Public Law
Zohreh Naeimifard; MAHDI HADAVAND
Abstract
In administrative law, the "rule against bias" is one of the branches of the principle of "procedural fairness". One of the situations that may lead to a violation of the mentioned rule is "conflict of interest". Despite the importance of discussing the conflict of interest ...
Read More
In administrative law, the "rule against bias" is one of the branches of the principle of "procedural fairness". One of the situations that may lead to a violation of the mentioned rule is "conflict of interest". Despite the importance of discussing the conflict of interest in the public sector, taking into account its relationship with the rule against bias in administrative law, this issue has been addressed less, and the main topics discussed are related to the relationship between corruption and conflict of interest. Considering the relationship between this concept and the rule against bias, this article, using an analytical-descriptive method, seeks to examine the nature, elements, application, criticisms, and challenges of conflict of interest management to increase transparency and public trust in the government. It seems that bias and conflict of interest are related in the potential of influencing decision-making, jeopardizing impartiality and fairness, and affecting the validity of administrative decisions and actions. The most important requirements of prohibiting bias in conflict of interest are refusal and disqualification. In the face of the challenges in managing conflict of interest situations, continuous improvement, modification, and updating of conflict of interest regulations are necessary to ensure avoid any appearance of bias.
Public Law
Mohammad Solgi; Mehdi Hadavand
Abstract
This article analyzes the dual system of workers’ representation in German labor law, which is based on two complementary yet distinct institutions — trade unions and works councils — that form the foundation of the country’s industrial democracy. The main research problem is to evaluate the ...
Read More
This article analyzes the dual system of workers’ representation in German labor law, which is based on two complementary yet distinct institutions — trade unions and works councils — that form the foundation of the country’s industrial democracy. The main research problem is to evaluate the effectiveness of this system in the face of structural transformations in the contemporary labor market, including the expansion of digital employment, declining union membership, and increasing workforce fragmentation. The central research question asks whether the dual system of workers’ representation remains capable of responding to the evolving needs of the labor force or requires institutional reconstruction and legal reform. The study adopts a descriptive–analytical and interdisciplinary approach, drawing on legal, historical, and institutional data to examine the origins, structure, and evolution of this system. The findings indicate that while the dual representation model remains effective in traditional industries, it faces significant weaknesses in new forms of employment. study concludes that the sustainability of this legal framework depends on strengthening the linkage between trade unions and works councils, expanding the inclusiveness of representation, and adapting to technological and labor market changes to maintain the balance between social justice and economic dynamism within Germany’s industrial democracy.
Public Law
Zohreh Naeimifard; Mahdi Hadavand
Abstract
IntroductionIn administrative law, the rule against bias constitutes a key component of principles of procedural fairness and complements the theory of good governance. Various forms of bias (e.g., personal, cognitive, organizational–institutional, previous involvement, preconceived opinions, ...
Read More
IntroductionIn administrative law, the rule against bias constitutes a key component of principles of procedural fairness and complements the theory of good governance. Various forms of bias (e.g., personal, cognitive, organizational–institutional, previous involvement, preconceived opinions, predispositions, or prejudgments) can significantly influence decision-making processes. Despite the importance of the rule, its foundations and dimensions have received relatively limited attention within administrative law, with most discussions focusing primarily on judicial impartiality. Given the role of comparative law in administrative law, the present study adopted a descriptive–analytical approach to explore the nature, elements, and application of the rule against bias in British administrative law. Currently, the British legal system’s approach to the rule against bias appears fragmented and inconsistently applied, with varying standards. Any violation of this rule may render the administrative authority incompetent, with consequences ranging from the decision being void to merely voidable. While concerns persist regarding the rule’s rigidity—particularly in technically complex or specialized administrative matters—there remains a pressing need to balance between competing concerns. Literature ReviewThe general applicability of the rule against bias, as the second principle of procedural justice, is addressed in a chapter in the Persian-language book titled Comparative Administrative Law: Procedural Justice (Fallahzadeh, 2015). Aside from Fallahzadeh’s work, which serves as a key reference for the present study, the existing Persian-language literature lacks an independent and comprehensive analysis of this topic. It seems that the literature on the principles underlying the rule against bias and the related judicial procedures remains limited. Thus, the present study can be considered a novel contribution in its focus on the legal status of biased administrative decisions, as well as the criticisms and challenges associated with the application of the rule against bias. Materials and MethodsThis study adopted a descriptive–analytical approach, drawing on the data collected through a library research method and a review of library sources. Results and DiscussionAccording to the findings, the rule against bias plays a central role in upholding procedural fairness and legitimacy within the U.K. administrative legal system. The British courts have gradually moved away from rigid, formalistic distinctions—such as that between judicial and administrative functions—toward a more flexible, context-sensitive approach. This shift reflects a growing recognition that all decision-makers, regardless of their institutional position, are bound by the fundamental obligation to act impartially. The analysis identified three doctrinal categories of bias—actual, presumptive, and apparent—each with its own criteria and evidentiary standards. Although this categorization allows for nuanced application, it leads to a fragmented framework. Courts have thus far refrained from adopting a unified test, resulting in inconsistencies in application and interpretative uncertainty. Nevertheless, the current analysis supported the emerging scholarly and judicial view that a single, objective standard of apparent bias—centered on maintaining public confidence—could offer a more coherent and accessible doctrine. Moreover, the legal consequences of bias in administrative decisions—ranging from voidness to voidability—highlight a lack of consistency in available remedies. Outcomes often depend on judicial discretion and the nature of the administrative act, creating ambiguity that may undermine the predictability of the legal system. Despite these challenges, the British courts have consistently emphasized the need to balance procedural safeguards with practical considerations, particularly in specialized or technical administrative contexts. Finally, this research underscored the rule against bias as both a normative and functional safeguard. It serves not only to ensure the integrity of individual decisions but also to reinforce the broader legitimacy of administrative governance. The continued evolution of this doctrine in the U.K. law reflects an ongoing effort to reconcile formal legal principles with the imperatives of effective, accountable, and transparent public administration. ConclusionThe rule against bias remains a fundamental principle of procedural fairness in the U.K. administrative law. Although the British courts have adopted a more flexible, context-sensitive approach—moving away from outdated distinctions between judicial and administrative functions—the absence of a unified standard for identifying bias continues to result in inconsistency. The tripartite framework of bias offers analytical clarity but complicates the predictability. The growing recognition of both material and immaterial interests as grounds for disqualification reflects the expansive scope of the rule, yet also underscores the need for a coherent, objective test grounded in public confidence. While breaches of the rule may render decisions void or voidable, the courts strive to balance this with practical considerations, such as administrative efficiency and expertise. Ultimately, the rule against bias is evolving from a rigid, formalistic safeguard into a dynamic mechanism for ensuring fairness, legitimacy, and accountability in public decision-making.
Abstract
The origin of intention of public administration is the power which has been vested to the administration by law; therefore conformity of administration’s intention with law is the condition precedent of making legal effects resulted from administrative act. However, sometimes the administrative ...
Read More
The origin of intention of public administration is the power which has been vested to the administration by law; therefore conformity of administration’s intention with law is the condition precedent of making legal effects resulted from administrative act. However, sometimes the administrative act has been established but it lacks a number of legal conditions which has been named as the so called “defective administrative act” which in turn needs to be dealt with by developing proper theories. In this article, the concept and nature of administrative act will be reviewed briefly and the necessity of making distinction between conditions of administrative formation with essential conditions will be discussed, based on which the grounds of annulment will be distinguished from the grounds of invalidation, in one hand, and on the other hand administrative act will be categorized in three respects: valid administrative act, defective administrative act and annulled administrative act. Later, focusing on defective administrative act, and its variations, including annulment, revocation, withdrawal, and curing, curing of administrative act, as well as its nature and conditions, will be discussed.
