“The principle of no harm” is one of the several legal principles which has many applications in political jurisprudence. The present paper tries to analyze the traditions related to this principle, determine the content of its proofs, and most importantly elaborate on its consequencies. It deals with the important consequencies (requirements) of this principle through analyzing three existing views, that is, governmental judgment, secondary judgment, and intellectual judgment. The researcher believes that the two first views–governmental judgment and secondary judgment- cannot explain the content of the principle of no harm, due to their limitation while the view of intellectual judgment can well explain the consequencies of this principle by combining governmental and secondary judgment.

In Iranian and American law, Restitution; as the most important effect of rescission, has been determined similarly antecedent to rescission. In iranian law, first, islamic lawyers has recognized rescission as the basis of restitution and analyzed their effects while in American legal system, due to some problems and lack of unified judicial procedure, lawyers and some theorists in last years has recognized rescission as the basis of restitution. Moreover, rescission has based on two theories in iranian legal system; Bilateral Consent and Do No Harm (LA ZARAR). In the other hand, American legal system has been based on unjust enrichment theory. In this article, first, the process of recognition of the right in two legal systems has inspected and later, the base of rescission has compared between two legal systems. The process in two legal systems (although the process in American law has happened with a long historical distance) demonstrate that due to lack of coherent theory about rescission and thereupon lack of unified Judicial procedure in common law, law theorist coming close to general theory of rescission in written legal systems

No harm is one of the four bioethics principles that sometimes it and beneficence are defined as one principle. This principle, beside other bioethics principles, is used as an ethics code in modern biotechnologies especially in new achievements in medicine.This principle states that use of modern biotechnologies should not harm to any person even the nature and animals. This principle has a long history in Islam so that we can say it is contemporaneous with it.In Islam it is called la-zarar act that governs all of Jurisprudence as a universal act.Since the jurisprudence supervises on all of interactions and personal and social relationships, naturally it involves this ethical principle that is related to human behavior wit himself / herself and with other congeners.

Today, yoga has gained worldwide fame. The father of yoga science in Iran says that yoga is not just a sport. It seems that when people of other religions use yoga, Hindu beliefs appear consciously or unconsciously in the background of their minds. Therefore, the outward and practical form of yoga cannot be considered a physical exercise or exercise without any intellectual or ideological pass-precipice. The purpose of this research is to investigate the application of the jurisprudential principles of lā ḍarar on the promotion of yoga. This research is a type of descriptive and analytical research; and the method of collecting materials and information in this research is a library (documents) and in the present research, an indexing method was also used. According to the principles of lā ḍarar, practicing yoga in the absence of experienced teachers can cause significant physical harm to people. There are many spiritual, religious, cultural, social and intellectual losses in yoga and its promotion in the society. Among the other cases of application of this principle is that a yogi is not a person of jihad and fighting against the enemy, because he seeks peace, and such a person does not seek jihad for the sake of Allah and fight against the enemies of Islam. Also, according to the principle of "Ahimsa", a yogi should not cause any harm to others and animals (absolutely), and this principle is against the principle of jihad and fighting against the enemies of Islam and land invaders and killing the warriors.

International Water Law like other legal branches is composed of a set of substantive and procedural principles. In fact, international legal community has established different legal principles in order to solve the problem of allocation and distribution of international watercourses. Two of the most important of these principles that are widely accepted in international law, the practice of governments, the works of legal scholars, case law, and jurisprudence, are equitable and reasonable principles and no-harm principle. The prevailing view is that the principle of equitable and reasonable use is given priority and the principle of noharm is in subordinate to this principle. A deeper look at the articles of the 1997 Convention and other legal documents in this field and judicial judgments shows that the principle of no-harm is an independent principle in international water law that there is no conflict between this principle and the principle of equitable and reasonable.

The family is one of the most important social institutions, which is the center of continuous intimate relationships for couples; it provides a setting in which children's individual and social personality is formed. The phenomenon of polygamy is one of the challenges facing the family, which has appeared and dealt with differently throughout history depending on different cultures. From the very beginning, Islam has tried to provide a correct translation of the requirements of polygamy and the quality of the family, based on the order of the Holy Quran, while limiting the unbridled process of polygamy and preserving women's dignity. In support of polygamy, much has been said about maintaining justice when a man is a polygamous relationship. The present article seeks to measure this issue within the framework of other rules and regulations of jurisprudence, especially its suspension to protect homeless girls and women in light of the rule of 'no harm'. Explaining the status of this jurisprudential-legal institution can be a good solution to solve many social problems and some family deadlocks.

Background and Aim: The rapid advances of scientists in the field of biotechnology and genetic engineering have made the ethical principle of non-harm in the field of biological sciences a special place. The production of genetically modified foods is one of the latest advances in biotechnology. Today, the debate over the safety and health of genetically modified foods is a controversial issue around the world. The purpose of this article is to evaluate the health of genetically modified foods by emphasizing the ethical principle of not harming humans referring to available evidence. Methods: The method of this research is descriptive-analytical and the collection of information has been done by library method. Ethical Considerations: In this article, honesty and trustworthiness have been observed. Results: Solving the problem of global hunger, improving food quality, improving the economic situation of farmers and maintaining environmental health are the most important benefits of producing genetically modified foods. The production of genetically modified foods has been introduced as a suitable solution to meet human nutritional needs, while the health and safety of these foods are disputed. Opponents do not accept the safety and health of these foods due to scientific disagreement and the potential dangers, and believe that the ethical principle of non-harm is not observed in the production of genetically modified foods. In contrast, proponents, because of the scientific consensus on the safety and health of genetically modified foods, the results of case studies, and the successful experience of the American people, claim the safety and health of genetically modified foods and the harmonization of their production with ethics. Conclusion: The production of genetically modified foods has significant benefits, but there are many unknowns about the disadvantages of using this technology. The existence of potential hazards in the production of genetically modified foods and scientific uncertainty about the occurrence of these hazards is a reason to implement the principle of caution in the production of these foods.

Imam Khomeini takes no specific view on the principle of no harm (La Zarar); he interprets it as the governmental prohibition. According to him, the proposition "no harm" consists of two principles in the prohibition of the both physical and mental damage, as well as the prohibition of causing stress. Thus, the principle of no harm is not a secondary law underlying all of the religious laws such as the principle of no blame (La Haraj). Imam Khomeini's specific interpretation of the family law produces significant results: first, whatever behavior of either of the spouse which causes harm or blame to another is not allowed; second, the responsibility of the spouse towards each other is limited by this principle; and third, in case of harm one can petition the Muslim ruler and ask him to help prevent the harm.