ISLAMIC LAW
Year:2020 | Volume:17 | Issue:64|Papers Count:14

The impact of infectious diseases on the rights of the wife can be examined in two dimensions: prevention and treatment; In terms of prevention, the question is to what extent does the wife have the right to withdraw from the patient's husband in order to maintain her health? In the second dimension, the question is whether the husband is obliged to pay for the treatment of his sick wife from alimony. The Islamic Republic of Iran's family regulations on these issues do not provide for the wife's incomplete health rights and need to be amended and supplemented. The views of the great jurists also differ on the right of the wife to treatment. Some consider it outside of alimony and others consider it part of alimony. Except for the cost of medical treatment from alimony is contrary to the wife's right to health, just as the generalization of alimony to the cost of treatment will cause harm to the husband. Current research shows that the husband is largely financially responsible for paying for the treatment of the patient's spouse and has no further obligation. If the husband's usury is proven to be due to the wife's medical expenses, her medical expenses must be covered by the family. This solution is compatible with the couple's rights and the interests of the family, while ensuring the wife's right to health.

Numerous legal questions have been raised about the outbreak of the deadly epidemic Covid 19, which requires legal systems to answer these questions. For example, this pandemic has led governments to take various measures to better ensure the health of their people. This has led to drastic changes in the economy and greatly affected contractual relations between people. In order to meet the legal needs of all, legal systems have come up with ways to regulate new laws for keeping public interest and avoid corruption, to establish justice and order. In this article, an attempt has been made to consider the views of various legal systems in the face of severe economic changes caused by Covid 19 in order to discard the principle of binding effect of contracts, paying attention to excuses and their impact on the contract and explain the effect of hardship on contract performance. Finally It should be analyzed the remedies of dissolution, suspension and adjustment based on the accepted principles in different legal systems. In the context in question, Islamic law, as a legal system based on principles, rules and regulations, especially in the field of transactions in order to provide the interests of the people and avoid corruption, includes regulations that express the remedies (dissolution, suspension and adjustment)

the global epidemic (pandemic) of Coronavirus (Covid-19 disease) has raised many legal questions. In special coditions that effective treatment of this disease requires the strengthening of the health care facilities of all countries, it is a vital problem, the assessment of need to abrogate unilateral sanctions against Iran, which was one of the first affected countries by the disease. In addition to doubts that there have been always about the legality and legitimacy of such sanctions, the present descriptive-analytical research shows that the United Sstates government must abrogate unilateral sanctions along commitment to international cooperation and respect for human rights and in order to protection of individuals in the event of disasters. In addition, the US government's commitment under international health law is another necessity for abrogation of sanctions, and this violation can be pursued through the arbitration mechanism set out in international health regulations of World Health Organization.

According to the warning rule, anyone who warns others before carrying out harmful operations will be exempt from civil liability despite the necessary conditions. In case of communicable diseases(such as corona), public and government officials are usually warned, and patients with both non-patients and non-patients are advised to avoid contact with each other and not to enter public places. So one question is whether general(non-government) caution by the public is detrimental to civil liability. And given that the warning audience is often uninjured (non-sick) and causal (patient) and the transmission of the disease requires both actions to be taken according to the warning, what is the contribution of the injured party to the responsibility and the intersection of the "rule of action"? And where is the "warning rule" on this issue? If there is a conflict between performing the act according to the warning(for example, not entering the public environment) with other actions that are beneficial to the victim or deter him from harm, what is the obligation? In this article, according to the jurisprudential documents, the rule of warning is characterized by the activity of notarizing the revocation and the theory of the adequacy of the warning operation by everyone is accepted in the elimination of the guaranteed guarantee. The warranty loss(carrier of an infectious disease) where the injured party is unable to act in accordance with the warranty(due to conflict with other damages) and the injured party is unable to act in accordance with the rule of action.

Human society is a dynamic society, moving, changing, progressing and renewing in various dimensions and areas. The inseparable requirement of this dynamism and continuous movement is the emergence of new phenomena and consequently some accidents, injuries and problems that sometimes increase in a dangerous and dangerous way in human society. One of the events that occasionally threatens human society is the emergence of new diseases that occur naturally or with manipulation and human intervention, and endanger the lives and health of people in society. Whether the disease is inadvertent or intentional, whether in care or not, it has given legal consideration to the subject of diseases, which are often of natural origin. In this research, an attempt has been made to explain the various dimensions of responsibility caused by the transmission of contagious disease and virus to another, using jurisprudential and legal sources and texts. According to the general rules and regulations of the warranty, the transmission of a dangerous disease or virus, such as corona or AIDS, to another is a matter of harm to another and can create a relationship of citation and responsibility. According to the definition of crime, the transmission of the disease can achieve the titles of intentional, quasi-deliberate crimes and pure error in different cases, although proving the relationship of attribution in the trial in cases such as coronavirus transmission and latent period is relatively long. It's very.