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
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,
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 (In Persian).
