Research Letter of Social Jurisprudence (Interdisciplinary Researches in Jurisprudence/ Researches In Jurisprudence)

Qualitative Improvement of Social Welfare of Iranian Society in the Light of Conflict of Interests Management, Relying on a Comparative Study of the No-Harm Principle in Imami Jurisprudence and the Harm Principle in the Western Legal System

Document Type : Original Article

Author

PhD in Private Law, Qom University, Qom

Abstract

One of the respected principles of human societies is the freedom of will of individuals to fulfill their interests. Therefore, not only individuals but also public forces cannot prevent the freedom of will of individuals to enjoy social and economic benefits under any pretext. However, in some cases, the free will of individuals to gain the most benefit is at odds with each other, so that the absolute release of the will of individuals to gain the most benefit, in some cases, harms others. Therefore, determining the limits of freedom of the will of individuals and balancing it and the harm that may be caused to others by this freedom is very important, so that determining it can have a broad impact on the overall progress of a nation-state. Due to this necessity, many schools of thought throughout history have commented on this issue, including the Islamic and Western schools of thought. The philosophical ideas of these two schools, one of which is included in the Islamic rule of "no-harm" and the other in the western rule of "harm", have led the present article to examine the commonalities and differences between these two rules in common interaction to finally conclude that from the perspective of jurisprudence, the freedom of will of individuals to fulfill their interests is of particular importance to ensure the maximum social welfare of society, and governments, in addition to not hindering the activities of the people, but in their management of conflict of interest, must first seek to consolidate the interests of individuals with each other and if that is not possible, give priority to satisfying the interests that have the most public function for most people in society.

Keywords

انصاری، مرتضی (1388). مکاسب. تهران: جنگل.
بهرامی احمدی، حمید (1393). ضمان قهری. تهران: دانشگاه امام صادق(ع).
شیروانی، علی (1393). المنطق. قم: دار العلم.
صدوق، محمدبن علی (1418ق). الهدایة فی الاصول و الفروع. قم: موسسه امام هادی(ع).
طباطبایی، سید محسن (1408ق). قاعدة الضرر و الاضرار. قم: کتابفروشی بصیرتی.
طباطبایی، محمدتقی (1413ق). عمده المطالب فی التعلیق علی المکاسب. قم: کتابفروشی محلاتی.
طوسی، محمد بن حسن (1387ق). المبسوط فی فقه الامامیة. تهران: المکتبة الاحیاء لآثار الجعفری.
طوسی، محمد بن حسن (1407ق). الخلاف. قم: دفتر انتشارات اسلامی.
کاتوزیان، ناصر (1349). دوره مقدماتی حقوق مدنی. تهران: میزان.
کاتوزیان، ناصر (1389). قانون مدنی در نظم حقوقی کنونی. تهران: میزان.
کلینی محمد بن یعقوب (1407ق). الکافی. تهران: دار الکتب الاسلامیه.
محقق داماد، سید مصطفی (1406ق). قواعد فقه. تهران: مرکز نشر علوم اسلامی.
مصطفوی، سید کاظم (1393). قواعد فقه. تهران: میزان.
مظفر، محمدرضا (1393). اصول الفقه. قم: دار الفکر.
مغربی، ابوحنیفه (1385ق). دعائم الاسلام. قم: موسسه آل البیت(ع)
موسوی خمینی، سید روح الله (1424ق). توضیح المسائل. قم: دفتر انتشارات اسلامی.
نائینی، محمدحسین (1373ق). منیة الطالب فی حاشیة المکاسب. تهران: المکتبه المحمدیه.
Baron, Jonathan (1996). Do no harms. New York: Russel sage Foundation.
Crown, Andrew (2017). Civil liberties in Conflict with Civil rights. London: ???.
Kayacan, Dery a Nur (2016). How to resolve conflicts of rights. Europe union: saar blupriut.
La non nuisance, Texte ecrit puir luniversite de tours, mai 2009.
Ogien, Ruwen (2016). L’ethiqUe acjouer’huig. France: ???.
Rabon, ofer (2010). Conflicts of rights. protland: Oregon.
Steel, Alex (2008). The harms and wrongs of Steeling. ???: unc law journal.
Sutherland, Cara A (2003). The statue of liberty. China: offset Colt.
Tackett, Timothy (1988). The coming of the French revolution. London: Princeton press.
Toolkit by oecd in relation uith interests conflict (2005). Electronic publish: oecd.
Wood, Gordons (2009). Emprie of liberty. New York: oxford press.
Research Letter of Social Jurisprudence (Interdisciplinary Researches in Jurisprudence/ Researches In Jurisprudence)
Volume 9, Issue 2 - Serial Number 18
June 2022
Pages 185-208
  • Receive Date: 03 May 2020
  • Revise Date: 22 November 2021
  • Accept Date: 08 December 2020