A double ambiguity has been charged against Rawls’s difference PRINCIPLE (DP). Is it Maximin, Leximin, or something else? Usually, following A. Sen, scholars identify DP with THE so-called Leximin. One argues here that one has to distinguish 1° THE Leximin, 2° THE Maximin (as rule of justice formally analogous to THE maximin rule of decision), represented by THE figure in L of THE perfectly substitutable goods, and 3° THE genuine DP. When THE augmentation of inequality benefits THE worse off, only Pareto-strong improvements are permitted. Leximin would also permit Pareto-weak improvements too (after THE first maximum D), where only THE richest improves: from (2, 3) to (2, 5), say. This is forbidden by DP. With two classes, unlike Maximin, DP has no curve of indifference and is always decisive, as Leximin is. For undecisive Rules of Justice, which admit indifferent curves, I propose to add a lexically secondary rule, to break ties. That move is able to clarify THE links and THE differences between on THE one hand Maximin alone, with its typical indifference curves in L, and on THE oTHEr hand, THE DP properly understood and THE Leximin, which both have no indifferent curves. With two classes of persons (best off/worse off), DP appears more egalitarian than Leximin, because it's secondary rule is MinIn (Minimization of Inequality). But THE intuition behind THE distinction is that it cannot possible “fair” that only THE best off improves in a productive social cooperation.

THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE has been widely discussed in academic, legal and political areas. Debates stem due to various definitions and wordings of THE PRINCIPLE and THE fact that it has been reflected in both binding and nonbinding international instruments in various fields. THE role of THE European Union and its members is undisputed in THE evolution of THE PRINCIPLE. It can be found in different contexts; from its statements in international disputes to Jurisprudence of its judicial organs. This paper, with an analytical-descriptive approach, examines THE situation of THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE in Domestic legal systems of European countries, primary and secondary rules of THE EU and THE jurisprudence of general courts, ECJ and ECHR to prove or deny THE customary nature of THE PRINCIPLE in this region.

Preference for prevention over cure is a truism. Precaution is an important type of prevention. Particularly, THE PRECAUTIONARY Approach in Civil Liability has been increasingly emphasized in recent decades. However, what THE term precaution conveys and THE specific stance it takes in civil liability is underexplored. Indeed, despite THE many recommendations for THE PRECAUTIONARY Approach, little has it been studied to define what it is or how it works. In this vein, recruiting a descriptive-analytical design, THE present study seeks to answer this fundamental question. THE PRINCIPLE of Precaution has already established itself as a moral and legal duty, and of great importance in dealing with various issues, especially social behaviors. Findings suggest that, among THE many proposed and conceivable roles, precaution could logically be considered as THE goal of civil liability in this respect. Explanation and justification on oTHEr roles are beyond THE scope of THE study.

Background and Aim: THE Cartagena Protocol on biosafety has been formulated based on THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE. Following Iran's accession to THE Protocol, THE Iran Biosafety Act was adopted to establish regulations in this field. In spite of THE necessity of complying of this law with THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE, its adherence to this PRINCIPLE is in doubt. THErefore, THE present study seeks to investigate THE extent of its compliance with THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE by analyzing this legal document. Materials and Methods: In this analytical study, while studying THE literature and published articles, THE document of biosafety law was analyzed and criticized from different aspects. Findings: In this law, THE ethical PRINCIPLE of precaution and its scope and how it is enforced has not been mentioned and only implicitly it has been mentioned for risk assessment and management by referring to THE Cartagena Protocol. In THE area of public participation, THEre are also no requirements and THEre are many ambiguities regarding compliance with THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE regarding civil and criminal liability. Conclusion: THE biosafety law has failed to enforce THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE and is in contradiction with THE aforementioned approach. THE main reason for this matter may be THE lack of definition and scope of this PRINCIPLE in view of THE socio-economic conditions of THE country. Amendments of THE law are recommended in accordance with THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE.

It took humankind a long time to realize its inability to understand different aspects of environmental risks and find that it would bear irreversible damage if such a risk occurs.Knowing THE vulnerability of THE environment and THE limitations of science to accurately predict threats to it, led to emerging THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE. This concept has stemmed from domestic legal systems and is being developed in international law. Various Formulations of THE PRINCIPLE and its including in binding and nonbinding international instruments in varied fields have resulted in controversial discussions between states, Tribunals and Commentators on Its legal status in International law. THEy are at least divided into two groups: some who are on customary status of THE PRINCIPLE and some who entitle it as a general PRINCIPLE of law.This paper examines different views towards THE legal status of THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE in International law and try to give a reasonable opinion at THE end.

PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE" is an important PRINCIPLE of law that lawyers have to speak in recent decades haveAnd domestic and international laws and judicial approach has affected some countries. THE need to protect THE environment and human life caused wise men sought to avoid risks that may impact upon THE actions of modern man is fearless. This concern is more THE result of appearance of some of THE areas of science, industry, medicine, food, agriculture and Everyone is amazed And its results, has charmed THEm. THE scientists who are unbridled THEse changes in THE environment and human life, have been apprehensive. THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE is an important controlling unsafe acts has perhaps not serious threats to life on earth. THErefore, THE need for risk prevention, not confined to certain risks that entails a certain loss. It was said even THE scientifically and technically it is not sure that is THE result of some harmful action, According to THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE should be minimized where possible damages resulting from that action is heavy and irreparable, Appropriate measures to avoid THE damage done.Thus, little by little, we see a fundamental change in THE scope of civil responsibility that "responsibility preventative" replacement " responsibility compensation" is.

THE protection of THE Caspian Sea environment as a common need of THE Caspian littoral states is in THE agenda of regional conventions and negotiations. THErefore, it is necessary to look at THE new pillars of THE development of THE modern PRINCIPLEs of international environmental law, such as PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE, for decision-making and implementation in THE field of protecting THE Caspian Sea environment. It should be acknowledged that THE protection of THE Caspian Sea environment in THE framework of THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE and a reasonable attention to harmful effects caused by non-compliance with this PRINCIPLE has a very effective role in protecting this water domain. THErefore, this research attempts to explain THE importance of THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE in existing legal documents on THE protection of THE Caspian Sea environment as well as to determine THE importance of this important environmental PRINCIPLE in development activities and THE need to assess THE environmental consequences of THEse activities in THE Caspian region and within THE framework of THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE, and to elaborate THE obstacles in front of this PRINCIPLE and that THE PRECAUTIONARY PRINCIPLE is precisely defined within THE framework of environmental considerations for protecting THE Caspian Sea environment.