Introduction: Arbitration has a contractual nature and is subject to the sovereignty of the will of the parties, but in some cases, the legislator imposed the referral of claims to arbitration on the will of the parties and caused the contractual nature of the arbitration clause to disappear or be limited. By doing this, he has placed the arbitration outside the will of the parties. This issue causes some moral conflicts in the discussion of compulsory arbitration. Therefore, this research has been done with the purpose of examining the position of compulsory arbitration in Iran's legal system and the ethical challenges in it with a descriptive-analytical approach. Material and Methods: The research was a review method, in order to achieve the goal of the research, in addition to electronic education books and virtual education in this field, articles related to the research keywords from 2004 to 2022 from the databases of Civilica, Magiran, Sid, Researchgate, Science direct, was reviewed Conclusion: Based on the findings of the research, it can be concluded that compulsory arbitration in Iran has ethical challenges in the field of implementation and interpretation, the most important of which is the issue of the right to action and judicial justice. In the context of ambiguities in mandatory arbitration, even if the method of arbitration becomes ambiguous, the arbitrator has the duty to find out the will of the legislator with the principles and rules of interpretation, which creates a moral conflict for the arbitrator.

Article 79 of the rules of Procedure of the International Court of justice deals with the subject of preliminary objections. Preliminary objections refer to two types of objections related to competence and audibility. Articles 34 and 36 of the Statute deal with the jurisdiction of the Court, but there are ambiguities regarding the hearing, the Statute and the rules of Procedure of the Court, in the sense that its instances have not been specified. In this descriptive-analytical study, we seek to determine the cases of inability to hear the petition in the court proceedings. . In cases where the lawsuit is filed through a lawsuit, it is very common for the defendant government to raise preliminary objections. Such objections are designed to prevent the court from issuing a ruling on the nature of the dispute According to the Court's case, cases of inadmissibility include abuse of rights, lack of dispute, lack of interest, political disputes, diplomatic protection, other dispute resolution methods, fictitious disputes, the need for judicial observance, and abuse of court. Cases such as lack of legal capacity to file a lawsuit and the unreality of the dispute have sometimes been cited in the lawsuit, as well as the unscrupulousness of the plaintiff, whose examples (not the principle) have not been accepted by the court in any case.

A double ambiguity has been charged against Rawls’s difference principle (DP). Is it Maximin, Leximin, or something else? Usually, following A. Sen, scholars identify DP with the so-called Leximin. One argues here that one has to distinguish 1° the Leximin, 2° the Maximin (as rule of justice formally analogous to the maximin rule of decision), represented by the figure in L of the perfectly substitutable goods, and 3° the genuine DP. When the augmentation of inequality benefits the worse off, only Pareto-strong improvements are permitted. Leximin would also permit Pareto-weak improvements too (after the first maximum D), where only the richest improves: from (2, 3) to (2, 5), say. This is forbidden by DP. With two classes, unlike Maximin, DP has no curve of indifference and is always decisive, as Leximin is. For undecisive rules of justice, which admit indifferent curves, I propose to add a lexically secondary rule, to break ties. That move is able to clarify the links and the differences between on the one hand Maximin alone, with its typical indifference curves in L, and on the other hand, the DP properly understood and the Leximin, which both have no indifferent curves. With two classes of persons (best off/worse off), DP appears more egalitarian than Leximin, because it's secondary rule is MinIn (Minimization of Inequality). But the intuition behind the distinction is that it cannot possible “fair” that only the best off improves in a productive social cooperation.

Economic justice has been attended by so many thinkers. Among whom, John Rawls does have a seminal place. He can be counted in equalitarian tradition; however at the same time he is loyal to liberalism. The newness of his idea is in his intermingling individualism and equalitarianism. This paper is responsible to analyze and criticize the foundation of economic justice theory of John Rawls. In developing this paper, it is used of analytical descriptive method along with justice theories as well as public sector economic theories.

Though substantial research has been carried out on employees’ reactions to organizational justice rules, far less research has examined the ethical and ethical causes of managers to adhere to the rules of justice. Taking a proactive approach to organizational justice, the present study the causes of managers’ adherence to distributive, procedural, informational, and interpersonal rules of justice. The statistical population of this research was the managers at the different levels of employed management practices selected from 34 government organizations. The sample under study included 356 people selected through cluster sampling. The data collection was conducted using standardized questionnaires. Data analysis was performed through confirmatory factor analysis and parametric statistics using Smart PLS and SPSS software. The results of the research revealed that both cognitive (i. e. effective compliance with subordinates, desirable social identity maintenance, and justice) and affective (i. e. high positive affect and low negative affect) motives were associated with managerial adherence to justice rules. Moreover, cognitive motives were more strongly associated with justice rules adherence for justice dimensions over which managers perceived less discretion, while affective motives were more strongly associated with justice rule adherence for justice dimensions over which managers perceived much more discretion.

justice is an ideal concept which human beings have always sought since the beginning of civilization. From the viewpoint of most scholars, justice is a virtue and a source to other virtues. Some have even gone so far that they give the same weight to justice as they do to all other virtues.This article reviews justice from the viewpoint of ancient Greek philosophers and recent western ones. It considers economic justice from an Islamic perspective and summarizes it in optimum allocation of resources NO.52, Autumn 2009 6 and facilities, elimination of poverty and financial needs, as well as socioeconomic development. Our constitution considers justice as a major goal and the general policies of Article 44 are aimed to realize this goal.This article also investigates the issue of justice Stock and provides reasons to prove this programme violates the sacred value of Islamic economic justice. So it is unfair to use the word “justice” for such stocks.

One of the main elements of nature, which is the source of human life and is considered as public property in terms of jurisprudence, legal, social, political, Quranic verses and scientific research, is water, which is considered as the vital arteries of every country and as an important part of wealth. National and social, it should be given more attention to the legislators and administrators of this field so that in the fair and optimal use of this divine blessing, both the rights of nature are fulfilled and the rights of the general public as the main owners are observed. The issue of unjust possession and ownership of coasts and marine resources by rich people and those with financial and political power created a necessity to introduce the best jurisprudential and legal rules to solve this problem. In all countries, the legislative authorities design and implement special laws in accordance with their ideological and regional foundations in order to ensure the rights of the general public and the manner of possession and ownership of the seas and coasts. In the Islamic Republic of Iran, laws and regulations have been formulated and are currently being implemented. The question of the current research is whether there are legal and jurisprudential rules in the field of ownership of beaches that are the basis for facilitating and supporting legal rules in the field of public ownership of the society. Based on these rules, can the government own and manage the beaches? Also, to what extent these rules can play their role in protecting and observing moderation in the benefit of the public from this vital and strategic blessing. The present research was prepared by the library method and the analysis of jurisprudence and legal rules of the religion of Islam, the results showed that the correct implementation of: the rule of justice, harmlessness, waste, etc. can create a platform and support domestic and international legal laws. be international According to Islamic jurisprudence and legal principles, and Quranic reasons and authenticity, beaches are considered as public property (Anfal) and according to Article 1 of the law approved in 1372 by the Islamic Council, the Government of the Islamic Republic, the ownership and responsibility of all matters including protection, setting regulations, And the method of exploitation of the beaches will be at his disposal as a representative of the general public so that justice is achieved.