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

Considering the cases before the courts, it is sometimes observed that there is a disagreement regarding the crime of demonstration and displaying a cold weapon; There are two different approach in this regard. Some believe that the abovementioned crime can be committed only in cases where the main purpose of the perpetrator is not achieved after that, while some believe that the crime In Article 617 of Islamic Penal Code, has been determined in an absolute manner and no exception is stated by the legislator in this regard, therefore the success or failure of the perpetrator in committing subsequent acts will not affect his punishment for committing the previous act. Considering the cases mentioned in this article and regardless of the correctness of the argument of regarding both opinions, it seems that the legislator in the draft of Article 617 of the Islamic Penal Code approved in 1375, significantly preserved public order and security have been considered. Therefore, according to the provisions of the article and the absence of exceptions by the legislator, it is important to realize that the offense is committed as soon as the perpetrators commit the above acts and the success of the perpetrators in inflicting further injuries on the plaintiff, will not affect the punishment of the offender for committing his previous acts. Consequently it can be said the orders issued by prosecutor and court is also considered incorrect.

The making of differences in international trade relations is not unusual; Therefore, in order to resolve disputes, "alternative dispute resolution methods"(ADRs) such as "Conciliation" should be considered before dealing with solutions that are in difficulty. For this reason, "International Commercial Conciliation Model Law" came into force in 2002 in "UNCITRAL". On the other hand, in Iran's law there is also an institution called "compromise" which is responsible for resolving disputes between the parties to the dispute. The question that arises in this regard is: "To what extent are the rules on Conciliation in international trade law consistent with the provisions on compromise in Iranian law?" Considering what has been discussed in this paper, the compromise institution in Iranian law and international trade law are largely in line with each other; and the only difference in its form can be seen in the need for a conciliator in international trade law. The research method of this research is descriptive-analytical using library studies and has been studied through books and articles available and related to the subject matter.

Ijtihadin the realm of jurisprudence and Shari‘a leads to difference of opinions. There is a disagreement whether dispute over juristic problems is lawful، for Shari‘a has a constant connection with individuals and social life. The result of dispute over Shari‘a would be conflict and separation in the social life and this makes differences of opinions in juristic problems unlawful. On the contrary، there is a perspective which on the one hand considers unity of opinions impossible because of differences of individuals، environments، and perceptions and on the other hand treats unity of opinions undesirable; hence، defends desirability of differences in opinions as to jurisprudence and precepts and considers it lawful. The latter relies on verses 78 and 79 of sura 21 which denote differences of two contemporary prophets in judging one particular case and، declaring differences of levels of knowledge as well as abilities of prophets، considers disagreement of judgments of prophets a practical pattern for social life; it treats scholarly disagreements of scholars in jurisprudence and precepts as the custom of scholars، comments on those two verses، and defends disagreements based on ijtihad – but negates disputes based on rebellion and mutiny.