نشریه حقوق و مطالعات سیاسی
سال چهارم شماره 4 (زمستان 1403)

Criminalization can be called a process by which the legislator, taking into account the basic norms and values of the society and relying on his accepted theoretical foundations, prohibits the current act or omission and imposes a guarantee of criminal execution for it. Based on this, criminalization is a posteriori thing and based on infrastructure sciences such as the philosophy of law, political philosophy and social sciences. In other words, criminalization is based on the theoretical foundations accepted by the government or political power. According to the concept of criminalization and considering its foundations and principles, it can be said that the process of criminalization is a scientific and logical process that follows its own principles and methods. The existence of a basis for the criminalization of an act is not enough, and the symmetry of the bases and principles of the criminalization of a behavior is what gives the criminal protection a scientific and logical face. In the absence of explicit or implicit criteria for decisions related to criminalization, the scope of criminal behavior has expanded, until the criminal justice system cannot provide any rational justification for criminalization. Since riots and crimes against security have led to disturbances in the country's public order, criminalization and prevention of such crimes seem important. Therefore, the purpose of this research was to criminalize and prevent riots and crimes against security in Iran's criminal system. Therefore, according to the descriptive-analytical research method and using library tools and research in Iran's criminal laws, criminal and non-criminal prevention and theories related to criminology of disturbances and street riots were examined.

Interim order and demand enforcement are two precautionary measures in the Civil Procedure Code that are envisaged to prevent the violation of the rights of the parties to the dispute and facilitate the execution of the future judgment. These two institutions are similar in aspects, including that both are temporarily implemented by submitting a request and issuing an order by the court and have the same litigation costs. However, they also have fundamental differences: an interim order is issued only in urgent cases, while demand enforcement can also be issued without urgency; an interim order may include the seizure of property, the performance of an act, or the prohibition of the performance of an act, while demand enforcement is limited to the seizure of property only.

If, after the enforcement of the demand enforcement or interim order, the court rules in favor of the defendant in the main lawsuit and the plaintiff fails to prove his legitimacy, the defendant will have the right to demand compensation for damages resulting from the precautionary measures from the plaintiff. In such cases, the defendant is responsible for proving the occurrence of damage and its amount. The type of security adopted in a temporary order depends on the court's discretion and may include cash, securities, or other similar items. While in the case of securing a claim, the type of security is specifically and necessarily limited to cash. Another difference between these two institutions is related to the legal deadlines and the manner of filing the main lawsuit in connection with securing a claim and a temporary order. In particular, in the case of securing a claim, the defendant can claim damages from the plaintiff without observing the procedural procedures. This is especially important in cases where the need for immediate securing of the defendant's rights is felt. These differences and specific characteristics of each of the institutions for securing a claim and a temporary order emphasize the importance and special position of these measures in the legal system.

The rescission condition is one of the clauses that is sometimes included in contracts by mutual agreement of the parties, stipulating that if either party regrets the concluded transaction, they must pay a specified amount to the other party. In applying the rescission condition in contracts, the parties do not specify a specific duration. This condition does not align with any of the types of options provided in civil law, and the legislator has not clearly defined a specific approach regarding this matter, leading to differing opinions and a lack of consensus in existing practices. The concept of condition is a key topic in jurisprudence, and understanding it accurately is crucial for analyzing related legal rulings. A condition refers to a future event that the parties consider to have legal effects. In legal principles, a condition is any factor whose existence is essential for the realization of another matter. In legal and jurisprudential terminology, this term signifies a general obligation that can exist within a contract or independently.The option condition is unanimously accepted among jurists of both Sunni and Shia schools, based on consensus and tradition. In Iranian law, the option condition is determined by mutual agreement of the parties; otherwise, according to Article 401 of the Civil Code, both the option condition and the contract are void. Iranian courts do not have a unified approach regarding one of the applications of the option condition, namely the condition of withdrawal or rescission of the transaction. Some view this as rendering both the condition and contract void, while others consider the condition void but uphold the contract's validity. Additionally, some believe that this condition does not constitute an option but rather represents a form of compensation aimed at reinforcing the transaction.

The principle of minimal criminal law is a fundamental concept in criminal justice that emphasizes limiting criminal intervention to essential cases. This principle is rooted in human rights and the preservation of individual freedoms, aiming to reduce the use of punitive measures for human behaviors that can be addressed through non-criminal solutions. Theoretically, it is based on moral, legal, and functional foundations. From a moral perspective, criminal intervention is justified only when necessary to protect public order and collective interests. Legally, this principle ensures the protection of fundamental rights and prevents unjustified exercise of power by governing institutions. In practical terms, the principle has a significant impact on criminal policy and justice systems. Legislators should avoid over-criminalization, focusing solely on acts that are socially harmful and intolerable. In the judicial process, judges must refrain from imposing excessive or unnecessary penalties and prioritize alternative measures such as mediation and non-custodial sanctions whenever possible. Ultimately, the principle of minimal criminal law not only reduces the costs of the justice system but also promotes social order and criminal justice by focusing on rehabilitation and prevention. It serves as an effective guide for advancing toward a more humane and efficient justice system.

Feminism, as a social and legal theory, has undergone many changes in American law and international law since its inception in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. In American law, feminism initially focused on the fight for women's rights, especially the right to vote and equal rights in the workplace. In the following decades, the theory of feminism expanded to concepts such as gender equality in the fields of education, employment, reproductive rights, and combating structural discrimination. From the 1970s onward, the second and third waves of feminism focused on intersectional theories that considered factors such as race, social class, and sexual orientation in addition to gender.In the field of international law, the theory of feminism initially mainly paid attention to women's rights within the framework of international conventions and treaties. In this context, the efforts made in order to identify and protect the rights of women in war, reproductive rights, and combating gender violence were the main issues. From the 1990s onwards, intersectional feminism entered international law and, by making changes to traditional approaches, examined issues such as decolonization, migration, and human rights from a gender perspective.In sum, the evolution of the theory of feminism in American law and international law has continuously moved towards the development of an intersectional and inclusive understanding of gender equality and social justice.

Criminal responsibility refers to an individual's obligation to be accountable for criminal acts, requiring the person to be sane, mature, and acting voluntarily at the time of committing the crime. Claims of mental disorders can lead to reduced sentences or acquittal of the accused. Insanity is recognized as a barrier to criminal responsibility, but many other mental disorders do not fall into this category. This research examines the conditions for establishing insanity in the legal systems of Iran and the United States, demonstrating that in both systems, insanity means a complete lack of will or power of discernment. Additionally, according to Article 149 of the Islamic Penal Code of Iran and U.S. laws, severe mental retardation can also negate criminal responsibility. To fairly implement laws concerning individuals with mental disorders, suggestions such as comprehensive psychiatric evaluation and determining degrees of responsibility have been proposed. Understanding the U.S. legal system and its experiences can help improve the situation for these individuals in Iran, but implementing these policies requires attention to existing challenges and limitations.

The phenomenon of cyberbullying, as one of the emerging crimes in cyberspace, has created numerous challenges in the legal and social systems of various countries, especially Iran. This behavior, which is carried out through digital tools such as social networks, messengers, and websites, has significant negative effects on the mental and social health of individuals. In societies whose legal system is based on Islamic jurisprudence, such as Iran, it is essential to examine this phenomenon from a jurisprudential perspective and to adapt it to existing laws. Islamic jurisprudence, emphasizing the principles of morality, justice, and the preservation of human dignity, provides solid foundations for combating this phenomenon. Among the relevant principles are the sanctity of harassment, the need to preserve privacy, and the prohibition of defamation and insult. This article analyzes the jurisprudential and legal challenges in combating cyberbullying by utilizing jurisprudential sources and adapting them to Iranian laws. Although Iranian laws, such as the Computer Crimes Law and the Islamic Penal Code, have provided frameworks for combating cyberbullying-related behaviors, problems such as the lack of a comprehensive definition and implementation gaps have limited the effectiveness of these laws. This study, by conducting a comparative study of the laws of Arab and Western countries, provides suggestions for developing more comprehensive and effective laws in Iran. The ultimate goal of this research is to create harmony between jurisprudential principles and contemporary legal requirements to protect the rights of victims in cyberspace.

Today, development and economy are the result of human behavior regarding the rules and legal institutions governing society, and the society measures its profits and losses in institutions such as courts, litigation, arbitration, etc. Development requires appropriate judicial components and a legal framework, the formulation of efficient laws and the use of the benefits of arbitration. The studies in this article examine the relationship between development and judicial components with the overlap of arbitration and indicate that arbitration is one of the undeniable components of the impact of institutions on development and economy, and due to its contractual nature and the rule of the principle of will, it plays a significant role in development. From the perspective of economic analysis, arbitration is an economic behavior in which the parties calculate profits, losses, and costs based on its effects and determine their behavior to achieve the highest benefit and resolve the dispute. This article, using an analytical and descriptive method, seeks to answer the question of how and why judicial components in overlap with arbitration pave the way for economic development. The innovation of the article is that it expresses the theoretical foundations, criteria, and impact of judicial components, with an emphasis on arbitration in support of economic development, in a more efficient, accurate, and practical manner.