Mohammad Hossein Zarei; Ayyam Kamarkhani
Abstract
The State in the general sense is competent to make binding decisions to protect the public interest, on behalf of the people in response to the events of social life. One of the issues that governments have responded in the last two centuries in various forms such as lawmaking, adoptions of economic ...
Read More
The State in the general sense is competent to make binding decisions to protect the public interest, on behalf of the people in response to the events of social life. One of the issues that governments have responded in the last two centuries in various forms such as lawmaking, adoptions of economic policies and the issuance of judicial rulings has been economic crises. Given the impact of judicial rulings on resource allocation and the effectiveness of government economic policies and its constructive role in achieving the rule of law, it is important to provide an analysis of the fluctuations and characteristics of judicial rulings in times of significant economic crisis; Therefore, in this article, by examining the rulings of the Court of Administrative Justice during the currency crisis of the 1990s and the current economic crisis in Iran, it is intended to provide an appropriate analysis for the above question. The results of these studies indicate that in times of economic crisis, the performance of the Administrative Court of Justice is very significant and this issue is due to the excessive intervention of executive bodies through overregulation. The Administrative Court of Justice is also negligent for not considering the fact that the occurrence of economic crisis is the main cause of overregulation.
Hossain Ayene Negini; Mohammad Amin Abrishami rad
Abstract
According to Article 170 of the Constitution, judges of courts are obliged to refrain from enforcing regulations contrary to Islamic laws and regulations. In the form of descriptive-analytical research, based on the application of the phrase "judges of courts" in this principle, the Statute of the Administrative ...
Read More
According to Article 170 of the Constitution, judges of courts are obliged to refrain from enforcing regulations contrary to Islamic laws and regulations. In the form of descriptive-analytical research, based on the application of the phrase "judges of courts" in this principle, the Statute of the Administrative Court of Justice in the Iranian judicial system and the procedure of that Court, proved that the judges of the branches of the Administrative Court of Justice are subject to this principle and obliged to refrain from enforcing such during their proceedings. In this regard, according to Article 11 of “the 2013 Law on the Organization and Procedure of the Administrative Justice Court” that obligated the convicts in the branches of this courts to observe the provisions of the court's decision in their subsequent decisions and actions, it was concluded that, contrary to the supervision of other judges, if the judges of the branches of the Administrative Justice Court find the regulations to be contrary to the Islamic laws and regulations, in some cases it will be possible to invalidate them in general, which was referred to as the "implicit Revocation of Government regulations". However, this situation is inconsistent with the interpretive competence of other judges of the courts in Article 73 and the wording of Article 170, which states that "the effect of the supervision of the judges of the courts is occasional".
mahdi rezaei; nima khosravi
Abstract
The main idea of this article is that in contemporary legal thinking, the duty to give reasons has become an inseparable part of Rule of Law. However, it should be asked that how the Rule of Law can be understood as constituting the “Rule of Reasons” principle? The very notion of this article ...
Read More
The main idea of this article is that in contemporary legal thinking, the duty to give reasons has become an inseparable part of Rule of Law. However, it should be asked that how the Rule of Law can be understood as constituting the “Rule of Reasons” principle? The very notion of this article is the bond relationship between principles of duty to give reasons and Rule of Law. Contributors to this paper claim that giving reasons uphold procedural and substantive conceptions of Rule of Law. Giving reasons is the necessary part of the procedural notion since this notion requires that all the state acts must be done in a predictable and consistent way which justifies them by reasons. Also, giving reasons can serve the central part of substantive notion of Rule of Law: the main aim of this conception is to ensure certain fair goals and requiring public officials to give reasons ensures fair conduct toward citizens. As conceptualizing this relationship, in order to reach a contextual evaluation of Rule of Law, theoretical frameworks of it shall pay more attention to duty to give reasons.
