Volume 19, Issue 2 (2015)                   CLR 2015, 19(2): 51-74 | Back to browse issues page

XML Persian Abstract Print

Download citation:
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
Assistant Professor, Malayer University, Malayer, Iran
Abstract:   (12359 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.      
Full-Text [PDF 279 kb]   (13960 Downloads)    

Received: 2015/05/24 | Accepted: 2015/09/12 | Published: 2015/09/22

Add your comments about this article : Your username or Email:

Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.