The rule of obligation (Eghdam or Necessity Rule), according to one of the relatively common readings (for example: Al-ণ illƯ 1384 AH and Mostafavi 1412 AH) is responsible for regulating the relations of Shiites with non-Shiite Muslims (and according to a quote; all non-Shiites, both Muslims and non-Muslims) in cases where they believe a ruling opposes Shiite view and that ruling is in the interest of the Shiite, which in this case Shiite oblige that person to his/her non-Shiite view. This article, while examining the definition, scope and arguments of the jurisprudential rule of necessity (Eghdam), according to two elements: “ non-Shiite side” and “ benefit of the Shiite side” from the point of view of this famous reading, criticizes the arguments of this rule and with fundamental uncertainty in it, express some considerations including, the inference (conclusive) of multiple and unequal legal systems in domestic law, the separation of nationals to each other in private international law and incompatibility with the spirit of international custom and treaties in public international law. Although this reading of the rule is also opposed by contemporary jurists, the fundamental legal reasons presented in this article in criticizing this reading of the rule are different from those oppositions and are completely new. It goes without saying that some jurists, such as Mohammad Javad Fazel 2013 (1392 in the Solar Hijri calendar), have another reading of the obligatory rule that is more compatible with the rule of confirmatory and can seriously avoid the famous reading which is criticized in this article. The rule of obligation (Eghdam or Necessity Rule), as its name implies, requires, according to this famous reading, others (whether non-Shiites or non-Muslims) to adhere to the more difficult rules of their religion or sect. However, the rule of confirmatory is only the responsibility of approving or confirming different rulings of other religions or denominations, and it does not mention the obligation and element of harm or hardship for others.

The subject of obligation and possesstion should be definite, for instance, in a bilateral contract, consideration must be definite and if it is not so, the contract will not be concluded and that makes it void (Article: 216,338 and 384 civil code if Iran). The consideration may not be mentioned either due to carelessness or . oblivion or when the two parties intentionally refuse to mention it in the contract and leave it to expert"s view, customary law, common practices or well-known norms to determine it. When determination of consideration or price of a contract requires expert surveying and estimation or accounting operations, the involved parties are compelled to leave this task to a later time and not to mention it in the contract. The question in such a situation is whether these kinds of contracts are valid and binding or either of the parties can refuse to perform his/her commitments by resorting just to the pretext that the contract is invalid or the agreements is defected. At ention must be paid to the fact that not mentioning a price in the contract does not always mean that the consideration is indefinite and it depends on the agreement between the parties involved. Agreement on the methods and rule of determining the subject of obligation or possesstion, that is to say, specifying the rule and criterion for determining the subject of obligation or possesstion is sufficient-because it is thus determined with that rule and such contracts cannot be considered as null and void with the pretext that the consideration is indefinite. In legal obligations and possesstions assigned by the law, it is usually preferable to determine methods and mention an exact price or cost. Not mentioning the subject of obligation or possesstion does not nullify the terms or the contract and the terms even in the Islamic jurisprudence and as it is quite well known they do not consider the indefinite condition as nullifying the terms or the contract. Since the indefmite condition cannot be considered a valid condition because obligation of an obliged person to perform an indefinite act is impossible, the condition shall thus be null and void but in cases where the ambiguity of the condition can be removed in future and it can be performed, the condition is not null and void.

Interaction with the People of the Book is necessary despite the many differences in beliefs and rulings, and it is not specific to living in an Islamic society. Although the origin of these distinctions is a difference in creed, it can only be resolved through jurisprudential rules and foundations. By using general principles and rules, Shiite jurisprudence has the capacity to remove many obstacles to these interactions in order to facilitate interfaith dialogue and social interactions. One of the main and problem-solving rules for this issue is the jurisprudential rule of obligation. It means to accept and make someone accept the rulings that the religious people believe in, even if it is against Shiite jurisprudence. The scope of this rule covers various jurisprudential subjects such as sale, lease, endowment, divorce, marriage, inheritance, and blood money. The rule is not limited to the differences between Shiites and other Islamic sects but also applies to the followers of other religions, especially the People of the Book. There is no doubt that by solving the obstacles of personal and social life in various fields, the ground for inter-religious dialogue and presenting the rich logic of the Quran and Islam is also provided. Therefore, it is necessary to examine the rule of obligation, its meaning, evidence, and examples as a law that opens the way for inter-religious social relations from various aspects. Hence, the present article deals with this topic.

The path of the Islamic Movement of Iran, led by Imam Khomeini sometimes had become so complicated that understanding its leadership move-especially at the motivational stage-is not for everyone in complete line with the requirements of Islamic Shari'ah and raises questions in this regard in his mine. One of the important questions that this research seeks to answer in a descriptive-analytical way is how this boom uprising was led by Imam Khomeini-who needed to disrupt the existing order in royal authority-with the requirements of "rule of the necessity of preserving the system and not its disruption” is consistent. In response, it can be said that, at the beginning of the movement, the leadership was committed to adherence to the aforementioned rule and by accepting the primacy and rule of its provisions over other religious duties, in a way that would not entail disruption to people's livelihoods, but the widespread corruption of the royal government was such that it was made clear that the saint was not at all satisfied with it, and that the rule would be eliminated. It was people's livelihoods that, in turn, called for a correction to keep the social order from collapsing.

In international criminal law for the reason of legal and political obstacles against competence of international criminal courts, State’s Obligation to Cooperation has been under consideration of lawyers and is a requirement of fulfillment of justice. Chapter 9th of statute of international criminal court relate to the regulation of State's Obligation to Cooperation. The 9th chapter is related to State' s Obligation to Cooperation, and we study common regulations of cooperation, legal dimensions of the common regulation and the relation between the articles of this chapter.As the general assembly of membered states consider suggestions and issue some declarations as the declaration of cooperation in the 1st statute reviewing conference, we consider this declaration and court' s report to assembly to know with cooperation of states and international organization to the court.

The principle of the rule of law and the principle of the legality of crime and punishment are considered to be among the fundamental principles of law and are of great importance in public law. The problem is, given the existence of the following holy verse, “ no rulership except by Allah alone” , and principles such as the rule of law and the legality of crime and punishment, how can the obligation of certain Muslim precepts be assessed both jurisprudentially and legally before the law is legislated? This paper explicitly states that the Sharia laws taken into account in this study are ones that jurisprudents unanimously agree on and so are not subject to the ruling of the jurist's fatwa and there is no need to compare the applicability of the rulings (unconditional judgments). In this research, we analyzed the aforementioned problem from a jurisprudential and legal perspective. The obligation to carry out these types of sentences prior to their legislation or compilation based on the jurisprudential point of view, the constitutional principles of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the practices of the Guardian Council, some ordinary laws, and the views of the Assembly of Experts is what this paper proves.

The most recent reactions of States to the use chemical weapon in Syria, whether in the form of institutional co-operation, for example, measures set forth in UNSC Resolutions 2118 dated September 27, 2013, 2209 dated March 2015 and 2235 dated August 7, 2015, or individual reactions, including the US response to the use of chemical weapons in Khan Shaykhun suggests the obligations arising under Article 41 of the draft Articles of 2001 International Law Commission, following a breach obligation arising under a peremptory norm of general international law. Therefore, this paper seeks to answer the fundamental questions whether the rule in question is acceptable as a peremptory norm of general international law. A positive answer to this question will lead to questions about how to respond to the breach. According to the criteria set out in the report of International Law Commission reporter of 2017, the aforementioned rule has made its way to the top of international law norms, but practice of States in reacting the breach of the rule shows that any reaction to its violation must conform the relevant legal framework and using legitimate means.

Background and Aim: The special situation of medical contracts and its conditions and characteristics have been explained in such a way that it is not a contract within the framework of fixed contracts, therefore it seems that from the legal point of view, medical contract is a type of indefinite contract based on the provisions of Article 10 of the Civil Law, has special conditions and special obligations of treatment contracts, which become effective according to the agreement of the parties. In non-contractual cases regarding the relationship between doctors and other medical service personnel (such as nurses, interns, residents, etc.), the need to provide information to their patients comes from the need to preserve people's lives and in the Islamic religion, the importance of preserving the community and helping Reaching out to each other is highly emphasized as it is mentioned in the Holy Quran that saving the life of one person is like bringing all people alive and killing one person is like killing all people. Life is a divine gift, therefore respecting it and preserving it is always emphasized. Method: This research is of a theoretical type and the research method is descriptive-analytical and the method of collecting information is library-based and by referring to documents, books and articles. Ethical Considerations: In this research, the principles of trustworthiness, honesty, neutrality and originality of the work have been respected. Results: The most obvious and fundamental example of the natural rights of every human being is the right to life, in such a way that they have given it the name "superior right". This right and respect for it have been emphasized many times in the constitutions of countries and in important international documents. In the third article of the Declaration of Human Rights, it is stated: "Every person has the right to life, liberty and personal security". According to the right to life, which every living person has, no one should and has no right to commit acts that cause the violation of this right and the deprivation of another's life. Therefore, this can justify the need to inform in such cases. Conclusion: In view of the above, the "obligation to be the means" of the doctor's practice is obtained from the non-guarantee of a non-culpable licensed physician or nurse, intern, resident, etc, but unfortunately, in the Islamic Penal Code approved in 2013, the abandoned theory of "commitment to the result" has been accepted and a solution has been considered to escape from the related obligations, which even ignorant doctors who have questioned the most obvious principles and rules of medicine and in their treatments, they have committed serious mistakes. By acquitting the patient, they can avoid all medical moral obligations as well as civil responsibility due to their harmful act and it is an issue that the obligation to provide information in medical matters can also be raised in this assumption. Please cite this article as: Sajjadi S, Gholamalizadeh M, Yamrali S. The Legal Effects of Inheritance from the Perspective of the Imami Religion and Iranian Law. Medical Law Journal. 2023; 17(58): e58.

Although jurists" definitions of ebrā" are similar, the concept is really a matter of dispute among scholars and researchers in jurisprudence and law. As a comparative study of the subject, this article refers, in passing, to a major element in ebrā" i.e. esqāt "clearance of obligation" and then discusses the issue from the standpoints of different schools ofjurisprudence and law.