نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
نویسندگان
1 دانشگاه تهران - دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی - گروه حقوق خصوصی
2 کارشناس ارشد، دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران
چکیده
کلیدواژهها
موضوعات
عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسندگان [English]
A correct understanding of the necessity and principles of enacting any law is a prerequisite for correct legislation. Elucidating and clarifying the principles and philosophy of enacting regulations, not only delineates their legal validity and substantive richness but also fosters broader public acceptance of those regulations. Therefore, the study and investigation of the theoretical and intellectual foundations from which legal doctrine and regulations have gained their validity can be one of the main areas of research. The principle of full protection of individual autonomy is sometimes violated due to expediency, including in situations where health crises occur and public health is threatened. The main subject of this research is on what legal reasoning, based on what criteria, and to what extent, legal logic tolerates and can consider it permissible to violate the individual autonomy. In conducting this research, library and online sources beside analysis of collected data were used. While accepting full support for individual autonomy as a fundamental principle, several philosophical theories, while addressing the prioritization of human individuality preservation, have recognized the occurrence of harm to others as a factor in prescribing the violation of this principle. Most of the theories presented in this study believe that although there is always a degree of benefit and harm in every social action and reaction, in general, the benefit of individuals is marginalized where it involves harm to others, and legal mechanisms allow to limit their independence in order to ensure the collective benefit. In times of health crises, governments are forced to take measures such as compulsory vaccination, quarantine, and travel restrictions in order to control and improve the health of society, which conflict with the individual autonomy and the freedom to choose whether to accept or reject these measures. The main focus of this research is on why and how these restrictions are imposed from a legal perspective, and on what basis and justification governments and legislative authorities are able to violate the most fundamental human right, namely their independence. Concentrating on the balance of "Benefit and Harm" as a turning point and a basis for the possibility of imposing restrictions on individual freedom, this article proposes and examines theories that are capable of providing a logical response to such conflicts and will be used in a legal context in order to provide a scale for accepting the possibility of violating individuals autonomy and government intervention in their autonomy in the context of the spread of widespread diseases. Accordingly, this important question has been answered: whether the concept of benefit and harm and establishing a balance between these two can be an acceptable basis for imposing and applying restrictions on individual autonomy? The principles that have been examined in this study to accept the possibility of imposing restrictions on individual autonomy during health crises include: first, harm prevention has been explained in the form of three theories: the Harm Principle (John Stuart Mill), Negative Liberty (Isaiah Berlin), and the "La Zarar" rule (jurisprudential rule). Despite the different perspectives of each of these theories, the need to avoid harm to individuals is a major obstacle to individual freedom. This view is also supported by even the most ardent defenders of individual freedom. Incidentally, preventing harm to others is essential to ensure the freedom of all. Second: the theory of Patriarchy; According to this theory, the government, as a representative of society, has the authority to make decisions on behalf of the individuals in society, taking into account their interests and aiming harm prevention, and effectively replacing their freedom and will. Third, the right to health is a multi-layered concept consisting of different levels, which can balance its various functions and effects. The fourth theory of public interest includes the theory of Social Dilemma (Robin Dawes), which, using this psychological model, can be used to introduce a basis for preferring collective interest over individual personal interest, meaning that securing collective interest is equal to securing the interest of all individuals, and also the General Will (Jean-Jacques Rousseau), in which everyone, by obeying the law that expresses the general will, follows his own reason and his true will, and following his own reason and will means being free, which ultimately leads the authors to believe that the only factor which can limit the independence and freedom of individuals and their interests is preventing harm to others or attracting a general benefit. Thus, the balance between benefit and harm, that is, sacrificing the individual interest in exchange for preventing harm or attracting a collective benefit, is the same balance point that governments must adhere to balance the conflict between the rights of individuals and have permission to violate the independence of individuals. Therefore, it can be concluded that any factor that prevents the establishment of a balance between the benefit of exercising individual autonomy and the harm resulting from restricting it, and in return, the harm resulting from exercising individual autonomy for society and the benefit resulting from imposing restrictions for society, in fact means that the violation of individual autonomy and independence lacks legal justification, and this thin line must be carefully drawn to achieve a point of equilibrium and balance between benefit and harm in a legal context
کلیدواژهها [English]
فارسی
کتاب
مقاله
پایاننامه
عربی
کتاب
References
Books
Articles
Thesis
Ducuments
)