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 precautionary principle has been widely discussed in academic, legal and political areas. Debates stem due to various definitions and wordings of the principle and the fact that it has been reflected in both binding and nonbinding international instruments in various fields. The role of the European Union and its members is undisputed in the evolution of the principle. It can be found in different contexts; from its statements in international disputes to Jurisprudence of its judicial organs. This paper, with an analytical-descriptive approach, examines the situation of the precautionary principle in Domestic legal systems of European countries, primary and secondary rules of the EU and the jurisprudence of general courts, ECJ and ECHR to prove or deny the customary nature of the principle in this region.

Diplomatic non-intervention is one of the manifestations of the principle of non-intervention which is considered as one of the basic principles of friendly relations among states. International law has made harmony between the interests of the sending and receiving state through recognizing immunities for diplomatic envoys and declaring their duty to respect the law and regulations of the receiving state and non-intervention in domestic affairs. Since the era of prophecy, Muslims have used diplomacy and political delegations to in spreading Islamic teachings and establishing international relations.This cultural-propagating principle doesn't deny the principle of nonintervention but rather embraces it as a basic principle.

Constrain is the condition of driven by necessity. The principle of constraint determines the duties of the person constrained. In jurisprudence, it includes a range of activities from cleanness to blood compensation. However, jurisprudents have discussed it mainly with regard to those that can be eaten and drunk, and presented three different interpretations: fear of losing one"s life; fear in general, including fear of losing one"s life, or one"s limb, etc.; and fear of things not related to oneself but to others. The roots of constraint are compulsion, precautionary concealment, loss and necessity. The present article deals with a kind of constraint whose source is necessiy. The Qur"an has explicitly excused the person constrained from duties provided that the oppressor shows no inclination to sin. Tradition says that "there is so unlawful act that God Almighty has not made it permissible under constraint." The intellect also knows it permissible to give up necessary duties and to do the unlawful acts under constraint. Finally, the writer presents the conditions under which the application of the principle of constrain is made permissible.

The proposition “ Any essentially possible being requires a cause” must be considered as the precise wording of the causality principle. This is because according to principality of quiddity, the essential possibility is the criterion for quiddity’ s need of a cause, and according to the principality of existence, it is the sign for the of need of its existence to a cause. As for the attributes of the things, this principle is stated as “ the accidental is caused” . This is in contrast to “ the essential is not caused” which refers to the fact that the thing’ s essential attributes do not require a cause. The causality principle is itself a certain statement of the special mode of the principle of “ impossibility of preponderance without a preponderant” and is reduced to it. Thus, as far as self-evidence and non-self-evidence as well as provability and non-provability are concerned, it follows that principle; and as that principle is non-provable evident, so is the causality principle. From the principle of “ impossibility of preponderance without a preponderant” , another principle is derived as follows: the principle of “ impossibility of giving preponderance without a preponderant” which is the statement of the principle “ impossibility of preponderance without a preponderant” for the free-willed agent and his volitional actions, and is non-provable evident just like it.

By definition, ikrāh (duress) means forcing someone to do something unwillingly. Ikrah would be realized under seven conditions. In ikrāh over the prohibited, the criterion is inability of mukrah (i.e., the person under duress) to be released from threat and repelling loss and the culprit"s mere claim would be accepted. In transactions, however, ikrāh would be true only through discontent. The criterion for nullifying the conventional decree is non-observance, and mere claiming of ikrāh is not acceptable. Ikrāh is of two kinds: lawful and unlawful. The former is permissible and the latter is forbidden. The obligatory precept for the mukruh asserts that committing the forbidden and abandoning the obligatory is permissible for him/her except in case of homicide. And the conventional decree is that the mukruh is acquitted from qişāş (retaliation), hadd (legal penalty), dimān (liability), etc. The sources of rule of duress include āyah 106 of sūrat al-Nahl, the āyahs adduced by the principle of constraint, as well as tradition, consensus. and intellect.

One of the requirements and guarantees of the principle of neutrality is to conduct preliminary investigations by an independent judge and to distinguish the prosecutor from the investigating authority.In this regard,the investigator entered the structure of the department of justice and the prosecutor's powers were prosecuted as a party to the limited criminal proceedings.Although the principle of impartiality and the necessity of observance of it in Article 3 of the Criminal Procedure Code of our country have been emphasized,but its requirements and aspects Particularly in the preliminary stage of the preliminary investigation, officials have been neglected.In the same way, prosecutors still have the power to investigate and arrest the defendants in a large number of crimes and the investigator does not have complete independence in conducting investigations.Moreover,despite the adoption of the judiciary system,in some crimes and in the courts of the section,the system of public courts (all stages of proceedings by the judge of the unit( are applied,which is contrary to the principle of neutrality.In this article, the principle of neutrality and its components in the preliminary investigation and the degree of adherence of the legislator of our country to the requirements of this principle have been analyzed.

Newton considered the dynamical effects exerted upon accelerating bodies (such as the concavity of the surface of the water in Newton’s bucket experiment, etc.) to be caused by their acceleration relative to absolute space. Following Mach’s ideas, Einstein, based on the thought that all motion is relative, knew very well that if he could show that the inertial effects are actually due to the acceleration relative to distant matter instead of absolute space, then he would be able to dispose of the Newtonian concepts of absolute space and motion. There is a widespread belief that the general theory of relativity get rid of the preferred (inertial) frames corresponding to Newtonian absolute space and time. In this article, by examining Einstein’s thought process in creating the general theory of relativity, the claim: despite Einstein’s efforts and contrary to the name of the theory, Mach’s principle in the sense of “relativity of all motion” or “inertial forces are exerted by matter, not by absolute spacetime” is neither included in the principles of the general theory of relativity nor results from it, is confirmed. Therefore, the absolute elements such as “absolute rest and motion”, “absolute acceleration”, “absolute inertial forces” and “absolute spacetime” are yet essentially retained in the general theory of relativity. Due to the epistemological importance of Mach’s principle, the effort to provide an efficient physical theory based on this principle continues.