نشریه مطالعات میان رشته ای فقه
پیاپی 16 (پاییز 1403)

In The international law have been emphasized on the peaceful solutions of in using of international waterways for no navigational purposes, that The most important concern of the dried ecoregions was, because interested states could get their real share from common waters. The border river of Hirmand was one of these cases that formed a significant part of the borders of Iran and Afghanistan. According to the historical formation of the eastern borders of Iran, the natural dried bed of the river has located in the territory of the region of Sistan, which ecologically played an essential role in the permanently of the environmental life of the fourtal lakes of Haroon and the livelihood of the natives of the region depended on continuous current of water till there that the two states concluded treaties in 1318 and 1352 and in despite obligations of afghan party as an upstream, it has repeatedly cut off the water flow and diverted stream inside to its territory, causing significant damages to Iran, which is against the principle of good faith in contemporary international law. The article investigated upon the descriptive-analytical method and treaties that the Afghan have imposed terrible drought in the Sistan.

Although, the contracts are binding, but in some occasions, due to some reasons, one of the parties may decide to cancel a contract. A cancellation of contract results in termination of a contract and its effects. The important point regarding the cancellation of a contract is that, if, after concluding a contract and before cancellation, a transferee take the possession of an object of transaction as a transferor, for example, if they sell an object of transaction to a third party, what may be the effects of cancellation of the contract on the alienable possession? Dose it results also in cancellation of the selling, or, principally, the transferee might not to do the transferring acts? And, as the consequence, the transaction is invalid? There is some disagreement among the lawyers and jurisprudents on the interpretations of Iranian law and Imamieh jurisprudence. Although, there is less disagreement on the interpretations of legal cancellations of contracts, and, principally, the jurisprudents and lawyers both believe that this cancellation has no effects on the validity of the selling. Then, the transferee should return the object of transaction to the transferor. But, on the contractual powers, including option of condition, there is disagreement between the lawyers and the jurisprudents. Some of them believe that in those options of conditions there is an implicit condition that one against whom an option is stipulated may not take possession of an object, including the possession of the object of a transaction, by violation of conditions, otherwise, the transaction is invalid. Some other believe that, regarding the mentioned options of conditions, unless it is expressly stipulated otherwise, one against whom an option is stipulated may not take possession of an object of transaction.

The basis of the criminalization of crimes against humanity is the protection of human rights and includes crimes that violate human values and international rules. The reason for its criminalization is the international criminal protection of interests. It is society and legal principles that are respected by the international community. In order to deal with it, international organizations have compiled the statute of the International Criminal Court so that there is an executive guarantee for the crimes committed. Most of the governments have criminalized these crimes in their criminal laws, however, it is not foreseen in the criminal laws of Myanmar, but the examples of crimes against humanity have been counted in it. In the criminal law of Iran, there is no independent criminalization in this case and the perpetrators of crimes against humanity are prosecuted according to the statute of the International Criminal Court, therefore this article seeks to examine crimes against humanity in the criminal law of Myanmar. And it is necessary to criminalize it by referring to jurisprudential rules, and the research method is descriptive and analytical and data gathering is also phishing. The method of carrying out the research was qualitative and the findings of the research indicate that in the law of Iran and Myanmar, crimes against humanity are not criminalized independently, but in Iranian law, examples include; Murder, rape, illegal detention, and torture have been criminalized and require an independent law based on jurisprudence.

The conflict of proofs is one of the most important issues, and even in relation to its position, there is a difference of opinion among usulists in the science of principles. This issue has been the focus of usulians in different historical periods. The purpose of the article is to examine the question of how Arush is faced with conflicting evidence from the point of view of famous late jurists. In the current research, the mentioned question has been investigated with descriptive analytical method and library tools. The results of the research show that the late period reached its peak of perfection with the appearance of Sheikh Ansari, Akhond Khorasani and other great scholars of Islamic jurisprudence and scientists, and accuracy and scrutiny in fundamental issues in this period is one of the advantages of this period compared to the previous period. And very broad fundamental issues and very formal and regular topics were raised. By referring to several main books, the researcher obtains the opinions and opinions of the majority of jurists. During this period, Sheikh Ansari removed Sunni principles from fiqh in general and actually created principles devoid of Sunni principles. However, the issues were completely raised in this period, even though their starting point had already been set. New perspectives were presented taking into account the new variables and the daily needs of the society, and as a result, it moved in the direction of adapting to the legislative environment and the new theories of Islamic government, including the theory of religious authority.

One of the examples of foreign exchange transactions common in the recent years in Iran is the future exchange transactions. Theses transactions basically are done in economic systems with high fluctuations of foreign exchange rate in their markets. The main base of profits from the mentioned transactions is these fluctuations. These transactions in systems under international sanctions may have direct effects on the market fluctuations. For the same reason, the government should regulate the mentioned transactions and how they are performed. In Iran, too, some sporadic regulations have been approved by some special institutions such as the central bank and its jurisprudential council and the high council of economic coordination to forbid future foreign exchange transactions. The mentioned transactions to be considered by two aspects: first, their legal credit; and, second, judicial courts’ approach to them. Using descriptive-analytical methods and library tools to gather data, the present research shows that future foreign exchange transactions from the jurisprudential standpoint face with challenges including prohibition of uncertainty and usurious transactions. In the judicial procedure, the mentioned transactions have attracted attentions as the tools for general criminal activities such as acquisition of illegitimate properties and causing disorder in the economic system.

Criminalization in the legal systems of Iran and the United States has taken an extreme or maximal form, and therefore the author in this article tries to investigate the various aspects of the maximization of criminal legislation in the legal systems of Iran and the United States. In today's era, many countries have faced the phenomenon of maximum criminalization. The damages caused by this problem in various dimensions have affected not only third world and developing countries, but also a country like America. Expressing the fact that this issue means criminalization. Today, maximumism has become one of the most important challenges of many countries, including Iran and the United States, and has forced many to analyze and research the issue. The study of the effect of this phenomenon has been the subject of many researches. This research is also from the angle of His vision has looked at the subject. The research method is descriptive and analytical.

In this article, we will examine the normative justification of the horizontal effect of fundamental human rights in private rights. Justification here means reasons that are neither practical nor instrumental; Rather, they are merely cited as reasons that are proposed as the intrinsic and inherent logic of private rights. In the traditional doctrine, what is usually cited as the reason for applying the horizontal effect of fundamental human rights is the constitution: the text of the constitution specifies where and how fundamental human rights should be applied in private law relations. This answer means that human fundamental rights are logically or normatively alien to private rights and are in a different logical and normative origin from private rights. In contrast to this prevailing thought, in this section we will discuss that, first of all, private rights existed before fundamental human rights, and secondly, fundamental human rights are part of the normative and inherent logic of private rights. This discussion was raised to describe and explain a special class of democratic rights, which includes all human rights, in addition to anti-discrimination rights and classic civil rights. If the mentioned argument is convincing, it can explain why the fundamental human rights as well as their horizontal effects can be applied in the field of transnational legal regimes and through national courts or international courts. In this article, we will refer to the descriptive analytical method to explain this issue.