Volume 18, Issue 3 (8-2026)
jorar 2026, 18(3): 152-163 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Nateghi M, Azimi Garekani H, Masoumi J. Islamic Jurisprudential Principles and IFRC Standards on Aid Workers’ Safety: A Comparative Analysis of the Laws and Implementing Guidelines of the Iranian Red Crescent Society. , jorar. 2026; 18 (3) :152-163
URL: http://jorar.ir/article-1-1084-en.html
URL: http://jorar.ir/article-1-1084-en.html
Associate Professor, Department of Jurisprudence and Fundamentals of Islamic Law, Central Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
Abstract: (404 Views)
INTRODUCTION: Aid workers’ safety is a central concern in disaster response. Decisions to enter hazardous scenes raise questions that Islamic jurisprudence, international Red Cross and Red Crescent standards, and Iranian law address in different ways. This study compares relevant Imami jurisprudential principles with standards of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC) and with Iranian legal provisions, in order to identify points of convergence and gaps and to outline a basis for an integrated safety framework.
METHODS: This qualitative, descriptive study used library-based documentary analysis of Imami jurisprudential sources, IFRC and Movement documents, and Iranian statutes and regulations relating to the Iranian Red Crescent Society (IRCS) and disaster management. Principles and provisions were extracted, classified by function, and compared through qualitative content analysis.
FINDINGS: Seven jurisprudential principles were identified: preservation of life, prevention of harm (lā ḍarar), removal of undue hardship, beneficence (iḥsān), resolution of conflicting duties (tazāḥum), prevention of probable harm, and protection of others from danger. These principles broadly align with IFRC guidance on risk assessment, safety, intervention prioritization, and volunteer well-being. However, the documents examined indicate possible gaps in operational risk thresholds, the distinction between professional and volunteer aid workers, psychological support, compensation, and binding safety procedures; their extent in practice requires further verification. Integrating jurisprudential principles, international standards, and Iranian law could strengthen aid workers’ safety and risk management.
CONCLUSION: Shared principles of life protection should be translated into clear, enforceable, and assessable procedures for risk assessment, entry and withdrawal decisions, responsibility, insurance and compensation, psychological support, and oversight. Legislative reform should address disproportionate risks to life and incorporate appropriate technologies for risk assessment. The proposed conceptual framework requires expert validation before adoption. Integrating jurisprudential principles, international standards, and Iranian law can strengthen aid workers’ safety, reinforce its religious and legal foundations, and may support broader alignment with international humanitarian principles, with potential relevance to other national contexts.
METHODS: This qualitative, descriptive study used library-based documentary analysis of Imami jurisprudential sources, IFRC and Movement documents, and Iranian statutes and regulations relating to the Iranian Red Crescent Society (IRCS) and disaster management. Principles and provisions were extracted, classified by function, and compared through qualitative content analysis.
FINDINGS: Seven jurisprudential principles were identified: preservation of life, prevention of harm (lā ḍarar), removal of undue hardship, beneficence (iḥsān), resolution of conflicting duties (tazāḥum), prevention of probable harm, and protection of others from danger. These principles broadly align with IFRC guidance on risk assessment, safety, intervention prioritization, and volunteer well-being. However, the documents examined indicate possible gaps in operational risk thresholds, the distinction between professional and volunteer aid workers, psychological support, compensation, and binding safety procedures; their extent in practice requires further verification. Integrating jurisprudential principles, international standards, and Iranian law could strengthen aid workers’ safety and risk management.
CONCLUSION: Shared principles of life protection should be translated into clear, enforceable, and assessable procedures for risk assessment, entry and withdrawal decisions, responsibility, insurance and compensation, psychological support, and oversight. Legislative reform should address disproportionate risks to life and incorporate appropriate technologies for risk assessment. The proposed conceptual framework requires expert validation before adoption. Integrating jurisprudential principles, international standards, and Iranian law can strengthen aid workers’ safety, reinforce its religious and legal foundations, and may support broader alignment with international humanitarian principles, with potential relevance to other national contexts.
Keywords: Aid worker, Safety, Islamic Jurisprudential Principles, Preservation of Life, International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC), Disaster management.
Article Type: Research article |
Subject:
IFRC, RCRC, Movment of Red Cross & Red Crescent etc.
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
