نشریه پژوهش های حقوقی میان رشته ای
پیاپی 7 (پاییز 1400)

Refraining to accomplish legal duties (omission) is always considered as one prevailing aspect of actus reus. Moreover, it may cause some highly controversial crimes in terms of both actus reus and mens rea. The present research investigates forms of interference and criminal liability of omission in Iran and England criminal laws.

A descriptive-analytical method was used to carry out this theoretical study. Research data were drawn from available documents, books, and articles using a library method.

In this research, the authenticity of texts, honesty, and confidentiality were carefully preserved.

Research data shed light on the criminalization basis of omission in Iran and England criminal laws. It has followed such principles as legal ethics, the principle of necessity, and expediency which are known as the social basis by which the legislator justifies criminalization of omission as criminal behavior.

The current study found that all criminal titles could be realized in crimes caused by omission by reviewing the elements and components of criminal descriptions. To put it simply, there is always the possibility of assistance, participation, and other criminal acts in crimes committed due to omission. This is also true for England's criminal law.

The purpose of the current study is to examine national building regulations, elaborate the duties and responsibilities of of design engineers, supervisors, executors according engineering laws and regulations.

The present research is applied research which employs descriptive-analytical methods for its purposes, the required data for which is collected from library archives.

In all stages of authoring the present study, the originality and integrity of the contents and texts were maintained.

The findings of the study indicated that for implementing civil and engineering rights in the construction sector, being primarily equipped with sufficient knowledge on engineering rights, technical principles of the building and practical commitment of employers and engineers are of paramount significance in graceful construction of buildings and guaranteeing the commitment of the aforementioned parties. In case civil and engineering rights are implemented such that the commitment between the parties, the timely implementation of construction projects and due payment of costs are maintained, the grounds for filing lawsuits before courts are mitigated.

One of the most important influential factors for implementing civil and engineering rights is establishing the proper culture and public education for legal knowledge, with the purpose of respecting the law and protecting civil rights. This can in turn lead to improved quality and increased useful life as it applies to construction and engineering law.

Some jurists use criterions like strict liability or fault as the philosophical basis of civil liability in economic paradigm. This article, aims to exploring relationship between these criterions and some epistemological, ethical and ontological debates; Or to be more precise, dependence of using these criterions on some main philosophical debates.

This research has been carried out in a library using descriptive-analytical research methods.

Ethical considerations related to writing texts and referring to sources was observed.

It has been argued that in this paradigm, Strict Liability, and Fault-based civil liability (1) do not imply free will, determinism or indeterminism, fatalism and they can be impartial to philosophical disputes over these philosophical themes. Then it has been argued that if we presuppose utilitarianism in ethics, that is, in a situation where ethics itself is based on cost-benefit calculations, then we will have the consistency between legal and moral responsibility using a common computational basis. However, we cannot inference an implication relationship in this context. We continued that in Economic paradigm, Strict Liability and Fault-based civil liability both imply non-Cognitivism.

Economic understanding of these theories has no effect on how they relate to philosophical controversies (on the concepts of causality).

The process of transferring the duty to pay blood money from the killer to his/her relatives is the aim of this article. We focus on the opinions of Imam Khomeini, Ayatollah Khoei, Saheb Javaher and Iranian statutory laws.

This research has been carried out in a library using descriptive-analytical research methods.
Ethical Considerations: Ethical considerations related to writing texts and referring to sources was observed.

The results of the research show that Saheb Javaher is the first jurist who did not accept the duty of relatives to pay blood money in unintentional homicide. After him, Ayatollah Khoei has reinforced this view. Imam Khomeini, however has a different view.

The authors belive that it is duty of relatives to pay blood money in unintentional homicide.

Corruption is possible in all government and non-government offices and institutions. However, because some institutions have a special sanctity and respect by citizens, the slightest corruption in them can cause frustration and discouragement of citizens. Among these departments are Charity Organizations. Due to the importance of this issue, in this study, anti-corruption strategies in this organization will be examined.

This research has been carried out in a library using descriptive-analytical research methods.

Ethical considerations related to writing texts and referring to sources was observed.

The results show that anti-corruption strategies in the Endowment and Charity Organization, like other organizations and government departments, are focused on the bottlenecks of corruption and can be used regardless of the institution in which the corruption occurred.

Anti-corruption strategies in Charity Organizations are collectively focused on three items: "Strategies for rulers and those in power", "Strategies for a healthy and efficient administrative system" and "Strategies for cultural status and governing norms".

Government crimes are ostensibly legal norms that clearly violate the fundamental rights of individuals, and the ineffectiveness of the law in preventing their occurrence necessitates the criminalization of such behaviors. Today, recognition of the emerging concept of state crime is an inevitable necessity for the protection of fundamental human rights, including the right to health of citizens; however, restrictions have prevented it from being realized and governments have been exempted from criminal liability for illegal behavior. Behaviors such as widespread violations of citizens 'right to health, unfair discrimination in the provision of adequate health care can be interpreted as illegal government health crimes, while citizens' right to health is enshrined in international instruments and domestic law. Emphasis has been placed on governments committed to ensuring the health of citizens. But with the advent of Covid-19, a crisis in the health of citizens has gripped governments, and managing this crisis has posed an unprecedented challenge for governments. Therefore, the leading article seeks to evaluate the actions of the then Iranian government in the crisis in the form of government crimes.

The research method in this article is descriptive-analytical, and the method of data collection is library, with reference to documents, books and articles.

In the present article, the originality of the texts, honesty and fidelity have been observed.

The findings of the study indicate mismanagement that can be considered as a clear example of government crimes; Behaviors that, although not explicitly criminalized despite their irreparable harm, do not invoke the law to prevent the government from being held criminally liable for committing illegal acts.

Today, the role of governments in protecting the fundamental rights of citizens in the emergence of pervasive crises is obvious and the emergence of Covid-19 can be considered one of the most important crises. But in order to manage this crisis, the implementation of inefficient policies, failure to provide adequate health care, are behaviors that, despite the obvious violation of citizens' right to health, its potential for public harm is not hidden from anyone, so it is an exaggeration. It is not as if we mention the victims of Covid-19 as victims of state crimes.

In transactions, two assumptions can be made, one is the assumption of knowledge about the principles of transactions and the other is the assumption of ignorance. In the field of transactions, the realm of knowledge and ignorance spans a wide range. However, whether in transactions it is based on the knowledge of the parties or in what cases ignorance is considered an excuse and what kind of ignorance can be considered, is of interest to this article. This article also seeks to investigate the role of ignorance in worships and criminal rulings.

The research method in this article is descriptive-analytical. Ethical Considerations: In the present article, the originality of the texts, honesty and fidelity have been observed.

The author's findings suggest that the issue of ignorance of the law is one of the rules of public order, and accepting it without good reason disturbs public order. However, jurists have discussed the issue of ignorance in three areas of worship, transactions and criminal liability in detail.

According to jurisprudents, ignorant worships are not correct and are punished, but in the case of forgetfulness about the ruling and the subject, most jurists have absolutely given a fatwa about the authenticity of his actions. In transactions, ignorance is generally accepted. In criminal law, ignorance also eliminates criminal responsibility and punishment.