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

In recent years, the frequent sight of vehicles parked in prohibited areas being towed to police impound lots by cranes has become commonplace on city streets. During this process, incidents may occur for which the law must provide answers, such as damage inflicted on the towed vehicle. The question which arises is who is responsible for compensating these damages? In this article, we use a library research method to examine this issue. After thorough analysis, it can be concluded that under certain conditions, the traffic police officer who ordered the vehicle tow may bear civil liability for the damages. Under other conditions, the crane operator may be held responsible. This study reviews the civil liability arising from vehicle towing by traffic police across different legal systems, including those of France, the United States, Germany, and Turkey. In all these cases, the government and executive agencies are held civilly liable for these actions, and affected individuals can pursue claims through the relevant legal procedures to obtain compensation. Principles of justice and the protection of citizens' rights in interactions with governmental actions and executive agencies are fundamental in all these legal systems. Individuals can defend their rights and interests through courts and judicial authorities and obtain the necessary compensation. Therefore, this review demonstrates that vehicle towing by traffic police is a significant issue addressed and protected in all legal systems, ensuring the rights and interests of all individuals involved.

Today, one of the foundations of power and the need for the legitimacy of governments is to respect the rights of citizens and the satisfaction of citizens. Because in today's world, citizens are the most important social pillars of different societies. The most important task of officials and statesmen, which must be done in order to strengthen and improve an efficient and effective society, is to create citizenship and create satisfaction in citizens by providing the necessary facilities, facilities and mechanisms for citizens so that they can benefit from their citizenship rights. And to be able to perform their citizenship duties in a proper way towards the local community and the city they live in. Because nowadays, one of the main duties of every government is to ensure the welfare of the citizens. Social welfare appears in various civil, economic, social, political, cultural axes, right to food, housing and clothing, etc. Creating social welfare can provide the satisfaction of citizens. Citizens feel satisfied in the light of having social welfare and enjoying social protections based on social laws such as respect, right to self-determination, freedom of speech and press, freedom of opinion and religion, social justice, social security and consider the government as a welfare government. known Therefore, since social well-being in any society is one of the most basic social needs that society members must enjoy and well-being creates security, a sense of peace and security and all-round satisfaction of citizens regarding the present and the future, hence Today, one of the main tasks of every government is to provide the welfare of the citizens, which is largely established by the governments with the formation of new welfare institutions. The research method in the present study is descriptive-analytical.

Government decisions can be reviewed and annulled in cases where they have a formal or substantive objection. Despite the lack of a single model for judicial oversight, the dynamism of legal systems in the face of current issues has led to the identification of other causes. Principles such as proportionality, non-discrimination, rationality, today are independent aspects of the judiciary that were not recognized in the first formulation. The following is Article 12 of the Law on the Organization and Procedure of the Court of Administrative Justice, which enumerates the aspects of dealing with objections to government approvals, but considering Article 173 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran, which considers the establishment of the Court to be the realization of people's rights It was not restricted to the aspects authorized in Article 12, and we will finally see that the judges, despite believing in the invalidity of the decrees, violated the rights of individuals; Face a deadlock of not finding the established direction. Article 12 mentions 'violation of the rights of individuals'. A phrase that has received less attention. In this article, by proposing the theory of 'violation of the rights of individuals' under the title of 'administrative human rights', we have tried to present this direction as an independent direction for annulment of resolutions that have in any way led to violation or deprivation of citizens' rights. To the 'rights of the nation' enshrined in the constitution. The research method is analytical.

This article provides a comparative analysis of the theories of Ayatollah Naser Makarem Shirazi and Ayatollah Abdullah Javadi Amoli regarding citizens' fundamental rights and the impact of these theories on the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The study explores the perspectives of these two prominent scholars on individual, social, cultural, and economic rights and examines their influence on various constitutional principles. Ayatollah Makarem Shirazi emphasizes social justice and human rights, focusing on the formulation of social and political rights, while Ayatollah Javadi Amoli, with a more philosophical approach, elucidates fundamental rights based on rational and religious principles. The article also investigates the similarities and differences between their theories, their impact on the post-Islamic Revolution legal system of Iran, and offers suggestions for improving citizens' fundamental rights in the Constitution.

Attention to the principles of restricting the rights and freedoms of citizens in society is one of the issues that play an important role in explaining the restriction of rights and freedoms of citizens by legal systems. In the meantime, paying attention to the self-interest of individuals in legislation is an approach that is called "paternalism" in the philosophy of law. The adoption of this theory expands the scope of criminalization and restriction of actions based solely on the "principle of harm". Given the existence of Article 40 of the Constitution, which states that the conditions for exercising the rights of individuals are "no harm to others" and "prohibition of encroachment on public interests", the question arises as to "What is the legal status of Iran?" The present study seeks to answer this question with an analytical-descriptive method and with library tools. Justification of legislation based on paternalism and the existence of examples in private law as well as criminal law, which seems to be able to justify their existence in the Iranian legal system based on this view, causes the determination of legislative criteria in the Iranian legal system beyond the principle of harm. To know.