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

With the increasing dependence of countries to provide their most basic needs from maritime trade, the number of vessels and shipping lines increased, and this affected the growth of the number of vessels that suffered accidents such as collisions or fires in the sea. For this reason, the will of the international community was to create an international legal system in order to encourage as many vessels as possible to help each other in emergency situations with the aim of reducing the damages caused by maritime threats. This will Ended with the ratification of the Brussels Convention in 1910. In 1989, it ended with the ratification of the London Convention, according to which maritime rescue operations became the focus of attention. The purpose of presenting the present research is to answer the question of what are the positions of internal law and international law regarding the implementation or refusal of maritime rescue operations and the international legal system as a whole governing the allocation and payment of rewards resulting from the implementation of these operations? In this research, the authors used the descriptive-analytical method and in some cases the comparative method. The general result of the research, while pointing to the mandatory nature of maritime rescue and rescue operations by the commanders of vessels, emphasizes the point that the reward for carrying out these dangerous operations is subject to several indicators and Iran's maritime law is largely in line with the provisions of the Brussels Convention.

The institutionalization of the culture of helping a person in danger needs strong foundations so that it can be based on them permanently and permanently. Refusal to help a person in danger is against jurisprudence and legal as well as moral and religious standards and according to the single article of the penal law Refusal to help the injured, abandoning this common duty is criminalized based on various bases and according to the rule of "Qa'ida al-Ta'azir Lekol Muharram" it is necessary to punish those who help. A person is required to save another's life, he asks the question, what are the most important bases and sources that consider the ruling on the obligation to help necessary? Refusal to help a person in danger is based on various legal bases, including social cooperation, respect for the right to life. Naturally, utilitarian thoughts, the will of governments and social motives originate.From the foundations of jurisprudence, it is possible to refer to the jurisprudential rules of "aiding wrongdoing", "law of harm", "rule of al-Ta'zir for all Muharram" and enjoining what is good and forbidding what is evil. It is also possible to refer to the verse "Innallah Ya'amru bi'al-adl al-ihsan" , ihsan in its literal sense is also considered as one of the most important jurisprudential sources of the need to help another person. The findings of the research show the place of aid and relief and the importance and necessity of helping a distressed person in jurisprudence. Since jurisprudence is considered the most important legal source, therefore, the criminalization of this case in a single article is fed from the jurisprudential source.

The concern of Islamic jurisprudence to save and treat human lives is not unknown to anyone, but the extent of concern of jurisprudence to save and treat animals and the permissibility of spending Beyt al-Māl (public treasury) in this regard is questionable. Using a descriptive-analytical method, this study by virtue of jurisprudence sources, referring to written documents, and based on valid and jurisprudential evidence from the perspective of the two major sects (of Shīʻa and Sunnī)has studied saving the life of an animal, the realm of rescue, and the use of public treasury in preserving, treating, and rescuing animals. Studies showed that it is obligatory to save the life of a respectable animal. Agreed certitude in the realm of animal rescue, includes domestic animals with financial value and the animal that is at the disposal of humans. But in the current era, not saving most of the wild animals which are used for scientific and research purposes, for the preservation of natural wildlife, or for other legal intended interests, is considered a waste of property. Even the impurity of disrespectful animals does not prevent them from being saved. Also, it is obligatory to preserve endangered animals and it is forbidden to slaughter them even for eating. Establishment of animal protection institutions, medical services for animals, combating animal abuse, training and maintenance of rescue animals, etc. are allowed to spent from the public treasury expenditures, but in some cases, they must be spent from the public treasury.

It is difficult to discern the religious and legal duty to save the lives of those trapped or to save the lives of rescuers in dangerous situations that seriously threaten the life or physical health of the rescuers. This research has reviewed the reasons and jurisprudential documents in a descriptive-analytical method and concluded different rulings by rereading the evidence of venturous search and rescue in different situations. Rescue and treatment in the case of equality of lives are not obligatory, because both of the lives must be saved. It is not obligatory, according to the necessity of the Ḥadīth (“News” or “Story”) of “prohibition of detriment (Arabic: لا ضرر, Ḥadīth of harm)” and the generalization of harmful worships and food to the situation of physical harm, on the savior to suffer the harm in the absence of protective equipment for the purpose of treating and repel the harm from others. However, according to the absoluteness of the proofs of search and rescue, preference (Arabic: رججان, Rujḥān) and recommendation (Arabic: استحباب, Istiḥbāb) were proved in these conditions. It is rejected to refer to the Ḥadīth of “No Infectiousness (Arabic: لا عدوی)” in denying the contagion of disease and staying in the environment of the outbreak of the contagious disease. However, the rescuers in the field of medicine and nursing, in addition to having knowledge, expertise and equipment, according to the commitment, should provide treatment as much as possible as secondary necessity. However, it is not possible to sentence to the liability of a leaver of rescue in case of failing (abandoning) to rescue in these circumstances, although the leaver has committed a sin.

International treaties are a kind of obligation of the parties that is the responsibility of the contracting parties. These contracts are sometimes financial and commercial and sometimes other than that. If an international agreement is concluded between an Islamic state that has a legitimate government and illegitimate governments, whether Islamic or non-Islamic, on a financial issue, there will be doubts. These contracts sometimes form financial agreements and sometimes intergovernmental transactions, both of which face jurisprudential challenges. The status of illegitimate state ownership of public property, especially Anfal, the illegitimate use of funds received by illegitimate governments and the consequent validity of donations to the obligor, etc. are among the challenges that have arisen in this type of obligation. In this research, an attempt is made to examine the mentioned challenges and to Terminated contractand the necessity of fulfilling international agreements. Explaining the meaning of contributions to sin and examining the rule of expediency of public facilitation and rescue are among the cases researched in this article.

International treaties are a kind of obligation of the parties that is the responsibility of the contracting parties. These contracts are sometimes financial and commercial and sometimes other than that. If an international agreement is concluded between an Islamic state that has a legitimate government and illegitimate governments, whether Islamic or non-Islamic, on a financial issue, there will be doubts. These contracts sometimes form financial agreements and sometimes intergovernmental transactions, both of which face jurisprudential challenges. The status of illegitimate state ownership of public property, especially Anfal, the illegitimate use of funds received by illegitimate governments and the consequent validity of donations to the obligor, etc. are among the challenges that have arisen in this type of obligation. In this research, an attempt is made to examine the mentioned challenges and to Terminated contractand the necessity of fulfilling international agreements. Explaining the meaning of contributions to sin and examining the rule of expediency of public facilitation and rescue are among the cases researched in this article.

To rescue persons in peril is one of the best acts that in addition to ethics, Islam also emphasizes too much on it. The Holy Quran and sayings of Imams are full of commands to assist each other. Shiite scholars have also considered it mainly in the form of some traditional assumptions, for example "the feeding of those who are in distress". In these hypotheses, they have purported requirements of the duty to rescue another in peril in Shiite jurisprudence. The opinion of most jurisconsults is that saving the lives of others in peril is obligatory. However, most of them have not indicated to the remedies of failing to rescue. In the meantime, some contemporary jurists refused the criminal responsibility, while few of them believed in civil responsibility. This article will survey the opinions of Shia' scholars about responsibilities for failing to rescue another in peril. Furthermore, the Islamic Penal Code of 2013 will be studied from this perspective.