CRIMINALIZATION of irregular and broad causes consequences evil and is inconsistent with the purposes of the criminal law. Some heavy penalties, including death, restriction of freedom, corporal punishment, etc… Requires the CRIMINALIZATION of the principle justify. Characteristics of cybercrime including The Ease of crime, the victim of too and most of them are young offenders. So in addition to general principles, principles of CRIMINALIZATION of certain demands. The findings suggest that the CRIMINALIZATION of cyber crime as is accepted which is based on the principles of “necessity” and “legitimacy”. to respect the privacy and civil rights. note tools available to the criminal justice system and attention to vulnerable groups. note to international strategy, Moreover, detailed scientific and technical knowledge and interdisciplinary strategies and identify the criminal liability of legal persons is necessary to tackle comprehensively with the crime. Finally, the legislature should collateralize corporate criminal policy to deal with crime.

A long with the development of international law in both criminal and environmental fields, the concept of ecosystem/ ecocide/ geoside was also invented and used by thinkers. This concept, which focuses on widespread, long-term, and severe environmental damage, has been the subject of much debate and theorizing in recent decades and has been limitedly recognized in the ICC Articles of association as an example of war crimes. In addition, the Statute of the Court has the ability to identify some instances of ecosystem as tools for crimes against humanity or genocide. However, for reasons such as the different nature of environmental crimes and the lack of full coverage of ecosystem cases by the statute, it is necessary for this concept to be recognized as an independent crime and internationally criminalized. This research by using descriptive-analytical method seeks to justify the reason for this criminology and to state the reasons for its necessity and to examine the challenges facing it and to provide solutions in this field. Today, it can be argued that conflicting ecosystems is one of the fundamental global values and one of the universal international obligations, the CRIMINALIZATION of which has become necessary and inevitable at the international level.

The importance and status of criminal law is such that the fundamental values and moral realities of any society and country can be considered, so much so that if one wants to live anywhere in the world, one must learn the norms protected in the criminal law of that land. Take it and take a step in that direction. Criminal law around the world is based on principles and rules that protect human rights. The method of drafting and legislating criminal laws has its own sensitivities and methods. The legislator of criminal law should be aware of the importance and high status of his work and try his best to pass the criminal law without any objections and problems in writing and criminalizing the law, and its implementation should be clear and unambiguous for law enforcement officials.

Criminal law and CRIMINALIZATION is the arena of confrontation between government authority and the rights and freedoms of citizens; various theories, assuming the legitimacy of the government's authority, as an accepted institution for establishing, implementing and dealing with the implementation of the law, defining the crime, determining the punishment and applying it, as well as the implementation of the criminal justice system, have been examined by the thinkers of this field in explaining and justifying CRIMINALIZATION and punishment. Paying attention to the emergence of problems that this attitude creates on the issue of CRIMINALIZATION and sentencing, as well as examining philosophical and criminological reflections outside the circle of accepting the existence of the state, considering the basic rights of citizens, it is necessary that with a view based on aversion to authority, with an anarchist approach and based on the negation of the concept of the state. In this way, in addition to what we find out, from this point of view, CRIMINALIZATION will not be possible, but it is necessary to take help from the school of restorative justice, which seems to lead nowhere in the space of government authority, but in the space of escaping from authority, it can open the way and be effective.

In an era of rapid information growth in cyberspace, the challenges of criminalizing and controlling the dissemination of misleading information have become prominent issues in ethics and criminal law. Opinions on criminalizing misleading information are divided into two groups: those supporting criminal intervention and those opposing it. This study examines the feasibility and justificatory frameworks for criminalizing misleading information in cyberspace. The main research question is how to justify the CRIMINALIZATION of misleading information dissemination from the perspective of criminal law philosophy. The article employs an inductive-deductive method, analyzing the criteria for justifying CRIMINALIZATION and applying them to the behavior of disseminating of misleading information to determine its feasibility and limits. Focusing on four key criteria of criminal law philosophy—Filtering, Balance of Reasons, Social Acceptance, and Harm Prevention—this research demonstrates how these criteria can provide a justified framework for criminally addressing the dangers of misleading information in cyberspace.

In some point of view, neither Michel Foucault nor Ibn Khaldun are considered philosophers in the conventional classifications, but both are very  important in intellectual and, of course, in philosophical contexts, especially for those who are interested in the deep study of human life from the perspective of political thought.The main concern of two thinkers, one in the 14th century, the other in the 20th century, is the issue  of power, although neither of them provided a precise definition of it. In this article, an attempt has been made to show the place of power and domination in the political thought of both thinkers by examining the thoughts of two thinkers. And in search of an answer to this question, how did Asabiyyah and industry of religion in Ibn Khaldun's thought and social control through self-technology and discipline in Foucault's thought lead to the expansion of the domination of power? This article is written by analytically comparing the opinions of two thinkers based on Ibn Khaldun's most important book called Muqaddimah and Foucault's late works

One of the most frequent rules in various areas of demonstrative jurisprudence of Two Major Sects of Islam religion is a rule that is known among Shīʿa as “tolerance in the evidence of traditions” (Arabic: التسامح فی أدلّة السنن) and in Sunnī as “latitudinarianism in documents” (Arabic: التساهل فی أسانید). Believers in the general application of this rule have based it for reasons such as consensus (Arabic: إجماع), tradition famous through practice (Arabic: الشهرة العملیّة), and rational judgement (intellectual judgement) and a group of aḥādīth (Arabic: أحادیث, plural form for ḥadīth, literally “talk” or “discourse”) called “Akhbar-e- Man Balagh” (Arabic: أخبار من بلغ). The understanding of the aforementioned narrations and the extent of application of this rule has caused a conflict of opinions among scholars. The narrations containing the excellences of suras of the Holy Book of Quran is one of the fields of application of the rule of tolerance. The present research has explained the types of exposure to this group of narrations based on the rule of tolerance by using descriptive-exploratory method and using library sources and seeks to find a suitable approach about narrations of the excellences of suras (chapters) of the Holy Book of Quran. The interaction with these narrations is organized based on a special reading of the rule of tolerance in the selected approach, which is based on a rational interpretation of the contents of Man-Balagh (Arabic: من بلغ)’s narrations and is compatible with the indications of some verses and traditions. The use of weak narrations containing the excellences of suras (chapters) will be permissible based on this approach considering three conditions and without any certainty of attributing these narrations to Sharʿ (Islamic rules).

Today, criminal intervention in the domain of private law is deemed unavoidable. Despite facing opposition, Iranian legislators firmly hold the belief that merely imposing restrictions on individuals' volition is insufficient. Through the implementation of criminal enforcement measures, they strive to safeguard the broader societal interests. Criminal intervention in contractual relations between contracting parties serves two primary purposes: firstly, to ensure compliance with established legal procedures, and secondly, to prevent the misuse of contracts as a means to evade debt obligations. However, it is crucial to recognize that criminal intervention in individuals' private relations is restricted by the principles of freedom and self-determination. Appealing to criminal enforcement should be considered a last resort. Therefore, the application of criminal enforcement requires a reasoned approach. This research aims to elucidate the foundations and principles underlying the CRIMINALIZATION of legal actions by employing the analytical-descriptive methodology. The research findings indicate that the rules pertaining to the preservation of order, the principle of non-harm, and the principle of exigency and emergency can be regarded as the textual and theoretical foundations for the CRIMINALIZATION of legal actions.

One of the most significant principles of legislation in criminal law is law wording explicitly and unambiguously. In Iranian Legal System,  the legislator has considered rebellion CRIMINALIZATION for the first time in 2013 in articles 287 and 288 of the Islamic Penal Code and applying ambiguous, equivocal, and sometimes general statements provided the background for court vote manipulation and judicial criminal politics straying in addition to damaging general principles of penal code; the current study has been conducted utilizing descriptive-analytical research method and its main question is what ambiguities exist in the cases related to rebellion CRIMINALIZATION and how it is possible to remove them? Based on the obtained results and data, it is required to modify and revise the rebellion CRIMINALIZATION.