The relationship between arguments of SECONDARY RULES and Primary RULES is one of the issues dealt with in canonical law and books on the Fundamentals of Jurisprudence. Different views are held in this regard. Some scholars maintain that the arguments of Primary RULES contradict those of SECONDARY RULES. Some others, however, hold that the relaticnship between these two sets of arguments is that of the "governing vs. governed" RULES. There are still others who believe that the relationship is that of "general vs. spedfic" RULES. This article discusses the relationship between the arguments.

Purpose: Managers are one of the important elements of an organization, for this reason, in order to draw the future of the organization, it is necessary for the planners to specify the conditions of their selection and appointment. Therefore, the current research has been done with the aim of identifying and analyzing the components of selecting future principals.Method: In this research, comparative and benchmarking method is used as a prospective approach. This approach is based on the belief that today's advanced organizations/countries can be considered as a model for the future of another organization/countries in their respective subjects. For this, first, the fields of comparison and benchmarking were determined using Brody's four-step comparison method; then the countries of Canada, Finland, Australia, South Africa, and Japan were selected according to the qualitative balance value in the international advanced TEAMS test, human development index, life quality index(health, instruction, and welfare), education quality index, and other scientific-scholarly indexes; finally, by extracting the criteria for the selection and appointment of principals through content analysis and comparison with Iran, the proposed framework for Iran has been presented.Findings: A total of 61 components for the selection of SECONDARY school principals were identified from among the studies conducted in the selected countries in this article. By extracting the commonalities and differences of each of the components among the countries, it was found that the highest index of manager selection and appointment belongs to Japan and the lowest one is related to Finland.Conclusion: There are similarities between the components of selection of principals of SECONDARY schools in Iran and selected countries. In Iran, special attention should be paid to important components such as adherence to religious principles, appropriate personality traits, creativity and innovation, motivation to develop capabilities, professional growth, power of supervision and accountability, social image, leader skills, and purposefulness and foresight.

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.

Human Cloning is a newly-established term which has been changed into an important issue due to upgrading of advanced technologies. Cloning is free in accordance with primary order. But one of the specific issues in cloning is its legality and acceptance because of SECONDARY order and similarity or lack of parents. Some of jurisprudents have disclaimed it due to various issues such as heritage, alimony, custodianship, intimacy, removal of humanity, lack of recognition of cloned people, required of sexual relationship, removal of maternity concepts, removal of family, development of illegal sexual relations in special cases. It seems that we should deeply consider the case. Therefore it is unable to prove any permission for human cloning. Furthermore some people believe that it is somehow problematic because of genetic & behavioral problems for cloned persons. The authors of this paper believe that cloning does not mean any interfere in creation system. But it is an application of specified RULES by God. Human Cloning does not mean going out of human creation and it is not an illegal issue. It is nonapplicable in case of any further damages. In addition a twice double child is considered as a cell owner.

Countries usually think of ways to deal with crisis before it happens and create an efficient organization to manage crisis. In Iran, Crisis Management Law was last revised and adopted at July29, 2019. However, the capacity of this law was not used in the case of corona crisis and a new entity was established with the approval ofthe Supreme National Security Council. While executively coordinating different government agencies, this entity has made legislative interventions and restricted, specified or suspended laws and regulationswhere appropriate. It is mainly "necessity and urgency" through which National Corona Headquarters has been legitimized and its normalizations have been justified. Necessity, urgency, distress and constriction and other SECONDARY RULES and some governing RULES such as principle of no harm are SECONDARY RULES that make legal systems flexible and adapt them to new and emerging conditions. Corona management, had the important lesson that state unity and government integrity are necessary for administering the country-despite the valuable principle of separation of powers and useful plurality of comments. However, the author believes that the Constitutional institution, procedures and processes should not be violated, except in very important and vital cases and if possible, the legal capacity of our country should be used.

Articles 4, 72, 91, 94, and 96 of the Constitution make explicit the sources of the RULES and regulations which are governing the Islamic Republic of Iran with regard to the necessity of their being based on Islamic law. In these articles, however, different terms and expressions are used. According to the article 4 of the Constitution, all the ‘laws and regulations have to be based on Islamic criteria’, whereas according to the article 96 of the Constitution, the idea that Islamic law supervises the RULES and regulations is expressed by using the expression “compatibility of the legislation [passed by the Islamic Consultative Assembly] with the laws of Islam”. Some jurists think that the aforementioned expressions used in the Constitution do not correspond to one another. Other jurists see that the expressions ‘Islamic criteria’ and ‘laws of Islam’ are general concepts and hence inaccurate. Therefore, a probing look at the meaning of the already mentioned expressions shows that the application of these two expressions ‘Islamic criteria’ and ‘laws of Islam’ which seem to be different, convey the same idea and come to the same result and so no trace of incongruity or inconsistency can be detected in the articles of the Constitution.

This paper intends to indicate how semantic transformation of a word can shift and redirect a society’s trend toward a certain path. The concept of Maslahat or “expediency” that was used theoretically and within the framework of SECONDARY RULES until before the Islamic Revolution, resorted to the mechanisms of Ijtihad and dynamic jurisprudence after the victory of Islamic Revolution and was institutionalized within the Expediency Council to find appropriate solutions to the newly emerging issues. Such metamorphosis in the concept of expediency was an innovative move by Imam Khomeini who regarded governance as one of the primary RULES of Islam prioritized over the SECONDARY RULES. The paper’s principal question is this: How semantic transformation of a concept can result in creation of new capacities for that concept? In response to the question, it should be said that the semantic transformation has changed the concept of Maslahat from its primary concept in such a way that it has become the theoretical basis and modern way of institutionalization in the structure of the Islamic Revolution. This library-based paper, developed through analytical-descriptive methodology, shows that government RULES issued based on the expediency of the time, are among the primary rulings and in certain cases superior to those RULES and enforceable.