The present paper provides a philosophical explanation on the absolute types of rights according to their first divisions in the philosophy of rights. In the philosophy of right، rights can be divided into different types based on different parameters which include: 1. the origin of the formation of right; 2. the elements of right; 3. necessary concomitance of right and duty; and 4. transferability and non-transferability of right. In all these divisions، absolute right، i. e. the right unconditioned on a moral، legal، and political، etc. limitation، is divided. The aforementioned parameters validates twelve types of rights which respectively include moral and legal right، the right of God and non-God، authentic and consequential right، the right concomitant and non-concomitant with duty (that is، the right of claim، and otherwise.)، vindication-deserving right and non-vindication-deserving right، transferable and non-transferable right. It is obvious that some of these types are new.

The result of preserving the independence of dignity and human rights in society has caused right discourse is common at the present time. The right of Self-determination as the basis of many rights and freedoms requires in order that the one has power for Continuous monitoring and prosecution powers to limit it and guarantee the human rights and freedoms. Relation caused by the right of public oversight to power as many rights dispute. This different look requires the right of public oversight to power has been examined more. To determine the scope of necessary limitations of unnecessary restrictions. This would also make the content of right clear. In the present study component ruling on Hohfled’s bilateral relations and the elements of the right of public oversight to power will be analyzed. This attempt will be done to distinguish relations and rights and assignments. The result of this analysis shows that the analysis of legal relations and legal positions of claim-right and liberty-right can be used in analysis of right of public oversight to power.

Modern technology and biotechnology have provided the possibility of gamete and embryo donations to infertile couples. Consequently, one of the important questions that have arisen is that “Is there a right to know one’s biological parents?” To provide and answer this question, it is necessary, first, to determine, what one means by expressing the concept of “right”. Four meanings have been identified for the concept. They are right-claim, right-liberty, right-power and right-immunity. Right-claim and right-liberty as the strong and weak claims are applicable to the problem at hand. To choose between the two meanings requires putting forth a well-established justificatory theory of rights. Rights are to protect the very humanity of human beings. This has been a basis for two basic values of human dignity and moral agency. Not knowing one’s biological roots does not put in danger one’s humanity or the two mentioned values. Therefore, we may only defend a right-liberty of knowing one’s biological parents; a right that does not require the state and society to be active in making individuals know their biological parents. Nevertheless, in exceptional cases where the lack of that knowledge of the biological roots does endanger one’s personhood and humanity, the weak claim can turn into a strong one.

Reproduction is one of the basic abilities of human beings. This is often realized in a natural way، though in certain cases new methods and technologies provide infertile couples with the opportunity to realize their wish to have children. In recent years، the term “right to reproduction” has emerged، and sometimes emphasis is placed on the obligation of governments to satisfy this right. However، it seems that the ambiguity of the aforementioned term may create serious problems in our understanding of the subject matter and، in consequence، affect the manner in which it is handled in the society. In this paper، in addition to discussing the concept of rights، it is argued that the right to reproduction may be embodied both by a claim right and a liberty right، even though the latter is only a justifiable and acceptable way of representing the right to reproduction. Therefore، this right entails the freedom to bear children and to pursue provision of the requirements، including utilizing ART. As in the case of other human rights، this should be in balance and proportion with public interests، in such a way that in particular circumstances، such as problematic population situations، it may be protected or prevented by the government.

The pandemic of coronavirus in 2019-20 influenced different aspects of human beings' lives such as education, business, economy, culture, medical care, and consequently their fundamental thoughts were the subjects to be revised. Philosophy of criminal justice was not an exception. Since many inmates escaped from multi jails in Iran in this period, the philosophy of law faced the heated widespread debates on the right of internee to get out and the right of the government to confront with them as a citizen or enemy. The question was this: due to the fear of the Coronavirus and the death, if the prisoners have the right to flee and if the government has the right to oppose them. If yes, what are the foundations of their rights? The paper scrutinizes these issues in the light of Thomas Hobbes's political philosophy because he insisted on the right of government on the one hand and the criminal's rights to resist punishment on the other hand. Finally, the paper concludes that the prisoners have the right to run away in the corona pandemic situation, but their rights should be interpreted in the meaning of right/privilege, not right/claim; and governments have the right to oppose them in the meaning of right/power.

Objection of the administrative justice conception does not occur independently of the minds of percepts; therefore, this is the objectivity of a cognitive product which enables the object of the identifier to be in conjunction with its subject and is studied in the contractual context. A review of the administrative justice theory in the contractual context, based on institutionalized methodology, is similar to John Rawls, theory of justice, requires the consideration of three components of public interest, right and need as the aspects of administrative justice in the administrative law system. The public interest is a two-dimensional concept; the first aspect concerns the actions and decisions of a kind of government and public authority which often made through the regulation and statute of law. The second one is judicial review on such acts which are the supervisions of administrative courts on the interest of government and individual benefits. Therefore, the conflict between individual benefits and public interests in this aspect of administrative justice is more prominent. The concept of administrative justice on the right is determined in formal and substance dimensions. Administrative procedure and procedural code are the means of guaranteeing the right to respect the formal right. Obtaining case decisions, as well as investigating public’s claims to the actions and decisions of the authorities, are fundamentally the types of formal right. The third dimension of administrative justice is needed that appears in the right-claim and legitimate expectations in the legal system.

The main focus of this article is on the relationship between the substantive right and the lawsuit that is filed to assert and prove it. Nevertheless, theconnection between rights and disputes or litigation is so strong, andsometimes complex, that it is impossible to imagine one without the other.The overlap and dependence of rights and disputes is like the embodimentof a two-sided coin. Each side of the coin finds meaning next to the other.However, thisrelationship will have important theoretical and practicalresults. Whether the acceptance or non-acceptance of the lawsuit, the legalelements of the lawsuit, the division of types of lawsuits, the jurisdiction ofthe courts and sometimes the outcome of the lawsuit, depend on thesubstantive right of origin of the lawsuit. This article tries to examine andanalyze this relationship and overlap of rights and litigation and its resultsin Iranian law and other country.

Consumer right has totally appeared at postmodern law as a constitutional right and even as a legal principle. Therefore, the consumer right has moderated the sanctity of freedom of contract and its constitutional value as a general principle of law. Waiving theoretical discussions, we are to study actually the decline of freedom of contract and the rise of consumer right in the statutes and the courts decisions particularly in two important aspects of the consumer right: compulsory contracts and illegality of discrimination.

The Right of God is one of the key concepts in Islamic jurisprudence and it is the direct or indirect foundation of all the rules of Islam. This study has not only proven this mentioned fact but has also shown that the “Right” in that phrase has different meanings from “The right of human” phrase; one of them is factual and the other one is metaphorical .These two words are not even literally equivalent; their owners are essentially and fundamentally dual; this has changed the nature of their rights fundamentally. Also this evolution has resulted in grave differences and these differences have separated these two types of “Rights” from one other. The separation is such deep that it cannot be ignored and hence these two words, apart from their distinct instances, cannot be considered as synonyms; thus there is not any theoretical solution unless we consider one of them as factual and the other one as metaphorical. In the second step the study has argued that if the word “right” collocates with God (ALLAH), it is a metaphor and if it collocates with “human” (ALNA: S), it is factual. Furthermore, it has been argued that since “right “stems from need, shortness, and weakness, the right must be useful for its owner and its non-compliance must make him suffer and finally deprivation of any right must be potentially possible; this possibility is the evidence of the weakness of its owner in protecting his right and because of these three reasons, God has not the position of possession of right, so he has not any right legally. At last, it has been proven that because these two rights have different meanings, origins and interpretations, they are not synonyms and, therefore, it is impossible to generalize their rules to each other. These rules and principles cannot be considered in Islamic jurisprudence rules as “The rights of God”. It is 1. 2. clear that since god does not have any rights and the phrase of “right of god” is a metaphor, in spite of correctness or wrongfulness of this argument, a concept that does not have any external manifestation and cannot be imagined in a mind, determination of its character is illogical. This article deals with negative logic before proving that the right of god is a metaphor.