions, referring to the Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter. The imposition of such sanctions in terms of violation of articles 1, 24 and 55 of the Charter and other human rights treaties is considered a violation of the jurisdiction and legal authority of this council and is invalid; and in terms of violation; The Security Council failed to fulfill its international obligations in the field of human rights, the causes of the international responsibility of this council and consequently of the United Nations will be realized. The study of the consequences of imposing sanctions in the target countries shows that the most suffering and damage of these restrictions was inflicted on ordinary people and human rights standards have been widely violated as a result of sanctions. In this article, using the descriptive-analytical method, we seek to investigate the effects of human rights violations of sanctions that have been unilaterally imposed on Iran.

monitoring of elections in each country is done in a special way; Based on the method and style of regionalization of the United States, which consists of many states, the method of holding a broad election such as the presidency in all states will not be in a specific way and in line with homogeneous policies. In America, special commissions supervise the elections. These committees operate under the supervision and guidance of the "Federal Election Commission" and according to the law of the Federal Election Commission, supervisory actions are mostly focused on advertising and election expenses, and even candidates' qualifications are not monitored.

The current research is documentary and library in terms of research tools and descriptive-analytical in terms of analysis method.

The partisan and factional interests of members of the state legislatures can leave a tremendous impact on the political fate of the entire United States people with electoral districting. Of course, drawing the boundaries of electoral districts is considered part of the authority of each state, and although in 32 of the 50 American states, this task is entrusted to the state legislatures, whose final approval is often subject to the approval of the state governor, but in the rest The states have become independent institutions responsible for this, although the output of their actions ultimately requires the approval of the state assembly, but it is a positive step to prevent the zoning guage.

Given the increasing numbers of people with disabilities around the world, the UN General Assembly on December 7 adopted the Resolution on Standard Equality of Opportunities for People with Disabilities. Working with people with disabilities and equal opportunities, raising awareness of people and people with disabilities about the rights, needs, abilities and potential of people with disabilities is a core part of this resolution. The purpose of the present study is a comparative study of positive discrimination in the employment of persons with disabilities in the legal system of Iran, US and India. Unfortunately, in Iran, neither in the Constitution nor in statutes, there is any principle or substance been explicitly and directly addressed to the issue of positive discrimination in the employment of persons with disabilities. The Indian legal system and the Supreme Court have taken strong steps to promote positive discrimination for the employment of people with disabilities. US federal law also requires the federal government to discriminate against people with disabilities. The adoption of the new law for the protection of the disabled, approved in 2017, is a necessary but insufficient step in the field of positive discrimination and employment of the disabled in Iran.

Iran has been under unilateral US sanctions for years, and the scope of these measures is increasing every day. From the seizure of Iranian property and assets to the threat of seizure of Iranian oil tankers shows the growing tensions. In this regard, the main purpose of this study is to examine US actions in imposing sanctions and seizing Iranian oil tankers from the perspective of international law.         

This is a qualitative and applied research in terms of purpose and in terms of collecting information by documentary method and studying international documents, sources related to the subject and the obtained information has been analyzed descriptively-analytically.   

The rule of judicial immunity The government has accepted exceptions following changes in the international legal system, including the exemption of tenure and the adoption of the doctrine of limited immunity. Regarding the imposition of unilateral sanctions, there is no explicit text in the Charter of the United Nations that states agree to exert pressure through sanctions in various fields, and therefore, these actions of the United States have no legitimacy. Regarding the US action in seizing Iran's export oil, it should be said that this measure lacks legitimacy in terms of the principle of equality of states, in terms of international rules of the law of the sea and in terms of the principle of protection of state property from seizure by domestic courts.

The bad faith caused by the lack of good faith of the western parties and especially the United States in the months after the implementation of the JCPOA and more concretely after the beginning of Trump's presidency, are in conflict with the good faith in the implementation of the international obligations of the JCPOA and considering According to Security Council Resolution 2231 on the necessity of full implementation of the JCPOA and refraining from any action that weakens this cooperation document, the statements of the US President and some actions taken by his team and the Congress of this country regarding the JCPOA, as the European Union and the countries Europeans and Russia also acknowledge it, it is considered to weaken this document and contrary to the spirit of JCPOA and the binding resolution 2231. The question of the present article is, what was the theoretical starting point of the difference in the sanctions diplomacy of the Trump and Obama administrations towards Iran from the perspective of international humanitarian law despite the country's commitment to the JCPOA obligations? The hypothesis of the article is that while the sanctions policy of the Obama administration was mostly based on the motive of making Iran commit to international norms, the main motive of the Trump administration is to advance the maximum interests of the United States regardless of international legal restrictions. From this point of view, the JCPOA has been considered an efficient agreement for the Obama administration and ineffective for the Trump administration. The hypothesis theoretically relies on two theories of realism and liberalism about the function of sanctions in international relations. This hypothesis will be analyzed in an analytical-explanatory manner and based on reliable data.

The institution of adoption and its governing regulations is one of the important issues that have been considered by policy makers and legislators. The purpose of this study is to investigate the nature of the legal system governing adoption in Iran and the United States.

This research is of theoretical type and the research method is descriptive-analytical and the method of data collection is library and has been done by referring to documents, books and articles.

The findings of the present study show that in the US legal system, the institution of adoption has been identified in four different situations. However, in the Iranian legal system, this institution is only predicted in a fixed state.

In order to organize this research, while observing the authenticity of the texts, honesty and fidelity have been observed.

The multiplicity of the nature of the adoption legal system prevails in the United States, but in contrast to the adoption system, the nature of Iran is uniform in nature. As a result, in cases of ambiguity, in the Iranian legal system, this ambiguity must be resolved in the light of the principles and rules governing the public law environment. And in the United States legal system, ambiguities, depending on what instance of the institution of adoption is being discussed, may be resolved in the light of the principles of public or private law.

The Tax Gap is the difference between the amount of tax that should, in theory, be paid to IRS, and what is actually paid. Tax related court cases extend the processing collection and delay tax certainty.An efficient tax IRS Adjudication can speed up the resolution of tax disputes and reduce delays and gap tax in collecting due to tax delays. Efficiency of the first stage of Tax Adjudication proceedings according to Article (238) of the Law on Direct Taxes and Article (29) of the Law on Value Added Tax resolve tax disputes of taxpayers and prevent the case from entering tax dispute to the Tax Courts.And The tax ceiling for the cases before entering the tax courts leads to the realization of maximum revenues and minimizing of the tax gap. However, the right to object, as the most important right of taxpayers, must be guaranteed at all stages of tax collection. The Court of Administrative Justice of Iran, as the supreme authority of administrative proceedings, concentrated on its main task, which is to control administrative rights and actions. This article seeks to consider some of the strategies, set out in it as a practical model by considering the reform of the tax system