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

The purpose of this research is to provide a partial epistemology of the effects of social networks on divergence of people's tolerance threshold in the atmosphere of anti-security disturbances. Through the present research paper, we try to explain the subject with a descriptive and analytical approach by analyzing data through documentary and library research methodology. Through this research we will be searching for a logical answer to these questions: what are the effective factors in the emergence of the situation of divergence of the social and political tolerance threshold of the people? and, how their actions could be addressed in the form of crimes against public security could be discussed and explained? In explaining the answer, the research findings guide us as follows: Based on the approaches of criminal psychology and the important principles of general criminal law, there should be a difference between emotional protesters and organized and purposeful opponents of governments with a correct understanding of the crisis and its management. In this state of social turmoil, the role of the media as doubling factors in aggravating the social crises and crimes against public security, as the enemy's executive arm, is truly undeniable. As a result, it is necessary to employ a cultural approach in dealing with the ordinary protesters while considering them as reformers and sympathizers and differentiating them with the organized agents and also to take into consideration a third, and of course the main, factor which account for the main part and liability of such turbulences who have to be held liable proportionate to their share before the judicial system.

Since “obvious crimes”, the subject of article 45 of the code of criminal procedure is just presented by examples and there is not any specific criterion for it, the officer cannot use that definition as a default principle in suspicious cases. Thus, on one hand, with reference to the application of privacy in verbal arguments, Imam Khomeini’s fatwa in his 8-article command, and by scrutinizing the content of articles 56 and 57, the default principle, in dealing with obvious crimes that are suspected to be contrary to the public safety and security, is not to be pursued and not to be reported. On the other hand, these crimes, either based on the criterion of “necessitating being public” are not considered obvious or based on the criterion of “visibility” in all places, are considered obvious but the law of obvious crimes will not apply to them. Therefore, the agents’ acts will be illegal and will be subject to acquiring evidence through illegal means.

Background and Goal: 

The two concepts of rights and Expedient are among the concepts that dominate the political, ethical, legal, and social issues of most countries. However, inconsistency between the requirements for guaranteeing personal rights and the promotion of public interest in vehicle checkpoints leads to the emergence of a degree of tension and conflict between these rights and those Expedients. In this paper, theoretical perspectives and the approaches of international human rights instruments studied in order to strike a balance between citizens' freedom of movement and social security.

In this research, through descriptive-analytical method, in accordance with the International Human Rights Document, citizens' freedom of movement studied in vehicle checkpoints.

findings of the study indicate that international human rights instruments, with respect to human dignity and the need to respect their right to freedom of movement, in urgent cases of social and maintenance of the interests of society, restrict and suspend this right. In this regard, Article 29 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 12 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Articles 9 and 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights are described. Prevention of crime, public Security of the Society and protection of the rights and freedoms of others are among these reasons.

A rational approach in balancing citizen's freedom of movement and public safety of society is the theory of primacy of balance as a convergence that allows the suspension of the right to freedom of movement of citizens, if necessary, to preserve the security of society temporarily.

The discovery and focusing on different advantages of application of nuclear energy do not mean to neglect the power of this type of energy to develop and expand activities that violate the safety and security of the community and its followers. Among these behaviors is nuclear blackmail that along with the threat of using the destructive power of nuclear energy, the illegal demands of individuals are asked to enforce. In this respect, England and Wales' penal system is one of the few systems around the world that have independently reacted to the commission of nuclear blackmail. Thus, both terrorist and non-terrorist dimensions of nuclear blackmail are separately criminalized. Contrary to England and Wales' penal system, the legislator of Iran has not yet paid attention to criminalize nuclear blackmail. In this regard, the purpose of this research is to study and analyze the penal laws of Iran and England and Wales against nuclear blackmail and to suggest a proper criminal strategy in related the beforementioned behavior.

Although the sensitive task of security establishment is entrusted to the law enforcement agencies by the citizens, in emergency situations they could undertake this essential role. Subsection (1) of Article 45 of the Criminal procedure is an obvious example of citizen participation in the formation of public safety. Accordingly, citizens would assume the law officers task in arresting suspects who have committed crimes that are punishable by death penalty, life imprisonment, amputation and intentional bodily harms with half of the full blood price, Tazir grade Three and above, if they are committed the way that is referred to as witnessed. Therefore, every individual is entitled to apprehend wrongdoers. Of course, this kind of legislation is not far from criticism and ambiguity, because the legislator failed to make clear the legal terms of necessary prerequisites before, during and after the arrest. This could give rise to the deprivation of civil liberties, irregularities and undue interference in privacy. The aim of this writing is to investigate the frameworks of necessary conditions that must be followed in these procedures. Theoretical and comparative studies suggest that despite of the establishment of these institutions in the Iranian legal system, necessary rules and procedures in protecting rights of citizens and suspects are ambiguous.

Public order is a concept widely used in legal studies. This concept seems apparently simple and easy to understand, yet, it is actually difficult and hard to grasp; in the sense that lawyers and, as a consequence, legislators always emphasize its protection, and stand against any factor disturbing it through asking the help of official or administrative, legal, and punitive methods. In spite of this, more elaborately, since in any legal system public order is firmly linked with the fundamental values ​​and sources of law, it is a completely situation-based and time-based concept. For this reason, the recognition of this concept in Iranian legal system, which is closely related to the concepts and rules of Islamic fiqh, depends on the conceptual understanding of the principle of safeguarding the system. Indeed, although public order has entered into the legal literature and legal system of Iran,  through the French legal system, especially Article 6 of the civil law of that country, it should be considered that the origin and structure of its application has fundamental differences with the Islamic principles; therefore, in answering the question that “ What are the differences between the origin and structure of the application of the concept of public order and that of the concept of" system”, the researcher of the present study believes that although both concepts are derived from social requirements, due to the difference in fundamental values ​​and principles of their citation and application, they have some major differences. Descriptive-analytic method is used in this research

One of the controversial issues in the area of Human Rights is “Emergency Theory”. According to the emergency theory, exercising certain rights in crisis situations may harm public order and security; so the government will have no choice but temporary derogation from certain citizens’ rights. Such act draws attention: First public order and security take priority over individual rights, and second, the way of justification of derogation from human rights based on the threats to public order and security in emergency situations. Basically, such theory may lead to abuse of power and tyranny which results in individuals rights violation. This paper examines the approaches of emergency theory adherents in order to establish a convincing basis to justify derogation from individual rights in emergency situations; it also determines frameworks and limits of state’s authority in this area.

In Imamyya jurisprudence, Muharaba (fighting; hostility) refers to the use of weapons for scaring people. In Sunni jurisprudence, some define Muharaba as banditry and the creation of insecurity on roads and some others define it as the creation of insecurity, fear, corruption and murder on earth by weapons, including chemical ones. In Quranic verses on Muharaba as well as in textual arguments by Sunni jurisprudents, there is no statement that makes Muharaba conditional on the use of weapons. There are also references in Islamic Hadiths narrated by Imams that refute the dependence of Muharaba on the use of weapons. Apparently, the main condition for the realization of Muharaba is the presence of force, violence and disturbing the public security. However, there are references to the use of weapons in some arguments, and it is justified as a dominant and obvious instance of Muharaba insofar as it involves violence.

The Administrative police, known as a function for securing public order, represent a double conflictual face. Regarding Freedoms, the notion may be understood as restrictive as well as supportive by providing an appropriate context for the exercise of the constitutional rights and freedoms through securing public order. In French liberal society, accepting that freedom with no order would lead to anarchy, the judicial procedure plays a significant role in defining public order and consequently the frame in which the powers of police should be exercised. Nowadays, there’s no debate in accepting public security, public health, and public tranquility as traditional elements of public order, which can provoke the Administration’s responsibility in case of police deficiency. In recent years, a sort of order based on values is appeared. Incarnated in human dignity, the immaterial order allows police to interfere for saving public morality in case of special circumstances.

According to the close relations between criminal issues and public security and order in one hand and different opinions in Islamic Law in the most of criminal matters on the other hand، adopting the proper approach by the legislator has been greatly taken into consideration. Wise choice of Fatwa (religious doctrines) which provide public security in the provisions of retaliation in the new penal code by the legislator is clearly visible and obvious. This essay tried to express some appearances of legislator’s approach such as: criminalization of killing a person who is supposed to be killed according to the law (deserving death)، criminal protection of victims of murder، acceptance of blood money by avenger of the blood without the murderer’s consent، developing the guarantees of debts to treasury for prevention of its misuse by criminals، criminalization of killing the murderer by avenger of the blood without the court permission، and the considering the killing by mistake in victim’s personality as murder. These aspects may show increase of importance of public security by the legislator. It also increases the hope among the law scholars that preference of Islamic law opinions providing the public security by legislator is accepted as a general method which can be taken into account during the enactment of other criminal provisions.