List of Articles Prescription

• Open Access Article
  • Abstract Page
  • Full-Text
  
  1 - Analyzing the Issue of Removal of Brain Dead's Organs, from the Viewpoint of Jurisprudence and Law
  Alireza Zare Hosein Khanifar
  Alireza Zare[1] Hosein Khanifar [2]   Abstract: One of the most important medical issues that are reviewed and judged from the aspect of legal and jurisprudence is the issue of brain death. This category has a number of different issues. Including whether the perso More

  Alireza Zare[1] Hosein Khanifar [2]   Abstract: One of the most important medical issues that are reviewed and judged from the aspect of legal and jurisprudence is the issue of brain death. This category has a number of different issues. Including whether the person with brain death is actually dead? How is the situation in the perception of this person's organ? Is it just to remove equipment from the patient, or is it just the harvesting of the organs of the stuff that causes the definitive death of the person? From the point of view of jurisprudence and law, this issue seems permissible in some cases, and in some cases is prohibited. Since non-dead brain’s organs are of no use to the individual and the harvest of these organs does not harm him, but can save another person's life with the same organs, so in terms of religion and wisdom, this perception and connection to the comment is allowed. However, under the current circumstances, the judicial decree (fatwa) dispute and the lack of clarification of the various aspects of the subject matter have not yet been enacted, and if this legal vacuum persists, it will have severe consequences that will generally be irreparable. If a comprehensive law is passed to prevent this, save the lives of those in need and save on the costs of keeping two sick people (those with brain death and those in need), in cases of abuse of law and silence. Complaints are prevented because of a lack of law. [1] - M.Sc. Student, Jurisprudence and Fundamentals of Law, Faculty of Law, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran [2]- Full Professor and Member of Official Faculty of Tehran University, Qom: Farabi Campus, Faculty of Management and Accounting, Qom, Iran: Corresponding Author Manuscript profile
• Open Access Article
  • Abstract Page
  • Full-Text
  
  2 - Lapse and Vengeance Right
  ali akbar izadifard mohammad mohseni fatemeh babnia
  prescription is a law principle which oversees the verdicts, trials and pronouncements and according to the significant effects it has in people's commercial and law relationship, it enjoys a particular judicial position based upon this principle's tenets, if the person More

  prescription is a law principle which oversees the verdicts, trials and pronouncements and according to the significant effects it has in people's commercial and law relationship, it enjoys a particular judicial position based upon this principle's tenets, if the person doesn't ask for the lawsuit during the determinate time in order to regain his rights, his rights will be evanesced or at least it may cause his lawsuit not to be listened and consequently this will result in negation of the person's ownership domination over his right. On the counter point, according to Shiite religious jurists, the right for taking vengeance will not be integrated and whenever the qualifications exist and there is no contradiction, it will be applicable. Since taking vengeance is considered as a right of creditor over debtor, presuming that we accept "prescription" there will be an evident conflict between the prescription principle and the right for taking vengeance. Religious jurists by referring to this principle that " الحقّ قدیم، لا یبطله الشئ" do not include the exertion of the right for vengeance within the 'prescription principle', so they consider it preferential to the 'prescription principle'. It seems that by affirming symptoms evidence, the right for vengeance will be negated and will not be applicable. Manuscript profile
• Open Access Article
  • Abstract Page
  • Full-Text
  
  3 - The Rejected of Legal Claim Great Britain in the Case of Three Islands in International Forums
  Mahdi Ghorbani Ahmad Bakhshayesh Ardestani Naghi Tabarsa
  Abstract: Iran has been considered by many countries in the transatlantic Due to its privileged status and even regional region, with a long history of Britain with the aim of preserving its most important colony [India] and competing with other colonial powers Includi More

  Abstract: Iran has been considered by many countries in the transatlantic Due to its privileged status and even regional region, with a long history of Britain with the aim of preserving its most important colony [India] and competing with other colonial powers Including Russia and also with the motive of looting of the national and underground capital of Iran, the Persian Gulf region and the Abu Musa Triple Isles, the Great Tunb and the Small Tunb on the basis of the three legal principles of "joint ownership", " No Man’s Land " and the rule of " Prescription " Occupied that he always emphasized the principles of justifying and covering his colonial goals. Meanwhile, the Abu Musa Islands, the Great Tunb and the Little Tunb, have always been under the rule of the Iranian government and have never been idle and abandoned. The UAE's claim of ownership of the three islands as a newly established state and an unceasing and unceasing effort to confiscate the positions and support of regional and trans-regional countries is indicative of the UAE's move towards aggressive diplomacy. Iran can, with a defensive diplomacy approach, reject Britain's legal right to occupy the islands of which the United Arab Emirates has been acting as its agents, to persuade regional and sub-regional states in international fora to emphasize their sovereignty over the islands triple action. Manuscript profile