"Adl va Ensaf" Comparative Law Researches Quarterly

Abstract Since time immemorial, justice has been a very important concept and has been of interest to activists in the field of social sciences. This article tries to analyze the theory of John Rawls, a political philosopher of the 20th century, about justice and compare its content with the thought of Amartya Sen, a theorist and winner of the Nobel Prize in Economics (1998). ) to explain the new theory synthesized from the opinions of two philosophers. Therefore, by using the descriptive analytical method, the question has been raised that how is it possible to achieve justice based on fairness or ability? And by using the conceptual framework of justice of John Rawls and Amarthiasen, this hypothesis has been raised: Rawls and Sen views They are similar to utilitarianism, which sees its end in general welfare and happiness for the maximum society. But in their methodology, they are different and inconsistent regarding the realization of fair conditions. From Rawls' point of view, fairness is the principle of equality of fair opportunities, and from Amarthiasen's point of view, it means the existence of conditions that present different options for people to choose, and time selection means that a person has the right to choose between different options and will become vulnerable when the choices are limited. By understanding the concept of capability, the poor is not someone who has no income, but someone who cannot get out of poverty.

Abstract In legal relations, there are rules that underlie it and strengthen the foundation of justice. The no-harm rule is one of these basic rules, which is emphasized in Article 40 of the Constitution. The implication of this rule is that no one has the right to abuse their rights to the detriment of another. This rule, in addition to the Quranic, narrative and jurisprudential roots, is also based on the logic and rationality of human beings. In Western law, this rule is known as the abuse of rights, which is one of the principles restricting the freedom of individuals. In our civil and commercial laws, this rule has been mentioned many times and in different ways, and this rule is also the basis of civil liability law. But in criminal law, with the exception of a few laws that are merely verbal similarities to the rule, this issue has not been used, and this leads to many abuses by individuals. Cases such as usury and conversion of punishments and discounts and the principles of innocence and the passage of time, etc. are among the cases in which many abuses take place. The subject of this research is Iranian criminal law, which seeks to analyze and remind the relevant people in an analytical way, using library resources and work experiences.

Abstract In recent years, justice as a jurisprudential rule has been the subject of some jurisprudence scholars' efforts to leverage jurisprudence and move jurisprudence from isolation to efficiency and address the challenges of executing sentences. With a new look at justice and its application in different traditions of jurisprudence, they aim to build upon the jurisprudence of jurisprudential rules and to organize the inference of religious law based on it and to integrate this rule into the current methods of jurisprudence. The pervasive rules that overwhelm all the jurisprudence of the jurisprudence, and even to some people's opinion, can even overrule the verdicts! This paper proves that the criminal justice of the oppressor is effective in the process of ijtihad in such a way that the jurisprudent can use it as a means of measuring one's jurisprudence by reasoning one's jurisprudence. The purpose of the present study is justice and its validity in Imamiyyah jurisprudence. Justice is the issue of justice. That is why believers are obliged to observe the condition of justice in the selection of the Imam of the congregation as well as in the regulation of their religion and demands, the testimony and testimony of one another, and so on. In other words, the believers are obliged to follow the path. To live their life in all micro and macro, personal and social, worldly and worldly ways of justice and to avoid cruelty and cruelty,