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.

Manufacturing strategy for any organization and managers is an important fact, could have a significant impact on organizational success, and could improve the area of expertise within the organization. Considering the importance of this issue, it is clear that the production strategy has a significant role in the competitive situation. Due to the enormous environmental changes, factory production strategies were to quickly change. Most studies in the field of manufacturing. From the other side production strategies focus on content and process of manufacturing strategy and few studies deals with this area. The aim of this study was to provide a taxonomy of manufacturing strategies. To achieve this purpose, a sample of 100 manufacturing plants located in “ Mashhad Industrial Zone” was evaluated. After validity and reliability test of data gatherings tool, we identified four different clusters for manufacturing strategy (each of them emphasized different objectives, through Applying cluster analysis).

Basically, the compensation of damage is the main purpose of Indemnity Insurance contract that is founded on the PRINCIPLE of indemnity. According to this PRINCIPLE, the full compensation of e victim’s losses, up to ceiling of insurer’s obligations, is the main and inherent effects of Indemnity Insurance contract in insurance law. Thus, the main obligation of an insurer in the indemnity insurance is compensation so the victim should be placed in a situation that it was if the insured risk actually has not occurred.Thus, in the Indemnity Insurance contract “the Indemnity PRINCIPLE” as the underlying PRINCIPLE has two function. First, the insurer should compensate the damage incurred to property insured in property insurance and to insured person in personal liability insurance up to ceiling of insurer’s obligations completely. Therefore, compensation should placed the victim in a situation that it was if the insured risk actually has not occurred.Second, compensation and payment of damages should not increase the victim assets since the insurance should never be a source of profit for the victims. This PRINCIPLE is the binding rule of the insurance contracts according to it, the insurer is committed to compensate the victim’s actual damage (assessed) up to ceiling of her obligations, in accordance with the terms and conditions of the insurance policy.

Introduction: Due to the rapid growth of science and the increasing number of articles that have led to increased research misconduct, the purpose of this study was to design a comprehensive questionnaire about research misconduct. Materials and Methods: After searching and finding relevant studies, using available questionnaires and various studies, and contacting the corresponding authors of the articles, questions database were designed. Based on the expert opinion panels, the questions were selected from the database in each field and then the face validity, content validity and reliability of the questionnaire were examined. Results: The final questionnaire was approved with 75 questions in three areas. The content and structure validity and the importance of each question was presented separately and was acceptable. The reliability of the tool was calculated with Cronbach's alpha, which was 0. 77, which indicates the acceptable reliability of the questionnaire. Conclusion: Considering the comprehensiveness, acceptable validity and reliability of this tool, this tool is recommended for future studies.

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.

One of the requirements and guarantees of the PRINCIPLE of neutrality is to conduct preliminary investigations by an independent judge and to distinguish the prosecutor from the investigating authority.In this regard,the investigator entered the structure of the department of justice and the prosecutor's powers were prosecuted as a party to the limited criminal proceedings.Although the PRINCIPLE of impartiality and the necessity of observance of it in Article 3 of the Criminal Procedure Code of our country have been emphasized,but its requirements and aspects Particularly in the preliminary stage of the preliminary investigation, officials have been neglected.In the same way, prosecutors still have the power to investigate and arrest the defendants in a large number of crimes and the investigator does not have complete independence in conducting investigations.Moreover,despite the adoption of the judiciary system,in some crimes and in the courts of the section,the system of public courts (all stages of proceedings by the judge of the unit( are applied,which is contrary to the PRINCIPLE of neutrality.In this article, the PRINCIPLE of neutrality and its components in the preliminary investigation and the degree of adherence of the legislator of our country to the requirements of this PRINCIPLE have been analyzed.

Constrain is the condition of driven by necessity. The PRINCIPLE of constraint determines the duties of the person constrained. In jurisprudence, it includes a range of activities from cleanness to blood compensation. However, jurisprudents have discussed it mainly with regard to those that can be eaten and drunk, and presented three different interpretations: fear of losing one"s life; fear in general, including fear of losing one"s life, or one"s limb, etc.; and fear of things not related to oneself but to others. The roots of constraint are compulsion, precautionary concealment, loss and necessity. The present article deals with a kind of constraint whose source is necessiy. The Qur"an has explicitly excused the person constrained from duties provided that the oppressor shows no inclination to sin. Tradition says that "there is so unlawful act that God Almighty has not made it permissible under constraint." The intellect also knows it permissible to give up necessary duties and to do the unlawful acts under constraint. Finally, the writer presents the conditions under which the application of the PRINCIPLE of constrain is made permissible.

By definition, ikrāh (duress) means forcing someone to do something unwillingly. Ikrah would be realized under seven conditions. In ikrāh over the prohibited, the criterion is inability of mukrah (i.e., the person under duress) to be released from threat and repelling loss and the culprit"s mere claim would be accepted. In transactions, however, ikrāh would be true only through discontent. The criterion for nullifying the conventional decree is non-observance, and mere claiming of ikrāh is not acceptable. Ikrāh is of two kinds: lawful and unlawful. The former is permissible and the latter is forbidden. The obligatory precept for the mukruh asserts that committing the forbidden and abandoning the obligatory is permissible for him/her except in case of homicide. And the conventional decree is that the mukruh is acquitted from qişāş (retaliation), hadd (legal penalty), dimān (liability), etc. The sources of rule of duress include āyah 106 of sūrat al-Nahl, the āyahs adduced by the PRINCIPLE of constraint, as well as tradition, consensus. and intellect.

The proposition “ Any essentially possible being requires a cause” must be considered as the precise wording of the causality PRINCIPLE. This is because according to principality of quiddity, the essential possibility is the criterion for quiddity’ s need of a cause, and according to the principality of existence, it is the sign for the of need of its existence to a cause. As for the attributes of the things, this PRINCIPLE is stated as “ the accidental is caused” . This is in contrast to “ the essential is not caused” which refers to the fact that the thing’ s essential attributes do not require a cause. The causality PRINCIPLE is itself a certain statement of the special mode of the PRINCIPLE of “ impossibility of preponderance without a preponderant” and is reduced to it. Thus, as far as self-evidence and non-self-evidence as well as provability and non-provability are concerned, it follows that PRINCIPLE; and as that PRINCIPLE is non-provable evident, so is the causality PRINCIPLE. From the PRINCIPLE of “ impossibility of preponderance without a preponderant” , another PRINCIPLE is derived as follows: the PRINCIPLE of “ impossibility of giving preponderance without a preponderant” which is the statement of the PRINCIPLE “ impossibility of preponderance without a preponderant” for the free-willed agent and his volitional actions, and is non-provable evident just like it.