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

Matrimony is a sacred event and different affects and consequences arise from it. One of the purposes of people in marriage is having baby, a baby who is the plenipotentiary representative of his/her parents. However, sometimes husband is opposed to her wife pregnancy without any compelling reason. The question is whether childbearing is a right? And if the answer is positive, it is the right of both wife and husband or just one of them? We can understand from the context of jurists and Islamic scholars that childbearing is a right of both parents (not merely a right for man). As husband has the right of getting pregnant, the wife also has the right to become pregnant. According to La Zarar (no prejudice) rule and the assumption of husband’s misconduct, the wife would have the right to divorce if the right of wife (become pregnant) be ignored and man refuse to have a baby.

The extraordinary power invested in the judiciary necessitates a high standard of conduct, a commitment to upholding the law, and performing duties in an impartial manner. Appropriate behavior both within and outside the courtroom is a fundamental requirement of judicial duty. As judicial power increases, there is a corresponding need to adhere to clear ethical standards. When there are violations of laws and behavioral standards, accountability and disciplinary proceedings are essential. The Iranian legislator, through the "Law on Supervision of Judges' Behavior," seeks to regulate judges' conduct by monitoring professional behavior and imposing preventive and strict disciplinary sanctions. However, in many instances, there are still legal ambiguities that severely question the independence of judges. In the United States, at both the federal and state levels, criminal policy—considering higher-level documents and adherence to international standard principles—addresses the criminalization and disciplinary response to judicial misconduct. During the investigation of judicial misconduct, the principle of judicial independence is respected, and efforts are made to maintain public trust in the judiciary by ensuring transparency in proceedings and avoiding confidentiality in the trial phase. It is observed that U.S. criminal policy in dealing with allegations of misconduct by federal judges, especially Supreme Court judges (but not regional judges), tends to be lenient and overlook certain issues. However, at the state level, stricter oversight prevails, and more diverse responses are implemented. In many cases where the misconduct is minor, the matter is addressed informally and privately. This approach could be considered by Iranian legislators. Additionally, adopting disciplinary sanctions with a reconciliatory approach rather than merely a punitive one in dealing with offending judges could be a positive step forward.

Considering that most important legal systems have considered civil liability arising from land motor vehicles according to special laws and based on the theory of danger, the Iranian legal system has witnessed changes in this field for almost half a century until today. . Most of these developments are aimed at compensating the general victims of the victims who have been exposed to mechanical threats caused by these devices. Daily insurance scams have caused a lot of damage to insurance companies. Examining the pillars of insurance scams and ways to deal with it, insurance will help in the process of preventing the occurrence of these scams. By examining the elements of the crime of insurance fraud, it is found that the rules governing fraud in insurance fraud are also serious, and by resorting to the rules governing fraud, the provisions and conditions governing the crime of insurance fraud can be inferred. . It is worth mentioning that fraud in different types of insurance, including property insurance, persons, etc., is different, here we will examine fraud in car insurance. The important point is that in dealing with the above criminal phenomenon, only criminal measures are not effective. Rather, as a supplement, non-criminal measures can be used, such as increasing premiums and not concluding insurance contracts with perpetrators of such crimes.

In common law punitive damage is a renowned institution. The traditional approach is that punitive damages are unavailable for breach of contract. The dominant elements(basis) of this approach are non-recognizance the possibility of deterrence and punishment in contractual liability and that punitive damages and efficient breach are heterogeneous.In this article we consider and study that how could justify awarding punitive damages in contractual liability and is there any theoretical justification for this view in French and iran legal regime?we argue that in these legal regimes in addititional to reparation of damages, deterrence and punishment are desired objects.the authors argue that punitive damages are accommodated with defendant conduct.the conduct which has an element that necessitate punishment whether that misconduct accompany with breach of contract or a tortious act.