Volume 19, Issue 2 (2015)
CLR 2015, 19(2): 51-74 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Roustaie M. A Comparative Study of the ‘Harm Principle’ and ‘la Darara wa la Dirar Rule’ in Justification of Criminal Intervention. CLR 2015; 19 (2) :51-74
URL: http://clr.modares.ac.ir/article-20-590-en.html
URL: http://clr.modares.ac.ir/article-20-590-en.html
Assistant Professor, Malayer University, Malayer, Iran
Abstract: (11903 Views)
The “Harm Principle” in Anglo-American Law is frequently faced a strong challenge by the principles such as legal paternalism and legal moralism. It can, however, resist as a justified principle in the scope of state interventions, and has justified why individual’s liberty should be limited in terms of a minimal state. It is recently claimed that the “No Harm Rule” (la Darara wa la Dirar) in Islamic Jurisprudence can play a role just like “Harm Principle”, and restrict the state’s penal power. After reducing this principle and the rule to constitutive elements, it is found that the “No Harm Rule” has a different basis in comparison with the “Harm Principle”. Accordingly, it is not able to legitimize criminal intervention.
Keywords: Harm Principle, No Harm Rule, Legitimizing of criminal intervention, Individualistic liberty-limiting, Justification of criminalization
Received: 2015/05/24 | Accepted: 2015/09/12 | Published: 2015/09/22
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |