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.

Principle of justice and equity is a term, although it is seen in recent jurisprudents'' writings, which have not been explained clearly at all. Therefore, some of the jurisprudents do not accept this term as a principle; some others accept it as a principle and consider its implementation in case of being a special reason; and other group of jurisprudents accept it as a principle but limited to a specific subject. In this paper, it is tried to search in legal and jurisprudential sources collect valid documents to prove this principle, and then to specify framework and scope of its implication to reach an effective rule in the process of inference obviously.

This paper examines the principle of justice in Shi'ism and considers it to be of a particular and central place in this domain, and studies its relation to other principles from this point of view. In this regard, an innovative argument on infallibility has been adduced from the Shi'ite perspective. Then the writer refers to some of the Prophet's statements in order to support this view and uses the result in order to provide a response to the basic question of "man's expectation from religion". Finally, he concludes that in Shi'ism the most justified expectation that a Shi'ite can have from his religion is the same promise that it is committed to keep, that is, the establishment of justice in its comprehensive sense.

For a long time, human beings have been wishing to improve the genetic composition of their generation and clearing it of some disabilities and defects, and this concern has always been pursued in different ways in different eras. The existence of authoritarian and racist policies and discriminatory methods in the old Eugenics made it easy to rule that it was immoral, but it is somewhat difficult to judge the liberal and new Eugenics because one group, citing the scientific contexts and social contexts resulting from the advances in genetics and the values of liberal societies, dictates its moralization, while the other group, despite these contexts, still retains the relevant ethical challenges.One of these important challenges is the violation of the principle of justice, albeit in a different way than in the past. Injustice in the old Eugenics was discriminatory due to the imposition of a Eugenics program on a particular class, and the manifestation of injustice in the new Eugenics is that by prescribing that its benefits belong to certain classes, it is not possible for the public to benefit from it. The author of this article believes that various ethical challenges still exist in the liberal and modern Eugenics program with a focus on the principle of justice, and the present article seeks to identify, examine and analyze them from a point of view.The findings of this paper are that some of the ethical considerations related to the application of the principle of justice to Eugenics are:Although some solutions may be effective at some level, it is not possible to provide an absolute and general solution for all cases of breeding.Bioethical issues such as Eugenics due to their multifaceted nature, need the consideration of the requirements of various principles and some contextual considerations related to cultural and social conditions and indigenous and regional situations.It is necessary to have appropriate programs to eliminate the factors that incite immoral attitudes and prejudices against the disabled.Despite the context in which it has been made, advocates of liberal Eugenics themselves admit that the challenge of discrimination remains and have an unprecedented impact on genocide and the rise of racism.The well-being of individuals in society depends on the fair distribution of the benefits and resources of Eugenics in a fair social context, and the prescription and distribution of these resources in a society with defective and unjust structures will not have the desired effect.

Imam Ali’ s approach on the principle of divine justice in Nahj Albalagheh and explaining it according to a rational method and paying attention to his subjects and structures about this matter, has not been considered by justice inquirers. In Imam Ali’ s word, adl takvini is based on the pivot of balance of the universe that in his viewpoint can be considered as an introduction of existential reasons however does not need any explanation. Also his attention to adl tashri’ i is explicable with a cue to prophetic mission and divine orders. Appropriateness of penalty and reward with the humane acts and equality in this issue, providing the equality of merits, are also two issues that according to them, rational declaration of penal justice would be possible. In addition to draw an exponent from Imam Ali’ s approach to divine justice in three fields of takvin, tashri’ , and penalty, this assay has paid attention to the structures and subjects of his reasoning with a descriptive-analytic method. The results of the assay represent that Imam Ali’ s words in this issue is logical and has rational structure and from author’ s viewpoint is an effective research to open the new ways about researching into Nahj Albalagheh.

Spatial planning is a major governmental program defined by the distribution of population and activities within a territory. This research examines it from the perspective of ensuring the right to equal opportunity. It is argued that spatial justice fundamentally requires spatial planning to be defined using the principle of equal opportunity and the function of guaranteeing this right. Given that Afghanistan faces key spatial inequalities in both soft and hard infrastructure and that procedural rights concerning the equal distribution of population and activities across the territory have been violated, the government is obligated to ensure equal access to infrastructure through spatial planning. Additionally, to achieve spatial justice based on equal opportunity, positive actions must be taken. Since there are positive commitments associated with procedural and substantive rights, the government must design, approve, and implement these actions with neutrality and independence to ensure national unity, balanced development, human dignity, and loyalty to governance. Essentially, the function of spatial planning based on equal opportunity is aimed at guaranteeing the right to equal opportunity, highlighting the necessity and importance of this research. Furthermore, this study employs deductive and inductive approaches, predominantly using qualitative data analysis methods. The research aims to analyze and evaluate how spatial planning influences the assurance of equal opportunity through specific and positive actions within its framework.

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.

The principle of access to the judiciary has come to the forefront of the new concepts in civil justice law, based on the principles of judicial democracy. The necessity of qualitative access to the judiciary makes it possible, on the basis of openness of the proceedings, the specialization of the judicial system and the development of various forms of dispute resolution, to the efficiency of the judicial system, and the need for little access to the judiciary on the basis of judicial review and compliance with the principle of proportionality Approach the standard judiciary. The principle of access to justice has three fundamental indicators. The principle of easy access, which includes access to the rules of procedure and objective access to the judicial system. The principle of quick access, which relies on digital economy and information and communication technology, is driven by electronic justice. The principle of cheap access also seeks to balance the cost of litigation in the macro perspective. There are three criteria and sub-indicators in this principle, which include the system of judicial assistance, both public and private, the law enforcement agency and the litigation insurance system. In the present paper, with a focus on the economics of justice and in comparative approaches, while recognizing the concept of the principle of cheap access from two legal and economic perspectives during scientific discussions, the following three sub-indicators will be discussed.

Due to changing nature of the relationship between public officials and citizens in recent years, vast optional discretions have been accorded to administrative officials and “administrative decisions and announcements” resulting from those discretions constitute elements which are used by citizens in making personal and social plans. However, new measures taken by public officials are sometimes different from and even at odds with personal expectations which arise from the past public decisions and announcements. Under these conditions, legal support for “legitimate expectations” of citizens is a requisite of “fairness” and maintaining “public trust” in public administration. The principle of legitimate expectation, as one of the basic principles used to maintain judicial control over administrative measures of government through administrative courts, uses a combination of supporting and compensatory mechanisms to meet demands and expectations of citizens. Review of some cases which have been heard in the Administrative Court of Law shows that after some amendments, it is possible to accept and apply this principle in the administrative legal system of Iran. Therefore, introducing theoretical framework of this principle will not only add a new concept to terminology of domestic public law and improve administrative procedure, but will also lead to better social welfare of the citizens.

The principle of access to justice is composed of a set of legal and organizational factors for the civil justice system to provide accessible and effective judicial services. The principle of access is one of the strategic principles in the general theory of civil procedure, which has a moral basis and a functional approach. Among the features of the principle of access to justice should be easy access, free access and quick access to the courts of law. Easy access to the allocation of resources and judicial facilities is based on judicial accountability and ritual compliance. The principle of free access comes into effect once the process of judicial proceedings, such as litigation, private litigation, and compulsory advocacy starts. In the present paper, the concepts of access to justice will be Finally, some conclusions will be drawn on the principle of access to the judicial system. The approach taken in this essay is within the purview of comparative studies.