Abstract
Decentralization, which nowadays has been accepted in many parts of the world,as a modern manner of administration of state-countries, must be accompanied by various principles which are to be used by thinkers as well as practitioners in policy-making and law-making as a theoretical and practical guide ...
Read More
Decentralization, which nowadays has been accepted in many parts of the world,as a modern manner of administration of state-countries, must be accompanied by various principles which are to be used by thinkers as well as practitioners in policy-making and law-making as a theoretical and practical guide and also for engendering different political, administrative and judicial practices.From among these principles,one can mention the principle of administrative freedom of local units, the principle of priority in implementation by local units, as well as the general condition of competences.In Iran, policy-makings and law-makings as well as exercising the issue of decentralization,no due and targeted attention has been paid to these principles, and it is worth stating, daringly, that decentralizations in Iran have been exercised with no attention to those principles.The reason of this negligence is probably that these principles are not dealt with in the doctrines of Iran Constitutional Law and Administrative Law. The present article,initially, employing the research-description Method embarks upon the recognition of these principles in administrative law, particularly with respect to their position in the Republic of France and then, using the analysis method,tries to seek the effects of their non-existence in Iranian Law and offers routes to their reconnaissance.
Mohammad Jalali; Saeed Barkhordari
Abstract
The Prosecution is one of the most important public institutions in the realization of the rule of law and the protector of political rights and freedoms. However, there is no theoretical basis or practical practice regarding the position of this institution among the three powers. Affected by the legal ...
Read More
The Prosecution is one of the most important public institutions in the realization of the rule of law and the protector of political rights and freedoms. However, there is no theoretical basis or practical practice regarding the position of this institution among the three powers. Affected by the legal structure and historical and political issues of each country, four factors have been influential in the formation of the position of the Prosecutor's Office: the executive structure; the structure of the judiciary; the independent prosecution; and the elected prosecution, which makes it impossible to introduce a desirable and ideal model for all systems. However, this paper will attempt to examine the four factors and concerns about the prosecution's position among the three powers. These factors include: the independence of the prosecutor's office; the separation of the Prosecution and Adjudication; and the need for prosecution policy-making and accountability. For the desirable position of the prosecution among the powers, it is necessary to strike a balance among these four concerns and effective factors in accordance with the political situation and the historical context of the formation of powers in any legal system.
Keyvan Sedaghati; Mohammad Jalali
Abstract
Abstract: management of Public endowment affairs without a trustee or an unknown one and private endowment have been delegated to endowment and charity affairs organization under certain conditions. Supervisor is an authority that the settler appoints for supervising trustee’s affairs and accurately ...
Read More
Abstract: management of Public endowment affairs without a trustee or an unknown one and private endowment have been delegated to endowment and charity affairs organization under certain conditions. Supervisor is an authority that the settler appoints for supervising trustee’s affairs and accurately implementing the deed for an endowment. In this review, we criticized maximum supervision by the government agent (endowment organization) in the field of endowment. We also criticized withdrawal of observer’s fee from incomes of disputed endowments and proponents’ reasons for government supervision that have relied on concepts including “charity affairs”, Muslims interests”, “public interests” , and “government dignities” . Doing so, we investigated statute law and practices of endowment organization and opinions of general board of administrative justice court. Hence, considering concepts including “respecting settlers’ intents”, “guarantee the independence of the endowment”, “delegating most of management and supervision to citizens” in line with “reducing role of government controlling endowments” and “reinforcing civil society” will be led to this conclusion that related rules and regulations are at least not tolerant to interpretation of receiving observer’s fee from endowments income by the endowment and charity affairs organization.
Mohammad Jalali; Rezvan Ziaei
Volume 15, Issue 39 , July 2013, , Pages 129-166
Abstract
In every society, power is deemed as an essential element for securing andmaintaining sovereign governments worldwide; however, human history showswhere it is not laid under control and supervision, in the absence of unaccountabilityto members of society, there is a likelihood of its inclination towards ...
Read More
In every society, power is deemed as an essential element for securing andmaintaining sovereign governments worldwide; however, human history showswhere it is not laid under control and supervision, in the absence of unaccountabilityto members of society, there is a likelihood of its inclination towards abuse of powerand corruption. Meanwhile, even so the government structure may well be assumedas democratic, maintaining constant supervision over its various constituentelements and divisions is a prime objective destined, within a legal framework, to beachieved and that it requires efficient supervisory vehicles in place as to carry outduties of such grave importance. Notwithstanding that, it is a duty assumedprimarily on judicial bodies to fulfill, prevalent complexity and bureaucracy in mazyaisles of courts coupled with lengthy proceedings therein, compelled some statesestablish organizations delegated to deal with complaints brought by people throughnon-judicial fast and brief process. These organizations were termed “Ombudsman”or non-judicial supervisory institutions.Nowadays, Ombudsman-providing the public with convenient non-judicialmechanism, through which their complaints against government are heard - isconsidered as an indication of political development and an inalienable part ofeffectively protecting basic rights of citizens living in democratic societies, to suchextend that one may argue that the notion of a democratic and developed nation maynot realize without independent and efficient Ombudsman in place. Indeed, bystriking a balance between the interests of the people and the government to whichthey are nationals, Ombudsman function as powerful mean laying down thenecessary foundation for realization of a favorable democracy. Accordingly, giventheir superb functionality and potentials, Ombudsmen may well serve the vitalpurpose of developing and institutionalizing a democracy by reinforcing itsfundamental principles and satisfactory addressing of citizens grievances or petitionswhich may arise as a result of government wrongdoing.Adopting a question-oriented approach and through a descriptive-analytic method, thispaper attempts to examine the relationship between democracy and Ombudsman as anon-judicial supervisory establishment; and respond to the questions of how and bywhat means may it globally contribute to development of democracy.
