One of the important Principles of international water law is the Principle of Equitable and Reasonable Utilization. According to this Principle, any Watercourse State is eligible for an Equitable and Reasonable share in the constructive use of the shared water resource. The allocation of states' rights in using shared water resources has long been based on the multi-dimensional and complex definition of fairness. The main questions to which this research intends to answer are as follows: what is the concept and realm of the Principle of Equitable and Reasonable Utilization in the international law and procedure and how was the process of its changes? This Principle, as the main basis and component of the international water law system, is considered a rule of the customary international law and is included in various international instruments. The described Principle, along with other Principles ruling in this field, can create a lawful system for the states and control the disputes between the states in shared water resources management. In this research, by using library and internet resources and international instruments, and using a descriptive-analytical method, the concept and realm of the Principle of Equitable and Reasonable Utilization will be studied.

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.

Nowadays, reasonability has played an important role as one of the legal Principles in European contract law. This rule is recognized as one of the most important Principles of the contract law because of wide usage in many international documents such as Convention on International sale of Goods, Principles of European contract law and proposed common law of European trade. Reasonableness means that what a normal person does in a similar situation which has wide effects in concluding, enforcing, and interpreting a contract, and complementing and limiting the rules of contract. By considering international documents and Iranian law, we find that Reasonableness in Iranian law, unlike European law, is not recognized as a well known legal Principle. However, with the establishment of Reasonableness examples in Iranian law and also with the confirmation of the rules of transactions in sharia and the approval of conventional procedures in most cases, especially the great importance of custom and habit, the question arises whether in Iranian law like International documents reasonability is recognized as a legal Principle. In this article, we consider this question.

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.

Observing a Reasonable deadline throughout the criminal investigation process, as one of the most fundamental defensive rights of the accused, emphasizes the importance of Reasonable expediting in the process of proceedings in a high degree of accuracy, which considers necessary for the fair trial and the desired outcome of criminal proceedings. Delivering justice within a Reasonable time is one of the basic Principles of criminal procedure. The concept of a Reasonable period of due process is that through a Reasonable period, it is possible to deal with the case and establish justice in this way; but it is not easy to determine howdeadline is normal and Reasonable. In the present article, three criteria are analyzed as criteria for determining the Reasonableness of the trial period: typical (objective), subjective (personal) and mixed (intermediate). The objective criterion emphasizes the determination of the deadline for prosecution by the legislature. The subjective criterion is the circumstances of each case, which determines a Reasonable period appropriate to that case, and can vary from case to case. Finally, the mixed criterion utilizes both of the above factors. Eventually introducing violations of Reasonable time, the guarantee of non-compliance within a Reasonable time is reviewed.

Harirud river with an international nature is shared between Afghanistan, Iran and Turkmenistan and currently there is no treaty among these states regarding the division of its water resources. In recent years, after the construction of the Doosti Dam by Iran and Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, as an upstream state is moving towards hydro-hegemonic policy in the region by building various dams which restrain and divert the water flow of this river in order to decrease the downstream countries’ water rights. On the other hand, due to the high importance of Harirud water resources for Iran, continuing this type of behavior by Afghanistan might cause conflicts and create security risks among these countries in the near future. Therefore, employing a descriptive-analytical approach, the study aims at examining the issue according to international legal documents in the field of sharing common water resources. Finally, the findings indicate that the best and most practical method for exploitation of Harirud water resources is based on the theory of limited territorial sovereignty and implementation of the Principle of Equitable and Reasonable Utilization of common water resources by Afghanistan, without causing significant harm to downstream states.

Objective: Ensuring fair and Equitable treatment of shareholders can pave the way for an efficient, fair and transparent market. The purpose of this study is to examine the adequacy and implementation of the regulations related to fair and Equitable transactions between shareholders and issuers. Methods: In this study, Principle 17 of IOSCO Objectives and Principles of Securities Regulation on Fair and Equitable Treatment of Shareholders are reviewed, and the analysis showed that the Iran-US regulatory framework is in line with the standards of this Principle. In this process, the weaknesses of the existing regulations appear. In the following, with a quantitative approach, using the questionnaire tool and designing the hypothesis test, the extent of implementation of the existing rules and regulations has been investigated. Results: The three key themes highlighted in the IOSCO document are: fundamental rights of shareholders, reporting of transactions affecting the control and reporting of inside information holders. The most important structural weakness of the regulations in this field, is neglecting the transactions affecting the control of the company. While US regulations have precise requirements for tracking and reporting such transactions. In general, the extent of disclosure in US is more than Iran. Conclusion: In implementing the existing laws and regulations, in the area of fundamental rights of shareholders, except for the payment of dividend, implementation of laws and regulations was approved in other sectors. However, there were serious problems in the reporting of insiders, and none of these hypotheses were confirmed with the relevant sub-assumptions.

One can discuss Reasonable society from different aspect; therefore, in this paper, western and Islamic points of view are pointed out in the field. First of all, Principles, aspects, foundations as well as benefits of such a society have been presented. Then, Islamic view will be brought up. In the end, we go for similarities and differences amongst Western and Islamic views. Foundations of such a society have been known to be based on Islamic thought following purposes like eradicating ignorance, spiritual prosperity, making equilibrium between one's corporeal and spiritual aspects and morals. The characteristic of Western Reasonable society is also set forth.

A dominating set $S$ of $G$ is an \textit{Equitable dominating set} of $G$ if for every $v \in V(G) \setminus S$, there exists $u \in S$ such that $uv \in V(G)$ and $\displaystyle{\left|\deg(u) - \deg(v)\right| \leq 1.}$ A dominating set $S$ of $G$ is a \textit{rings dominating set} of $G$ if every vertex $v \in V(G) \setminus S$ is adjacent to atleast two vertices $V(G) \setminus S$. In this paper, we examine the conditions at which the Equitable dominating set and the rings dominating set coincide, and thus naming the dominating set as \textit{Equitable rings dominating set}. The minimum cardinality of an Equitable rings dominating set of a graph $G$ is called the \textit{Equitable rings domination number} of $G$, and is denoted by $\gamma_{eri}(G)$. Moreover, we examine determine the Equitable rings domination number of many graphs, and graphs formed by some binary operations.

A dominating set $S$ of $G$ is an \textit{Equitable dominating set} of $G$ if for every $v \in V(G) \setminus S$, there exists $u \in S$ such that $uv \in V(G)$ and $\displaystyle{\left|\deg(u) - \deg(v)\right| \leq 1.}$ A dominating set $S$ of $G$ is a \textit{rings dominating set} of $G$ if every vertex $v \in V(G) \setminus S$ is adjacent to atleast two vertices $V(G) \setminus S$. In this paper, we examine the conditions at which the Equitable dominating set and the rings dominating set coincide, and thus naming the dominating set as \textit{Equitable rings dominating set}. The minimum cardinality of an Equitable rings dominating set of a graph $G$ is called the \textit{Equitable rings domination number} of $G$, and is denoted by $\gamma_{eri}(G)$. Moreover, we examine determine the Equitable rings domination number of many graphs, and graphs formed by some binary operations.