نمایندگی

In our country, a lawyer as a representative is listed under an establishment, and it is necessary to distinguish between the profession of legal representation and other ordinary representation. In western countries, these two are separated and the simultaneous use of two models of representation is prohibited. This research has been done by analytical-descriptive method. Its purpose is to compare the Islamic-Iranian model of advocacy with its western model. It was concluded that the common law of most western countries did not provide a definition of representation and left this important to the executive process. Therefore, at the place of execution, the difference between the two types of attorneys is evident and the simultaneous use of judicial and civil attorneys is prohibited. As a result, the possibility of lawyers abusing their powers has decreased, which is considered a preventive measure against crime. Influenced by the Islamic-Iranian model of our country, according to the respectable jurists, a definition of advocacy has been implemented, and there is no definition of the profession of advocacy in other legal sources. Therefore, in the first place, it is necessary to state the exact definition of legal representation and then separate their nature and legal effects from each other. The executive system of our country is not able to influence the subject's rights like the western executive system.

People’s participation in government is changing and it is evolving with progress of societies. People’s participation has different patterns. The pattern that is now commonplace is the representation model. But, this pattern has undergone extensive changes, with the emergence of a phenomenon called CrowdLaw. The pattern of CrowdLaw is based on presence of people in consultation and decision-making process. CrowdLaw has need to some infrastructures like “Transparency” and in the spread, it is due to the use of open innovation and Crowd-Sourced methods. CrowdLaw is taking shape on the Internet. It can delegated to the people, in CrowdLaw, finding the problems and drafting a law and amendment of it. In other words, people have the authority to initiate the law. For estimating how the crowdlaw has improvement in rulemaking, it should be known the nature of representation and establish a comparance. Therefore, the problem of this research is the comparison between representation and CrowdLaw to know its principals to design the native pattern of CrowdLaw in other opportunities. To this end, this study, with a combination of “case study” and “interpretive” methods, seeks to clarify the horizon of CrowdLaw and how it is involved in the legislative process. Finally, it can be localized by understanding the CrowdLaw. To have such an understanding, one must benefit from Islamic teachings such as shura and social responsibility. Also, gaining the gameplay capabilities of these platforms is a great help in localizing the use of the rules collected in the law.

The role of people in the formation of Islamic state based on the opinions of jurists in legitimizing to qualified Velayate-faghih according to the theory of election and appointment. The main structure of the difference between these two theory is based on the origin of sovereignty and the basis of the legitimacy of Velayat-e faqih, which differs from each of these views.In other words, the difference in the position of representation in these theories that the jurisprudent in this theory is the representative of God and the representative of the people is the basis of the difference in other works and the results of each of these views with the other.According to the findings of this research, it can be stated that the issue of Velayat-e faqih has long been mentioned among the Shi'a jurisprudents, and all the rulers of the Velayat-e faqih have explained it as the basis for the appointment by the Imams. Therefore, Imam Khomeini has been appointed by the Imam to the Velayat and has divine legitimacy, not the people, and the role of the people in this theory of efficiency. While in theory of election, the legitimacy of the velayat-e faqih is popular and the rights of the jurisprudents are limited by the people.