جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه « reward » 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.

Reward is one of the legitimate contracts in the school of Islamic Jurisprudential that can be used as a basis for contracts in today's process. An analysis of the truth of Reward and its judgements suggests that new contracts in the field of services and supervising the actions and work of individuals, which are called anonymous contracts, can be interpreted as contracts of Reward. In this regard, the generalization of the judgement of Reward on emerging contracts is based on the characteristics that have been proposed by the jurists for Reward, and we can briefly mention some of them: Non-conditionality of knowledge to action and exchange, non-conditionality of determining the agent, non-contradiction of Reward with negation of negligence and also belonging of Reward to action and omission, possibility of coming together term and action, possibility of belonging of Reward to any kind of action and benefit, including commercial, industrial and service, etc. In this paper, among the new contracts in progress, four contracts were addressed that have received less attention in other researches, which are network marketing, oil contracts, CODE-SHARING and medical contracts. The result of the adaptations indicted that contracts can be concluded in the form of Reward contracts.

Fighting corruption is one of the most basic demands of the people for governance. In this regard, the issue of detecting and preventing corruption is important and is largely related to social, cultural and ... necessities. Although the common view among policymakers is a tendency to focus on oversight. However, the impossibility of the presence of inspectors in all situations that require supervision has made this method ineffective. In other legal systems, including the United States, there is a literature called "whistle-blowing" in which public observers hear the voice of a deviant organization and are rewarded in return. Therefore, the issue of whistling has become one of the main strategies of legislation and policy-making. The findings showed that despite the fact that the legislature in Iran uses this tool. However, a coherent literature has not been formed in this regard and in some cases, by introducing women's whistles as informants, it has caused a general reluctance to do so. In this article, in which the method of inference is analytical-descriptive, the principles of legitimacy and the nature of whistling in Imami jurisprudence, Iranian law, and with a brief look at the United States are examined.

As the public sector debt has increased over the past few decades, the importance of using the capacities of the private sector is noticed more than ever; However, operationalizing a public-private partnership contract requires an appropriate legal basis depending on the subject of the partnership and the form of contract. Although, in some cases, the legislator has pointed out the government’s duty, in general and temporarily, to make use of public-private partnership in Iran, the problem of choosing an appropriate form of such partnerships is still existing regardless of the existence of jurisprudential origins of these kind of contracts. Even though the totality of the partnership contracts refers to the partnership contract in jurisprudence, in some cases it moves away from partnership contract and approaches subjects such as persons’ rent and contract of reward (Ja'alah). Even if in the current Iranian legal system, there are opportunities for making use of a variety of civil partnership and service contracts for public-private participation, this research and its findings show that construction contracts, operation, transfer (BOT) are the most appropriate form for such partnerships.

Nature of Reward is one of the subjects on which there is disagreement in Imamiyah Jurisprudence and Law. Recognition of the legal nature of Reward is of significance in terms of the conditions of fulfillment and its consequences and rules. The purpose of this article is recognizing the nature of Reward in Imamieh Jurisprudence, Iranian law and law of the west. The Jurists and lawyers have expressed different views in this regard. In the Imamiyah Jurisprudence there is no separation between offer of reward to the public and offer of reward to the certain person and jurists have stated their opinions in general terms. In the Iranian Civil Code the nature of  reward is not clearly explained and the term of obligation has been employed in an absolute way for refering to its nature. According to jurisprudential and legal analyses, it seems that reward have various external examples that can be determined in each case according to its requirements in the form of contract or unilateral juridical act or common causality. In law of the west, offer of reward to a certain person is not disputed and its nature is considered to be contractual. What is controversial is the offer of reward to the public. Some legal systems have accepted the the contractual approach and others have adopted the reward as a unilateral promise in which there is no need for acceptance and knowledge of the rewarder is not required except for the case of an explicit stipulation in the contract.

Various views have been expressed in the analysis of the nature of Reward. In this paper, the two main views of the mutual contract and unilateral obligation nature of Reward have been aimed to explain by referring to a few points. The supporters of the Reward consider the agreement and acceptance of the worker as a condition for the realization of it. But, according to the view of jurisprudents -who chose the theory of being unilateral obligation of Reward - the acceptance of the worker does not have an effect on the offer (Ijab) of conductor and would not be considered as a pillar in this regard. These jurisprudents regarded being mutual contract of Reward would entail of ignoring the general rules of contracts. In return, some jurisprudents have also cited other ideas such as causation, interval between mutual contract and unilateral obligation, and being requirement of Reward. They believe that Reward is absolutely not a mutual contract or a unilateral obligation. In the midst of this difference of opinions, the present paper, investigating the nature of Reward, follows the theory of being requirement of Reward.

In Islamic jurisprudence, the term hukm-e irshadi designates a religious rule that is declaratory or advisory in nature, meaning that it only recommends what human reason can independently grasp about what is good and bad, advantageous or disadvantageous. Over and above to it, neither obeying it has a reward nor does violating it entail any punishments. The scholars of Ilm al-Usul have accepted this definition with little discrepancy. However, when it comes to the mechanism through which one distinguishes hukum-e irshadi from a binding (mawlawi) rule, the scholars are a bit polarized. The assumption is that these rules are not apparently different from other rules, not mentioning the fact that there is not a list of declaratory rules in jurisprudence. For this reason, some scholars have gone to say that the two types of rules (i.e. irshadi and mawlawi) are essentially different from each other. Thus, the irshadi rules are all declaratory in the sense that they are reporting something and that is the reason why obeying and disobeying them do not entail any reward and punishment, respectively. Some have reduced the domain of hukm-e irshadi to those areas in which the human mind is independent in distinguishing what is good and bad. Of these three approaches, the last claim reflects part of the criteria of a rule being declaratory. However, to cover all of the criteria, it is necessary that the thing about which one is advised should be generalized in terms of worldly and rational criteria. With that said, a declaratory rule, in all cases, notifies an individual of the advantages and disadvantages of the recommended or prohibited act which are perceivable by the human intellect.

The increase in the number of producers and manufacturers leads to various methods of attracting customers. One of the appropriate ways to attract customers is to provide them with post-sale support. To guarantee the quality of a product is one of the services according to which the seller is committed to change the problematic product. To analyze the legal aspects of guarantee makes it necessary to make guarantee in agreement with contracts. Analyzing guarantee according to contract and insurance، reward is presented and it is concluded that the autonomous legal nature of it seems most probable.

Marketing is the process of transferring goods from the producer to the consumer. Direct sale is a way of marketing in which individuals face to face with the purchaser sell their products and do not require any definite time or place for this task. Network marketing is a new kind of direct sale in which the individual gets rewards for direct sale of goods، as well as direct or indirect introducing of individuals. The present article seeks to define three foundations for network marketing the jurisprudential study of which enables one to issue the positive rule of the validity of the activity of network marketing and introduce network contracts with which one may undertake network marketing. Applying network marketing to nominate contracts، no room would be left for discussing network marketing within innominate contracts.

Some of judicial authorities and courts of justice in big cities are struggling with the phenomenon of brokerage and intermediary at the present time. It is the subject of the present study. In this article, the author suggests the synergic model of supply- demand for corrupt judicial services, to explain this phenomenon theoretically. First, the literature on judicial corruption is analyzed, and the policies and strategies used by different countries to control and prevent the emergence of judicial corruption are introduced. Then, the nature of brokerage and intermediary in judicial authorities is discussed. Next, different aspects of the problem of lobbying are reviewed using the Penal Code on lobbying against law and legal regulations and the same. Finally, after explaining different forms of related violations and crimes, the necessity to codify a comprehensive code on preventing and confronting this phenomenon is emphasized.