Alternative dispute resolution refers to the means which substitute adjudication and aim at mediating and speedy resolution of the disputes by third parties. While being various, these means and methods all depend on the consent of the parties and their results are often not binding. Arbitration, conciliation, mediation, negotiation, good offices, summary proceedings, impartial assessment, and combined ADR are among the most important of these methods. ADR has a long history and despite the development of modem state and justice continues to exist and constitutes a large portion of national laws and international conventions. Low cost, speed, confidentiality, flexibility, expertise and impartiality are the advantages of ADR. On the other hand, nonbinding character of the outcome of ADR for the parties, nonjusticeability of some disputes by ADR and amenability to political influence of certain methods of ADR are the disadvantages. Despite the long history of ADR in Iranian law and the existence of legal provisions, it has received less welcome than recourse to judicial means.

Before, during, and after an accident in worksites, many of the details regarding why and how it occurred are lost. To prevent this from happening, Accident Data Recorders (ADR) can be used to record information over long periods of time. Due to their ability to be networked and the fact that many of these can be used to gather information about the same area (guaranteeing there is not a single point of failure if one fail), they can gather the most relevant information leading up to and after an accident. Similar technology already exists in different application areas but the lack of modularity, ability to network, and many other missing features makes them less effective at recording information. By recording all information relating to an accident, it can become much easier to understand how to prevent another accident in the future. This can not only save money but the lives of employees.

Subscribing to the principles of logically valid reasoning and parsimony of presuppositions in the framework of a religion that hinges on a revealed eschatological message, the medieval Islamic philosophers were bound to interpret the Qurʾ â nic account of the afterlife in ways that may have compromised at least some of its literal meanings. However, to what extent precisely do these interpretations go against the grain of Revelation has to be determined separately in each particular case. Wholesale statements regarding the alleged coherence or incoherence of general types of philosophical theories with Revelation risk neglecting important variations between theories, and thereby rendering us blind to the scope of possibilities in the concepts involved. From this perspective, I will consider the eschatological implications of the psychological theories of Avicenna and Mullâ Ṣ adrâ , who both subscribe to a dualistic view of human being and consequently claim that the afterlife does not concern one’ s body. Two questions will then emerge as especially central to dualistic accounts of the afterlife. (1) How do we make sense of the kind of first-personality that must be an irreducible constituent of existence in the hereafter, provided that the latter fulfills the eschatological promise given in the Revelation? (2) How do we account for the emphatically sensual descriptions of the hereafter in the Revelation? In the light of these two questions, I will argue that Avicenna’ s dualism ends up with a rather narrow conception of the afterlife is bound to remain exclusively intellectual. Thus, with regard to the second question Avicenna seems forced to interpret the Revelation in almost exclusively metaphorical terms. On the other hand, while following Avicenna in the first question, Mullâ Ṣ adrâ conceives of the separate existence of the human soul in much broader terms than his predecessor a conception of human afterlife that is rich in terms of experiential content, and thereby potentially more coherent with the revealed account.

The ADR rules of the International Chamber of Commerce have recently come into force, substituting rules of conciliation which along with arbitration used to be employed as a settlement procedure for a long time. The new ADR rules seem to be as flexible as possible so that they allow the parties to resolve their dispute in a manner convenient to them.Compared to arbitration, ADR tend to be more expeditious and less expensive. A facilitating person called "the Neutral" who is appointed either by the parties themselves or by the ICC, attempts to bring the parties to a compromise, through a procedure that they consider to be the most appropriate one.

Sayyid Ṣ adr al-dī n Moḥ ammad Dashtakī Shī rā zī seems to be the inventor of the division of composition into unified composition and composition by join in Islamic philosophy. With this division, Dashtakī has expressed a new theory about the composition of material objects from matter and form, as well as the composition of man from soul and body, and considers these compositions as a unification, not simply the parts joining to each other. In this paper, we will present Dashtakī ’ s arguments for the theory of unified composition. We will also examine three objections to this theory and his responses. Finally, we will examine the background of this theory in Bahmanyā r's phrases. Dashtakī believes that when the components in a compound have a real plurality, i. e. each one exists separately from the other, a composition by join is created, such as the composition of a house from numerous clays. But if the components in the compound are united and none of them exists actually and seperately from the others, the resulting composition will be an alliance and union. He believes that in the unified composition, every component is identical to any other component and is identical to the whole. In order to achieve a composition, a plurality is needed and in order to form a single composition, there must be plural components related to each other. An important question is that, principally how is a composition possible, if unified composition comes to existence only when the components are made united with each other and with the whole? In other words, unified composition is not possible, because the first condition, i. e., the plurality of the constituent components, cannot be satisfied. Dashtakī , in order, strives to express a difference between the components in the union compound. He believes that the conditions of the realization and the survival of the components are different, and that is enough for them to be different. In Dashtakī 's point of view, in the unified composition the components are analytical, so are not separated in reality. In other words, the components do not have actual and "in-the-world" plurality, which means that it is our intellect that separates them and looks at them as independent objects. Therefore, unity and identity are in-the-world and plurality and discernibility are analytical and intellectual. Dashtakī 's first argument for his theory in general is as follows: the three major material objects (body, plant and animal) are undoubtedly real compounds. But in these compositions, components exist potentially, and in a unified composition, components do not exist actually. Therefore, these objects are unified compounds. His second argument is that the accuracy of predication implies unity. In the unified composition, the components are identical with the whole, and therefore, the components can be predicated to the composition. In Dashtakī 's view, if A is predicated to B, then it could be concluded that they are identical and unified. The first objection to this theory is that the unity is incompatible with causality. From the perspective of the Peripatetics, form is the cause of the matter, and this is incompatible with the union of the two. In reply, Dashtakī states that in case of causality, there is no need for cause and effect to be two different and discernible entities, but a single entity may be from one aspect the cause and, from another, the effect. In other words, the foresaid causality is analytical causality. When mind analyses something, and then finds analytical components, it can see between those analytical and intellectual components, causality, and find some of them as the cause of the others. The second objection is the incorrectness of the unity in compounds with components not being similar. Only in the compounds having similar parts such as glass, the objection goes, one can accept the unity of matter and form. For example, in compounds such as horses, it is not possible to accept the union of matter and form, because in horses, there are components with different natures, such as bones, flesh and nerves. Unity of these parts with each other and with the whole is not plausible. Dashtakī ’ s reply is to concede that the horse is also a natural unit and has no actual plurality. Components having similar or different natures does not make any difference. According to the theory of unified composition, the horse's components are united with the horse's form and have only analytical plurality. Horse’ s components are just analytical components, not actual, independent ones. The third objection is the incompatibility of the actual existence of components with their unity. But Dashtakī maintains that a unique actual personal entity cannot have actual plural components. He states that compounds such as horses exist objectively, but objective and real existing is divided into two kinds: dependent existence, and independent existence as a single real thing. Therefore, the two characteristics of "being a component" and "being independent" are incompatible and do not come together in a real being. Dashtakī has also quoted phrases from Bahmanyā r to confirm his point of view. Bahmanyā r states that the properties of an animal belong to the whole and compound, not to each component. For example, it is a horse that feels, not its bone or brain, as the eye is also a compound, but seeing is the work of the eye, not the work of any of its components. Therefore, the animal, which is something compound, has characteristics that none of its components have. So the animal is something over and above its components. Bahmanyā r thinks the components in the animal exist potentially. Then he states a general rule: any compound in which unity is real, its components do potentially exist. Therefore, Bahmanyā r considers the body parts of a living organism as a potential being and generally believes that the components of any compound that have true unity are potential. The potentiality of the components in a real compound does not mean that the components are destroyed and a new thing is produced. The components are also available, but they do not have the effects they had separately before the composition comes into existence. In other words, the components form an identity together and therefore have a new effect. It seems that Bahmanyā r has expressed the same idea that Dashtakī is looking for in the theory of unified composition. Therefore, it can be said that before Dashtakī , Bahmanyā r has come up with the thought of a unity. Nonetheless, Bahmanyā r has not explained more about this idea and its effects in the other problems of his first philosophy. Dashtakī is the first who has organized and developed this idea as a philosophical theory.

The subject of this article is the analysis and explanation of revelation in Mullā Ṣ adrā ’ s political philosophy. It claims that the analysis and explanation of revelation in Mullā Ṣ adrā ’ s political philosophy lies in the framework of the tradition of Islamic political philosophy. In the tradition of Islamic political philosophy, analysis of revelation resolves two main issues regarding the political philosophy: government and law. Thus, with regard to analysis and explanation of revelation in Mullā Ṣ adrā ’ s political philosophy, it is said that a prophet – the one who receives divine revelation, especially the Prophet Muhammad – enjoys the necessary features for being a ruler. In the next levels, the Infallible Imams also enjoy those features. Human’ s social life and his social perfection require Sharī ʿ a (i. e. the religious law). The philosophy of the Sharʿ laws is rooted in acquiring divine knowledge and protecting lives and properties. The Sharʿ laws have been organized on the basis of the correspondence of the worlds, the effect of actions on the souls and the effect of soul’ s states on body. Therefore, the Sharʿ laws lead, on the basis of the relationship between the worlds of sense and ideals and reason, to the mutual effect of the worlds. This article uses the method of analysis of the Islamic political philosophy and Mullā Ṣ adrā ’ s political philosophy. The following is among the results of this study: the philosophy of jurisprudence or the legal philosophy, as explained by Mullā Ṣ adrā , can have serious results in the realm of jurisprudence, law, politics and legislation.

This article considers all the Mulla sadra’s proofs of primacy of existence (asalat al-wujud) found in all his works‚ and concludes that sadra has two approaches in his arguments: (1) to prove the primacy of existence through negation of original attributes from quiddity (mahiyyah), (2) to refute the primacy of quiddity through indirect proof. At the end‚ we conclude that the first approach and the arguments based upon it are stronger than the other.

ADRs have been introduced for decades as an appropriate way to resolve disputes in upstream international contracts in the oil and gas industry; an example of this is the adoption of the International Commercial Compromise Law. The question to be addressed here is whether or not the ADR in the IPC is a reference to all of its instruments or to a particular type of instrument and what is the ADR in fact. This article aims to respond to this by reviewing upstream international contracts in the oil and gas industry. The results of this paper confirm that the combination of two expert and arbitration processes can maintain long-term contractual relationships of the parties and be efficient in terms of time and finances. This research proves that peer-review is the best way to resolve disputes in new upstream contracts in the oil and gas industry called IPC.

Background: Adverse drug reactions (ADRs) are one of the leading causes of mortality and morbidity. Avoiding adverse reactions requires comprehensive knowledge about how they can be monitored, controlled, and reported. Objectives: The current study aimed to evaluate the knowledge, attitude, practices, and perceptions of the health care professionals concerning the adverse drug reactions monitoring and reporting in Lahore, Pakistan. Methods: A prospective cross-sectional study was conducted in Lahore, Pakistan, from October 2018 to December 2018. Descriptive statistics were obtained and the Pearson chi-square test was used to analyze the association between categorical variables. Results: In total, 150 pharmacists, physicians, and nurses were approached, that 40, 39, and 46 of them responded, respectively. Almost 95% pharmacists, 17. 3% of nurses, and 58. 9% of physicians correctly defined the “ pharmacovigilance” , while 70, 10, and 30. 5%, respectively, defined ADRs correctly. The current study revealed that 87% of pharmacists, 82. 5% of physicians, and 82. 6% of nurses had a history of identifying ADR in patients. Out of which only 52, 41, and 19% of pharmacists, physicians, and nurses had a history of reporting adverse drug reactions, respectively. Conclusions: This study revealed inadequate knowledge of health care professionals. Most healthcare professionals were motivated to report identified ADRs. However, the responsibility lies with the governing authorities to provide them with a suitably efficient platform to practice proper ADR reporting and monitoring. Educational campaigns and training, financial incentives, and simplification of the reporting process might change the levels of knowledge and attitude.