Assistant Professor, Malayer University, Malayer, Iran
Abstract
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.
Roustaie,M. (2015). A Comparative Study of the âHarm Principleâ and âla Darara wa la Dirar Ruleâ in Justification of Criminal Intervention. Comparative Law Researches, 19(2), 51-74.
MLA
Roustaie,M. . "A Comparative Study of the âHarm Principleâ and âla Darara wa la Dirar Ruleâ in Justification of Criminal Intervention", Comparative Law Researches, 19, 2, 2015, 51-74.
HARVARD
Roustaie M. (2015). 'A Comparative Study of the âHarm Principleâ and âla Darara wa la Dirar Ruleâ in Justification of Criminal Intervention', Comparative Law Researches, 19(2), pp. 51-74.
CHICAGO
M. Roustaie, "A Comparative Study of the âHarm Principleâ and âla Darara wa la Dirar Ruleâ in Justification of Criminal Intervention," Comparative Law Researches, 19 2 (2015): 51-74,
VANCOUVER
Roustaie M. A Comparative Study of the âHarm Principleâ and âla Darara wa la Dirar Ruleâ in Justification of Criminal Intervention. Comparative Law Researches, 2015; 19(2): 51-74.
