Given the importance of the concept of justice in the existing legal systems of the world and its overwhelming influence on the Islamic philosophy, this research seeks to genealogize the concept of justice in the writings of Aristotle and Plato and critique the basic arguments made by these two giant thinkers. The basic assumption of this research is that in the view of Plato, justice is an inherently individual enterprise which ultimately enters into the public space of society. In his theory, governance is the art of the wise. On the other hand, Aristotle defines justice as a virtue which gives one what he deserves.  Aristotle is of the belief that the virtue of everything lies in observing the boundaries of moderation. Aristotle further argues that moderation is in nature of things and nature itself is unequal and justice is the continuation of these inequalities. Instead of giving a generalized definition of justice like Plato, Aristotle applies more caution to the concept of justice. This arises from the inductive and experimental approach of Aristotle and his general avoidance of generalization.  

Even though the Buy-back contracts is introduced as sole method for performing upstream Oil projects, by virtue of laws such as budget and development program laws, after Islamic revolution of Iran, new regulations were passed in recent decades that indicated on formation of new legal order in petroleum industry. The Sprout of Iran's new oil and gas order, initially formed by a change in attitudes towards foreign investment, grew up by changing the scope of private sector intervention in the economy and developed by introducing and prescribing various oil contracts. On the other hand in the event of this developments, petroleum ministry unveiled a new model of contract named Iran Petroleum Contract (IPC). Although IPC is based on the principles of Iran's new oil order, it seems that it has not used all the capacities articulated in this order. Explaining the fundamentals and content of this order, the ratio of the new contract to these developments and eventually the ability to apply other contractual patterns will be discussed in this article.  

The principle of causality is one of the most important philosophical principles which is discussed not only in natural objects but also in human behaviors such as, criminal behaviors. However, the analysis of causality in human behaviors is different from its analysis in natural objects. Due to its epistemological basis, the “criminal causation” approach has not had the ability to analyze this principle. This article has investigated and criticized the “criminal causation” based on Islamic jurisprudence. Moreover, this study has referred to and explained the most important weaknesses of this approach in analyzing causality in criminal behavior, namely, the confusion between the concepts of “cause” and “conditions” of genesis, the sufficiency of seeking for cause and neglect of reasoning and meaning, the etiology based on the presupposition and the previous researcher’s mental plan, the thought of determinism in explaining the criminal behavior , the rejection of unnatural causes in committing crimes, the shift from the ultimate cause to the agentive material cause, and the focus on conditions of genesis instead of real and creative causes of genesis.  

The importance of maintaining the fairness of proceedings and protecting the rights of the accused have led various criminal justice systems to provide for special rules to the effect of ensuring fair trial . The exclusionary rule of evidence is one of the most important  safeguards-provisions of these regulations, which makes it impossible to cite evidence obtained in an unauthorized manner in the court. Despite the fact that the International Criminal Tribunal for Yugoslavia and Rwanda, bear the task of prosecution of the perpetrators of the most serious international crimes, they have not  overlooked the rights of the accused. According to Art 95 of rules of procedure and evidence of ICTR and ICTY, the exclusion of evidence obtained through unauthorized methods does not necessarily lead to exclusion of evidence, except when the methods used to obtain evidence cast substantial doubt on reliability of evidence or damage the integrity of the proceedings. The conditions set forth in this article, which their authenication have been granted to the discretion of judges, gives the rule an optional nature and restricts its scope to some extent. This solution is the result of international criminal tribunals' efforts in striking a balance between the rights of the accused and victim which with all its ambiguity in drawing the scope of the rule has been adopted by the ICC.  

Business judgment rule refers to the presumption that directors are not responsible for losses that may be suffered as a result of a decision that directors made or authorized in good faith. It protects directors from personal civil liability for the decisions they make on behalf of a corporation, even though the decision proves to be erroneous. This rule is applicable upon an examination of certain preconditions, but prevents courts to second-guess director’s decisions. The basis of this rule lays on the fact that if discretion of management of the company is referred to directors, they must be protected against claims on application of this discretion. Otherwise, management of modern companies is impossible. Therefore, this article examines the standard of liability as business judgment should be regarded as a rule which prevents courts from reviewing directors’ decisions absent grounds breach of fiduciary duties (such as of self-dealing, lack of independence or irrational decisions). This article will discuss emergence and application of business judgment rule in Delaware courts and analyzes the existence of this rule in Iran’s legal system.    

In Iran, economic crimes occupy three positions. The first one is that of the exemplary one. For example, in the Islamic Penal Code, we find crimes that border on the concept of economic crimes. The example of this category is destroying the economic order. The second is the judicial position which are determined as a result of the judicial policy and the third one is the status-based position, which the law-maker explicitly identifies them as economic crimes. Given this, the question is whether the economic crimes have an independent character in the Penal Code? This challenge has caused the economic crimes to be more of a procedural nature and character than a substantive one. This essay examines this challenge in full and introduces its shortcomings in the Iranian penal sysyem.  

Al-Quds (Jerusalem) is a sacred city  among Abrahamic religions of Islam, Christianity and Judaism. It has been subject of many conflicts during the history from past to the present. The United States of America in 1995 during the peace process between Palestine and Zionist regime passed the Embassy Act under which the U.S embassy relocation from Tel-Aviv to al-Quds was approved. This act was suspended by U.S administrations until Trump administration issued an executive order in this regard in December 2017. Being considered by different international instruments and forums, the emphasis is added that the situation in the city is that of under-occupation since 1967 meaning that the East al-Quds is under the illegitimate authority of occupying power (although the authors believe that the whole lands of Palestine are occupied). Therefore, the present paper seeks international legal analysis of the relocation of U.S embassy to al-Quds. That is contrary to international regulations including the laws regarding holy places, customary international law, international law on occupation, the obligation of non-recognition of illegitimate situations and obligations arising from UN general assembly and Security Council resolutions.  

In the Iranian laws, loss distribution is mainly the case when two or more causes impose damage and the interference of each one in the realization of damage is the basis for damage distribution between them. In common law, damage distribution in civil liability is considered in a broader sense and it is differentiated from the number of causes. In fact, under loss distribution, those cases are considered where the damages that should reasonably be paid by the imposer are distributed among members of the community via some mechanisms. Mechanisms that distribute damages are strict liability and insurance. Justifying participation of a group of people, who have no role in this damage and giving indemnity, is possible via economic meanslike promoting economic efficiency and realizing distributive justice in society and this is the subject of present study to investigate and analyze these basics.