جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه "public benefit" در نشریات گروه "فقه و حقوق"

The purpose of this article is to examine the place of order and public interest in criminalization in Iranian jurisprudence and criminal law and European law. The present article is descriptive and analytical and has investigated the mentioned subject by using the library method. The results indicate that from the point of view of jurisprudence, expediency and public order, public security is one of the important foundations of criminalization. From the point of view of the subject law, social necessity and benefit, along with public order and security, is one of the most important bases of criminalization. In European law, the principle of harm, the prohibition of disturbing others, the principle of protecting the rights of the general public is the main basis of criminalization, which itself is the basis of order and public interest. The important and subtle difference between Iranian jurisprudence and criminal law and European law is that in Iranian jurisprudence and criminal law, the emphasis is on public order and expediency, but in the European Union, the emphasis is on public benefit. Public interest is one of the words that is ambiguous to a great extent and is very open to interpretation, but public interest generally includes benefit and public good. The vagueness and breadth of the concept of public interest sometimes causes maximum criminalization.

One of the important tasks of the Islamic state is Fair distribution of wealth. The anfal lands too, is one of the most important sources of public wealth and The policy about it was so important that led to The White Revolution in Pahlavi regime. But after the revolution, Lack of Precise policy and Update, to cause with Land seizures,privatization and even nationalize, These sources which must be at the disposal of all the people and increase public welfare, to the sources of private wealth, and Public law Ignore. So, with respect to Special concern Imam Khomeini and The supreme leader of the leadership in the Optimal management, this research aims In the light of the general policies, to study of The extent of criminal policy inaction in the Follow these policies. The finding of this research is that Although about management of anfal lands to correct diagnosis Constitutional experts, Constitutionalisation of structural In the context of Principle 45, but Constitutionalisation of intrinsic, was neglected. Among the reasons for this, Lack of single management, Lack of differential criminal policy, lack of attention to jurisprudence, including the prohibition of transferring them, and Performing plan of Cadastre and It also lacks the economic system Use of anfal lands Can be named.

Recognition of competent persons to initiate a claim regarding declaration of nullity of patent certificates is one of the most important and challenging issues in patent law. Two main questions may arise in this regard: The first question is who may be considered as a beneficiary in these lawsuits. The second question is whether it is necessary to establish the fact that a party is a beneficiary in order for him to file such lawsuits.According to the express wording of Article 18 of the Registration of Patent, Industrial Design and Trademark Act, approved in 2007, beneficiaries are allowed to file a lawsuit for declaration of nullity.In this regard, an in-depth analysis of the issue shows that the concept of the beneficiary in the lawsuit for declaration of nullity of the patent certificate is a broader concept than that of the beneficiary in the civil procedure;Since the benefit that is the basis of the filing of a lawsuit regarding the declaration of nullity of the patent certificate is not necessarily a private one, but that it may include a public benefit as well.Therefore, non-governmental organizations and consumers, subject to the establishment of a rational and logic benefit, may be considered as the beneficiaries of a lawsuit regarding the declaration of nullity of the patent certificate.Also, in some legal systems, all persons, even non-beneficiaries, have the authority to intiate this claim.In this article, we show that taking into account the necessities of patent rights, adopting such an approach is not recommended and acceptable.

The entry of foreign private individuals into the contract with the Administration is always accompanied by this concern that the Administration by using its instruments of governance, violates the terms of equality of the parties at the time of concluding the contract and will do such acts like the unilateral change and termination of the contract. To overcome this concern, the types of stabilization clauses in foreign investment contracts are inserted, which seek to preserve the terms of the contract in time of concluding and to prohibit the Administration from changing the terms after the conclusion of the contract. This article by using a descriptive and analytical method seeks to answer the correctness of the inclusion of stabilization clauses in foreign investment contracts in light of administrative rules and principles. Findings show that the inclusion of the conditions of stability in particular types of words, freezing, non-interference and non-compliance with the principle of rule of law, the principle of competence and the principle of equal alignment of public interest and public authority are in contrary with the administrative contracts and the principle of compatibility and non-violation of the stabilization clauses in terms of economic equilibrium with principles governing administrative contracts.