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

As a supporter of individual and social rights, the judiciary has obligations to protect people's rights, which is within the legal jurisdiction of this branch. Part of the judiciary's obligations in this regard are carried out through the prosecutor. The public prosecutor is a judicial official who officially accuses people of committing a crime and prosecutes them in court. The purpose of this article is to examine the question of what duties and obligations does the prosecutor have in the legal system of Iran and the United States of America in the pursuit of public rights? The present article is theoretical and by using the descriptive-analytical method and in a library form, it has explained the tasks and actions of the prosecutor in the preservation of public rights and citizen's rights. The findings indicate that according to the Constitution of the Judiciary, and accordingly, the prosecutor and the related cyber authorities in this branch should guarantee public rights and deal with the factors that violate these rights in line with their duties. In fact, the feeling of justice and trust in the judicial system is provided to the people as a result of the judicial supervision of the provision and fulfillment of the rights of the citizens. In American law, the prosecutor has important duties in front of public law and civil rights, which must perform these duties fairly and impartially and seek to guarantee justice and the rights of individuals.

Many legal scholars consider the ultimate goal of public law to be the establishment of a rule of law state, which is a minimalist state limited to legal structures that are as depoliticized as possible. The emphasis of some thinkers on maximizing rights and minimizing politics in the state stems from a Kantian approach to the concept of the common good, as humans can be more equally accepted before the law, but this equality is largely distorted and compromised in the political sphere. The legal state state has manifested itself in various forms of thought, from ancient Greece to liberalism and even Islam, but its main origin can perhaps be traced back to the liberal tradition, as this tradition has paid more attention to limiting the powers of the state through law.Friedrich von Hayek, as a libertarian from the Austrian school, presents one of the most extreme theories of the rule of law state. He proposes a minimal state limited to judicial oversight, both over the people and over the state's own administrative actions, and denies the need to establish other state institutions, including the legislative branch. In this article, we will examine the fundamental principles of Hayek's thought in order to ultimately be able to criticize the result of these foundations, namely Hayek's conception of the rule of law state.

The concept of public rights is commonly understood as the rights of the general public. However, when scrutinized more closely, this notion becomes somewhat ambiguous, leading to questions and disagreements among legal doctrines and jurists. This ambiguity revolves around the precise definition of the term, its instances, and its scope, such as whether it pertains solely to criminal law or extends to non-criminal law. Examining the scope of public rights reveals numerous and sometimes conflicting interpretations. Legal and judicial opinions on the scope of public rights generally fall into two general yet conflicting approaches, namely narrow and broad. Given the divergent viewpoints, it is crucial to adopt a valid interpretive approach within the legal system to establish a systematic framework aimed at reaching an understanding. Objective consequentialism, as a normative-based interpretive method, serves as a valuable theoretical tool for evaluating these approaches. In this line, the present study sought to address the following research question: Which of the two approaches, narrow or broad, to the scope of public rights is deemed acceptable from the perspective of objective consequentialism?

Legal and judicial opinions concerning public rights can generally be categorized into two competing approaches. On one hand, there are viewpoints advocating for a narrow interpretation, which suggests limiting the scope of public rights in times of uncertainty. On the other hand, there are perspectives that advocate for a broader understanding of public rights, incorporating a wider range of interpretations and instances. Although there is no coherent and methodical discussion on this matter in legal literature thus far, various schools of legal interpretation have debated different methods, such as objective consequentialism. In objective consequentialism, the focus lies on discerning the purpose of the law, so the interpreter, whether a judge or a lawyer, seeks to deduce the purpose of the law from the text itself and other relevant sources. Subsequently, they interpret provisions of the law in light of the general purpose. In this method, justification for interpretation is grounded on the objective purpose behind establishing the rule. The purpose of the law can be inferred from the very text of the law, including its title, preamble, or relevant chapters. Furthermore, the purpose may be predestined or assumed, with implications being inferred through logical or judicious readings of the text of the law—based on the premise that the legislator is judicious. Therefore, it is assumed that the legislator has intended for legal provisions to have meaningful effects rather than being rendered null or futile. Objective consequentialism seeks to uncover the underlying purpose behind a given law or provision.

The present study relied on objective consequentialism, which is an interpretive method based on the normative ground, in order to evaluate the two approaches concerning the scope of pubic rights. The study aimed to address the following research question: Which of the two approaches, narrow or broad, to the scope of public rights is deemed acceptable from the perspective of objective consequentialism?

According to objective consequentialism, fostering a broad understanding of the concept of public rights while maintaining a systematic view of functions of the judiciary body can result in an appropriately balanced understanding aimed at claiming public rights. The present study synthesized the opinions sharing a common essence and overarching direction, discussing the existing legal approaches regarding the scope of public rights. Additionally, considering the principles of the Constitution, a hypothesis (called the conceptual approach derived from purposiveness) was formulated and tested about the distinction between the scope of public rights—as outlined in the Constitution—and the restoration of public rights. The scope of public rights can be either narrowed or expanded, considering the purpose of the law and of justice outlined in each instance, as well as the implications derived from a judicious interpretation of the law.

Public rights can be re-evaluated with an eye to the purpose of the law, hence interpreted as rights and interests arising from the objective goal of the law. In this light, the scope of public rights becomes meaningful considering the purpose of the law, the justice it guarantees in each instance, and the implications stemming from the judicious interpretation of the law. Therefore, there two central points here: rights (the conceptual standpoint) and the negation of oppression and injustice (the functional standpoint). From the conceptual standpoint, public rights extend to legal rights. Yet the functional standpoint would include those instances of rights that have been or are about to be unjustly taken away from their rightful owners, making it impossible for the beneficiaries (whether individuals or groups) to reclaim them.

The ominous phenomenon of poverty has always had destructive effects on society and is one of the major obstacles to the happiness of human societies. The Holy Quran has provided ways to solve this social scourge and has dealt with it with negative and positive methods. On the one hand, banning usury and prohibiting the reproduction of wealth, and on the other hand, by establishing important and influential social institutions, such as khums, zakat, loans, endowment, endowment, and advice to work and effort, in order to solve this scourge of burning women. has taken care Despite the fact that all Muslims agree on the sanctity of riba in Islam, there is no exact definition of riba among Muslims. In the past, the majority of Islamic scholars, like Christians, considered all kinds of interest on money as equivalent to usury, but today, most Islamic scholars consider riba not just any kind of interest, but equivalent to cruel interest. The subject of the research requires to be investigated at a deep level. therefore; The in-depth research plan of the subject has been investigated by means of a case study plan of library technology, due to the reference to the Holy Quran and authentic interpretations and documentary technology, and it has come to the conclusion that banning riba is one of the ways to deal with Poverty and support for the poor.

The present article seeks to analyze in an analytical way by referring to library sources and based on the methodology of legal knowledge, in addition to paying attention to the results of the efforts of jurists, the effect of the issue of chastity with the focus on the observance and non-observance of hijab by the mother in the matter of child custody. Especially for the girl, report on the legal aspect and explain its role in enjoying the condition of moral health of the mother who is responsible for custody and explain the relationship that he finds with titles such as justice, depravity and trustworthiness of the guardian in the issue of moral degeneration and deprivation of custody. Articles achievement indicates that, from the jurisprudential-legal aspect, a level of mother's hijab is effective in ensuring the child's moral health and the mother's possession of the necessary moral conditions in the matter of child custody, and it can play a role in his chastity under description of chastity. ; Even if his righteousness and non-debauchery cannot be considered a condition of custody. Based on this, if the non-observance of the mother's hijab is enough to put the chaste upbringing of the child in serious danger according to the prevailing Sharia and customs; He is no longer a guardian in the matter of custody of the child, and the continuation of such custody leads to harm to the child, and therefore custody can be taken away from him. It should be noted that despite the passage of more than half a century since the sexual revolution in the West and the occurrence of nudity pests in these societies, today we are witnessing efforts, especially by families, to treat the aforementioned complications.

The fracture between developed and developing states, emerged by unequal distribution of the riches of the earth in the last century, reflects the specifics of international development law. International development law is a means of regulating which allows  states to choose their political, social and economic organization within the legal framework of sovereign equality and independence, and takestep towards development. International development law has played a key role in shaping and strengthening main concepts of international law. Each of these concepts deals with the highest human values on its own. What is logically considered is that power in international community must be shifted in favor of justice. It is obvious that in some cases this movement has paved the way for the realization of such an ideal, and in other cases it stopped in the middle of the road due to the special structure of the international society or has changed its path to power again and failed to reach global solidarity. This paper focuses on clarifying the image of justice as a failed issue in international relations, then by considering the declaration of the right to development conclude that the international community is determined to center development on human being while making the content of this development evolve law according to the altering status of international society.

Since Epicurus is known as a philosopher who generally advocates hedonism, it is believed that he cannot have a political or social theory. Few traces of him have remained. The difficulty of researching about him increases when we want to go beyond the essence of his philosophy and discuss its tangible legal and social dimensions. Although the importance of Epicurus's philosophy is due to the fact that the study of the philosophy of this period in the post-Renaissance centuries, with the formation of utilitarian schools and subsequently public law and government theory, seems to prove this point. Epicurean philosophy, based on its approach to the philosophy of life and encouraging people to live a life away from suffering and by limiting themselves to less troublesome pleasures, also in the social field, calls people to stay away from the political field and define their own happiness, beyond the reach of the government. The Epicurean state is a small, minimal state formed under the contract of individuals not to harm them, and these institutions are made by human beings who pursue tangible goals.

Justice is a prevailing reality in all dimensions of human life, conceptualized in different fields of knowledge including jurisprudence. Jurisconsults have presented various definitions of justice, the most importance of which is the definition of justice as a second nature (malakih). The present study clarifies the definitions of justice provided in jurisprudence, and follows the hypothesis that none of these definitions truly capture the meaning of justice. Some of the definitions indicate and discover the existence of justice, and second nature cannot be accepted as a definition of justice either, due to some shortcomings. In fact, justice is an existential reality derived from Right (ḥaq), both of which are parts of innate human necessities and can be proven by reference to human nature. Performing the obligatory acts (vājibāt) and avoiding prohibited acts (muḥarramāt) leads to the realization of justice. It is not that justice is a second nature that emerges from performing obligatory acts and avoiding prohibited ones. This study is necessary, because elucidating the reality of jurisprudential justice yields scientific benefits in the least.

Following the genocide in Rwanda that killed one million people, the Rwandan government turned to Gacaca courts, which are rooted in the culture of all the people of Rwanda, in order to expedite the prosecution of those involved in this humanitarian catastrophe and reduce the prison population. In order to adapt these courts to the conditions of the crimes committed, the Rwandan government made several changes in these courts, which according to many, changed its traditional and informal nature and brought it closer to the criminal courts. This intermediate mechanism, in addition to having gains and advantages as an alternative judicial response, has also caused concern and criticism from a human rights perspective. The present article examines this intermediate mechanism and its positive and negative aspects from a human rights perspective.

Justice is one of the most common concepts in all disciplines and contemporary criminal justice systems. However, this common concept at the stage of implementation, in each particular discourse, is the subject of special controversies and arguments based on good and evil. The present study has chosen Laclau and Mouffe's approach for the critical, inclusive, and historical Features in analyzing these dualisms of discourse analysis. The results of the analysis show that the concept of justice as a central signifier of competing discourses has been influenced by unique political and social conditions, which has led to different dualisms in the representations of the pre-reform and post-reform era. Before 1997 cinematic courts have been represented in such a way as to counter the evil, which is an anti-Islamic element in this period, as an obstacle to justice. In this regard, the concept of crime and violation of justice has been patched up by the judicial system itself. After 1997, a social barrier, the patriarchal atmosphere, impedes achieving justice. In this period, good and evil are reduced to the dualities of men and women and In this regard, the function of the court is to reproduce the patriarchal atmosphere in a formal way And the concept of crime and violation of justice is linked to masculinity. As a result, post-revolutionary cinema criminal courts, under the influence of discursive constructions, have been incapable of achieving justice, and the expectation of justice has largely been introduced outside of the court.

The present study aims at examining the family laws in the field of judicial divorce, especially the one based on 'osr wa haraj principle in order to clarify its flaws and shortcomings. Most of the cases that are mentioned in the note of Article 1130 of the Civil Code as examples of 'osr wa haraj, besides the fact that they do not reach the level of such 'osr wa haraj making the continuation of life difficult for women, they cannot be considered as examples of 'osr wa haraj; It may be placed under another title such as mo'asherat bi ma'rouf. Also, mentioning these cases as examples of 'osr wa haraj is against the principle of the negation of 'osr wa haraj, and thus causes an increase in the number of divorces in the society. In family life, the husband must either fulfill all his rights and duties well or divorce the wife. A husband's inappropriate treatment of his wife and failure to fulfill his duties regarding her on the one hand, and not divorcing the wife on the other hand, is injustice against the wife. In this case, the ruler or judge issues a decree on the divorce of the woman on the basis of justice and the need to remove oppression and due to establishing justice in the society.

Justice is the main concern of philosophers and thinkers, has left its most important impact on the science of law. Along with the development of human societies from ancient times to the formation of modern governments, philosophers have offered various definitions of justice. The concept of justice is considered by Greek philosophers as the basis for the formation of this concept in the structure of political societies. Coinciding with the developments of the Middle Ages and the beginning of the Renaissance, law was mixed with another form of justice. Concepts such as just war led to the notion of justice as the most fundamental goal of law. Has enjoyed. In particular, this development has been well reflected in the distributional justice that governs state sovereignty. In this article, the concept of justice among philosophers and its developments from ancient times to the era of modern governments have been studied and concepts such as equality and justice have been considered as alternatives to justice.

Citizenship rights, culture and justice are among the concepts that are interrelated in a conceptual network. These three concepts state that everyone is responsible for their work and action, and this responsibility may be criminal or civil. Civil responsibility, as a general and comprehensive rule, governs natural and legal persons under public law and private law. The police, as one of the legal entities of public law, has legal duties and responsibilities, and the implementation of these responsibilities may in some cases lead to the violation of citizens' rights. This violation of rights will definitely lead to civil liability of the police in some cases. The present research has investigated the civil responsibility of police officers in a descriptive-analytical manner and in a library manner from the point of view of jurisprudence and law. The result of this research is that if the police commits a mistake that is beyond his control and because of this causes damage to persons (both real and legal), the relevant organization must compensate for the damage; even if the wrongful officer has committed a fault in performing his duty. However, considering the fault of the erring agent, the relevant organization on behalf of the government can demand damages from the erring agent and may even consider a disciplinary violation for him

While most research focuses on the issue of humanitarian aid from an ethical and not mandatory viewpoint, this paper seeks to study humanitarian aid from the perspective of Islamic. In the international human rights system, with the extensive interpretation of these rights and adopting a positive approach, the only obligation to accept humanitarian aid has been proven. From a different perspective, this research seeks to examine the duty to provide humanitarian aid from in Islamic jurisprudence. The paper argues that the religion of Islam  provides a positive approach to humanitarian aid. In this regard, the pre-Islamic principles of human dignity and justice and the Islamic obligation to preserve human life and the principle of “taliif al-qulub” (winning hearts) by using “zakat” (religious tax), prove the obligation to provide humanitarian aid to all people exposed to natural and unnatural disasters, especially to non-Muslims.

Social justice means the obligation of the state to provide the material resources of life for all people. According this conception, justice is a norm for the political and social institutions, not a virtue of an individual. On the other hand, Islamic thought has not been indifferent to social justice throughout its history. Based on this, rereading the theory of justice in Imamiia political jurisprudence and its comparison with the contemporary cotemporary of social justice is the main issue of this study. Does the implementation of jurisprudence guarantee the realization of social justice in its new conception or not? It will be argued that, it is possible to formulate justice in the political jurisprudence of the Imamiia in two dominant senses. Its first meaning refers to an individual description and considers practical commitment to Sharia as the criterion of justice. Another meaning for the realization of justice in society is the implementation of the social laws of Sharia. This conception is based on the theological view that Islamic rules are based on objective goods and are leading the human to his happiness. Therefore, the fulfillment of Sharia rules is considered the same as the fulfillment of justice. In the end, it will be shown that that justice as an individual virtue and reducing justice to the implementation of Sharia laws are not enough to realize social justice. However, it is possible to recognize the approaches and requirements within jurisprudence to establish the jurisprudential theory of social justice.

Despite the abundance of international environmental norms, for various reasons, such as their implementation conflict with the developmental concerns of countries or the lack of consensus at the global level regarding environmental hazards, these norms have not been effective. The GEO-6 report in 2019 states that without additional policies, the trends in environmental degradation are projected to continue at a rapid rate and neither the Sustainable Development Goal targets nor other internationally agreed environmental goals are expected to be achieved, including the set goals regarding climate change, biodiversity loss, water scarcity, excess nutrient run-off, land degradation and ocean acidification, and so on.  The usual procedure in legal research in such cases is to turn the audience's attention to the lack of a sufficient guarantee of these norms, the separation of domestic legal systems from the international, or the absence of necessary criminalization. Without intending to question these conventional legal researches, this essay has tried to take a different path to deal with the challenges related to the "efficacy” or “effectiveness” of such laws with a sociological approach. Generally, having in mind the link between society and law, which is expressed in some famous and proverbial sentences such as "where there is society, there is law (Ubi Societas ibi jus) ", reference to the society and providing a sociological analysis of individuals’ behavior and their reaction to the legal rules in domestic societies or the international community seems useful and even necessary. A sociological look at the factors of the underlying ineffectiveness of environmental norms brings forward theories about environmental sociology and social or economic justice, whose possible role and effects in international environmental law the current research aims to evaluate, with a descriptive-analytical approach and using library research.

Research Question(s):

An important question that we should seek to answer is why the mass of environmental norms are not as efficient as they should be, and governments, as the main members of the international community, have not shown much interest in employing and implementing them. The fact is that to increase the efficiency of legal norms, it is useful and even necessary to pay attention to the coordination between the rules and regulations and weigh them according to the standards of justice, rationality, social values, freedom, equality, etc. This is what we are trying to demonstrate through the concept of socialization of laws. In examining the effectiveness of laws, the formal legal binding of a rule is not taken into account alone, rather, some cases should be studied through a meta-analysis to analyze the individuals’ behavior towards these norms. the result of such analysis is the effective implementation of legal rules as much as possible.

Literature Review:

The current article deals with the efficacy of environmental norms in an interdisciplinary manner and it has not been yet researched and investigated to the extent of the authors' knowledge.

Although, the efficacy of legal norms is raised after the formation or the identification of them, by observing the executive effects of legal norms and their pathology after their creation or recognition, we pave the way for their possible revision and proposing a reform in the legal system. Therefore, the purpose of this article is not only to look at the establishment of the norms and to examine the effectiveness of environmental sociological theories, but it also examines the behavior of international actors, especially governments, concerning pre-established norms. In this way, the methodology of this research in some parts is “Intrasystem” although it is mostly “Intersystem”; because, beyond the international environmental law system, it considers the role of other regimes. As an Intersystem study, in the framework of the present topic, the researcher is allowed, after observing the degree of realization of the rules in social practice, to review the entire process before and after the formation of the rules until their implementation.

Currently, despite the adoption of numerous environmental norms, for various reasons, countries, in general, have not shown much approval towards the implementation of environmental obligations. Two important factors of the inefficacy of these norms are: 1) their conflict with governments’ developmental concerns and, 2)Lack of consensus and sufficient scientific knowledge at the global level.
through referring to some sociological theories, the following article seeks to find ways to strengthen environmental norms (at the stage of establishing these environmental norms) and to influence the behavior of governments towards environmental obligations (at the stage of implementing the mentioned norms).
This research hypothesizes that by opening the door of international environmental law to some sociological theories and distancing it from others, it would be possible to achieve more efficient and effective environmental norms.

Bioethics is an interdisciplinary approach that deals with ethical issues arising from the application of life sciences and technologies in human and non-human life. However, we often come across analyses and arguments of another nature, in the literature of this discipline. Although law and morality both are situated in the normative disciplines, they examine issues from different angles. Scholars of this field often, confusing “the moral” and “the legal”, use concepts such as moral rights. It could be shown that such kind of conceptual confusion leads to inconsistency in normative discussions on biosciences and technologies. A study of bio law and bioethics, while trying to delimit their boundaries, based on distinguishing features of each field, could prevent those conceptual confusions. In this research, we aim to examine differences between law and ethics, based on discussing four lines of “aim”, “scope”, “rule generation” and “sanction” and bringing in examples of bioethics problems. We then refer to a third kind of normative knowledge, which, has wrongfully entered the scope of bioethics. Ignoring the distinction between law and morality, especially in the legislation and adjudication processes, would amount to a breach of impartiality and inclination of law towards a particular moral outlook. Consequently, instead of bringing about a context for the coexistence of various ethical viewpoints, politics put pressure on those who believe in a different moral view. A system, in which certain ethical outlooks are accommodated while certain others are not, is undoubtedly far away from justice.