A comparative study of the principle of equality in the enjoyment of social security benefits for women.

International organizations and institutions related to the field of labor and social security, inspired by the basic principles outlined in international public documents, have addressed the “principle of equality” in numerous documents.The principle of equality is one of the underlying principles of social security rights alongside the principles of universality, comprehensiveness and competence, which emphasize the equal entitlement of all citizens of society to the benefits of social security, irrespective of one’s ethnicity, citizenship, race, religion or gender. In the meantime, the effect of gender on the benefits of social security is considerable. The major challenge in this area is mainly due to two different views on the “legal bases” of enjoying (un) equal social security benefits. The formal equality-based approach that emerges in unionist ideas emphasizes the need for equal laws and equality between men and women to enjoy these benefits, but only because of the absolute equality between men and women. Considering their needs and situations will lead to the intensification of existing discrimination because of the unequal position of men and women in society, legal systems with respect to differences and justice-centered agendas sometimes provide only some support for one of the two sexes and for equality of opportunity and opportunity and effort. It is about justice.

The present study, by analyzing international documents and protocols and reviewing domestic regulations, seeks to answer the question of how far Iranian social security regulations have been able to achieve gender equality in the benefits of social insurance in line with the inter-system Internationalization.To this end, it first deals with the legal position of this principle in the international system and then seeks to identify the legal gaps in the field by examining domestic law.

The analysis of the principle of equality in many international documents and conventions shows that “equality in the enjoyment of social security benefits” is considered as one of the prominent examples of “equality between men and women” in working conditions in these documents and the organization between the International Labor Organization (ILO), as the largest international body in this field, has given special attention to this issue in a number of its Conventions and Recommendations.A review of the benefits sought in the social insurance sector shows that, despite all the efforts made to achieve the principle of equality in the Iranian social security system and the frequent reform of existing laws, there are numerous instances of gender inequality in the benefits of social insurance. It sometimes appears to be explicitly stated by the legislature in legal texts, and sometimes in a context of social inequality that arises out of a lack of attention to the distinction between the concept of ‘social security rights’ and ‘charitable giving’. Family “on the one hand and influence” traditional views on women’s economic roles and civil rights “to” social security rights “by others.According to this interpretation, a woman’s economic dependence on her husband is by default considered a principle, and the legislator accordingly has advocated for the benefits of the dependent. Therefore, in most cases the family members did not consider the insured woman under her care.While the inadequacy of family law rules as one of the instruments of private law in the establishment of economic justice has prompted the attention of legal systems to the instruments of public law, one of these is the use of social security systems based on the concepts, such as vesting. The territory and its meaning are quite different from the charitable duty of family law.

Nowadays, with the increasing growth of employed women, the generalization of being subordinate to all women in the family is incorrect, and it is not possible to document the above interpretations of the deprivation of family members of a working woman who paid equally while working for a premium.  In line with this same conceptual distinction between public law and private law charitable giving, which despite the wife’s non-charitable obligation to marry completely under the private law, the insured spouse is entitled to a survivor’s pension. His wife is based on the concept of custody in the context of public law.Therefore, since social security rights are designed primarily to address the functional deficiencies of civil rights and to protect today’s nuclear family members who have previously enjoyed broad family protection, and with a view to social security rights, Humanity and Human Dignity, Human beings, regardless of their gender, can exploit the wide range of public law capabilities to reduce the inequalities resulting from the outdated social-economic system.Finally, given the present status of women in society and the labor market, the transformation of the family structure and the evolution of women’s role in the institution, and also with regard to the interpretation of Article 26 of the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Article 9 of the Social and Cultural Economic Covenant, as well as the Protocol 111 Regarding non-discrimination in the employment, employment and accession of Iran to these conventions and the necessity of harmonizing domestic laws and regulations in the field with the aforementioned documents, revision and amendment of relevant laws containing gender inequalities appear to be necessary and recommended. In cases where the difference between men and women in the benefits to women is related to their gender (Physical and physiology of women (such as the benefits of pregnancy), positive discrimination should be considered, and in cases where discrimination based on women’s gender and lack of consideration for the existential philosophy benefits from the benefits of social security and its separation of concepts from concepts. It is the rights of the family (such as not having a spouse who is receiving benefits as a major insured member) to achieve full equality.Ethical considerationsContribution of authorsAll authors have contributed to the paper.Financial ResourcesThere is no direct financial support from any entity or organization for the publication of this article.Conflict of interestThis article does not overlap with other published works by the authors.Following the principles of research ethicsIn this article all rights related to research ethics are respected..