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.

The problem of PERSONAL identity among others may stem from the following question—what does be the person that you are, from one day to the next, necessarily consist of? The diachronic problem of PERSONAL identity raises question on the necessary and sufficient conditions for the identity of the person over time. The synchronic problem is grounded in the question of what features or traits characterize a given person at one time. To answer these questions, John Locke discarded the soul and the body as necessary and sufficient substances for PERSONAL identity over time. He accepted consciousness as the only criterion for PERSONAL identity; the only thing capable of remaining the same and preserving PERSONAL identity through change. Though Locke’s argument is somewhat clear and coherent but what remains vague and incoherent is embedded in the question—what exactly is consciousness? How and why should it be the basis or criterion for the determination of PERSONAL identity? Using the method of critical analysis, I argue that Locke’s choice of consciousness as the determinant of PERSONAL identity, though quite novel, is incoherent and vague. Secondly, Locke had already presumed and anticipated clearly though fallaciously the very thing he wishes to substantiate. I therefore conclude that Locke’s argument is just another way of trying to escape but inadvertently prolonging the difficulty of apparently articulating a distinction between the psychological approach and physiological approach to the problem of PERSONAL identity. However, in my submission, I propose the concept of the “other” as alternative approach— a sort of an extrinsic-intrinsic approach to the problem of PERSONAL identity.

The importance of CRIMINAL LIABILITY is that societies, in pursuit of establishing their own morality and development, seek to create guarantees of enforcement to maintain order and security. This is of great importance not only in domestic societies but also in international societies. Everyone who commits a CRIMINAL act intentionally or negligently must accept the consequences of his or her CRIMINAL act, so that in this way, one of the ways to maintain order and security is possible. The purpose of this research, which has been conducted in a descriptive-analytical manner, is to conduct a comparative study of the conditions for the exclusion of PERSONAL CRIMINAL LIABILITY in the Statute of the International CRIMINAL Court, as a new and emerging source of international law, with global standards. The PRINCIPLE of PERSONAL CRIMINAL LIABILITY is one of the progressive and well-known PRINCIPLEs in contemporary CRIMINAL law, the observance of which guarantees justice and guarantees the implementation of the PRINCIPLE of the legality of the crime. Chapter 3 of the Statute of the International CRIMINAL Court, which is called the General PRINCIPLEs of CRIMINAL Law, actually deals with the provisions related to the CRIMINAL responsibility of individuals. This chapter refers to issues such as the PRINCIPLE of legality of crimes and punishments, individual CRIMINAL responsibility, forms of intervention of individuals in the commission of crimes within the jurisdiction of the International CRIMINAL Court, responsibility of the commander and the officer and the grounds for exemption from CRIMINAL LIABILITY.

The modern CRIMINAL law is based upon four key PRINCIPLEs: the PRINCIPLE of legality, necessity of committing the act, fault PRINCIPLE and the PRINCIPLE of PERSONAL CRIMINAL responsibility. In fact, these PRINCIPLEs have been arisen to achieve justice in the realm of CRIMINAL law. According to the last PRINCIPLE, everyone is responsible only for behavior that is PERSONALly committed and no one can be taken to task for other’s behavior. However, a new category called "vicarious CRIMINAL LIABILITY" has been raised in modern CRIMINAL law which seems to contradict with the last PRINCIPLE. Some lawyers arguing that the issue is an exception to the PRINCIPLE of PERSONAL CRIMINAL responsibility have tried to defend it. The basis of this view is that they were mistaken in understanding the concept of "vicarious CRIMINAL LIABILITY".Such mistake in conceptology has given rise to the new mistake on the scope of this type of CRIMINAL responsibility. In this article, explaining the common and erroneous interpretation of the concept, we have tried to draw the real concept and scope of this type of CRIMINAL responsibility.

Despite the fact that in investigations and legal writings enough consideration has been paid to the founding PRINCIPLEs and rules governing civil and CRIMINAL LIABILITY as well as damages of crime, the legal or disciplinary responsibility accompanying these two types of legal responsibilities has not been taken seriously into account and the people involved it-in particular, the authorities dealing with violations of law and order-remain in this fundamental ambiguity: in the proceedings, as well as in the definitions and identifying the scope of the relevant judgments, should they follow the CRIMINAL or civil responsibilities? If we try to clarify and solve some important issues such as the fundamentals of identifying violation, the factors of evading legal responsibility, the role of the spiritual element in the occurrence of the violation, as well as other rules and PRINCIPLEs of law enforcement in legal investigations, we can help the authorities who investigate the violations to take a right direction. Accordingly, in this paper, while presenting a definition of legal responsibilities, we describe the fundamental differences of civil and CRIMINAL LIABILITY with law enforcement, and finally we prove the third part of the responsibility under the title of law enforcement with its own rules and regulations

The growth of technologies and digital and computer networks has had a major impact on the realization of the information society. In general, the vast growth of the intelligence community is due to the evolution of the communication and information tools that their evolution has begun a few centuries ago. In this study, we will investigate this issue by carefully examining the CRIMINAL responsibility of providing cyber CRIMINAL content in cyberspace, and then carefully examining the CRIMINAL LIABILITY of the CRIMINAL content and the lack of security in the cyberspace, and ultimately the responsibility of service providers And we will discuss computer data in the European Commission's ecommerce directive. This directive, dated June 8, 2000, has provided some of the legal aspects of the services of the Information Society, especially e-commerce in the domestic market and the Council of Europe, which will examine all of the above issues. Finally, in the sequel to the study, CRIMINAL investigations and prosecution of CRIMINAL data and information in the cyberspace will be addressed, as well as the need to ensure the security of the cyberspace and the responsibility of the computer service providers in accordance with the Council of Europe' s e-commerce directive. Research and study.

Background and Aim: Iran's legislative policy has not made proper decisions yet regarding the legitimacy of conventional cosmetic surgery, as well as law enforcement and explanation in this area that has been utilized so far to correct defects on the face or body. Increased rates of unusual cosmetic procedures, such as eye color surgery, eye reshaping surgery, otoplasty, lip lift surgery, and rhinoplasty have highlighted the lack of legislative and executive policies in this field The present study aimed to investigate the CRIMINAL LIABILITY of surgeons and applicants for emerging cosmetic surgeries. Materials and Methods: This Research has Been Prepared by Descriptive Analytical Method and its Data has Been Collected by Documentary Librart Tools. Results: Accepting the risks, fatal complications, and irrational consequences of these types of surgeries have obviated the necessity of performing these procedures in general so that it is no longer possible to legitimize such acts using jurisprudential, legal, or ethical tools. Ethical considerations: In Order to Organize this Research, While Observing the Authenticity of the Texts, Honesty and Fidelity Have Been Observed. Conclusion: Regarding the lack of codified laws in this area, CRIMINAL LIABILITY and punishments can be inflicted on surgeons who perform these acts using the current CRIMINAL and disciplinary laws with different interpretations. Considering the necessity of this issue, which is associated with the body and soul of individuals and degrades the culture of society, it must be urgently regarded by the legislators. Following that, the existing legislative gap should be investigated, and the legislators should explicitly CRIMINALize these types of cosmetic procedures, and deal with the perpetrators with a logical variety of punishments and penalties.

The PRINCIPLE of active PERSONAL jurisdiction, as one of the aspects of extraterritorial jurisdiction, applies to crimes committed by a citizen of a country outside the territory of that country. Based on this PRINCIPLE, the courts of the country of the CRIMINAL will have jurisdiction under the conditions that are agreed in the international field. In this article, by using the descriptive-analytical and library method, by addressing the legal ambiguities surrounding this PRINCIPLE in Iranian CRIMINAL Law and its solutions by looking at British CRIMINAL Law, it has been obtained that in the British CRIMINAL Law, while the crimes under this PRINCIPLE only include very important crimes such as murder, intentional assault, polygamy, and such examples, all internationally agreed conditions, including the conditions of no prior trial and the prohibition of double punishment, and mutual guilt are accepted and the British CRIMINAL Law applies its jurisdiction to all crimes covered by this PRINCIPLE. Hence, it has greater compliance with international standards. However, in the Iranian CRIMINAL Law, while all crimes, even light crimes, are subject to this PRINCIPLE, the condition of prohibition of retrial and re-punishment is accepted only in non-Sharia crimes, and the aforementioned conditions and the condition of mutual guilt are not accepted in crimes subject to sharia limits, retribution punishment, blood money, and Sharia prescribed punishments. To solve this challenge in the Iranian CRIMINAL Law, it is suggested to establish a balance and create a proportion of legal standards with the internationally agreed conditions and take measures regarding the duality of crimes and the consideration of punishments and previous trials for all crimes in compliance with Sharia standards in such a way that, while preventing damage to the governance of countries, the conditions for prosecution and punishment of CRIMINALs are also provided.

Kleptomania is one of the psychological disorders which make a patient rob objects. Based on the high rate and hidden feature of this disorder, reviewing the CRIMINAL LIABILITY of these patients are so important in CRIMINAL law and it faces with lots of vagueness. Reaching this aim, first of all, the most important features of this disorder and then the discretion and his psychological situation in the time of theft will be considered by this paper. Furthermore, it scrutinizes the effect of this disorder as an excuse or mitigating factor and concludes that despite the fact that Kleptomania is an acute psychological disease, it cannot be considered as an excuse but mitigating factor.