Jurisprudential and legal effects of reluctance and urgency

In this research, two issues of reluctance and urgency have been explained using the sources of Shia jurisprudence and Iran's codified laws. For this purpose, things like the lexical and terminological definition of the two mentioned words, as well as jurisprudential reasons and their legal, punitive and criminal effects on the two scheming and distressed people have been briefly discussed and relevant opinions have been presented in each case. The basis of the difference between reluctance and necessity has been considered to be that since the pressure on makra is the result of imposing and threatening another person and this is not the case in emergency, then makra's discretion is incomplete and the person's right to choose is complete. Regarding the conditions for the realization of each and the difference between reluctance and urgency, he has reached the conclusion that the ultimate goal of civil responsibility is to compensate the loss suffered by an act without legal permission, and reluctance in criminal matters is under certain conditions. Among the total causes, the defendant will be held criminally responsible, and also the rule of the authority of the ruling steward has been proven. Urgency and necessity are also considered as a state and are among the causes of criminal liability.