Public Law
Mohammad Bahadori Jahromi; Hamid Feli; Mahdi Ebrahimi
Abstract
IntroductionThe Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran, particularly Principle (4), puts the emphasis on upholding Islamic standards in all legal norms. However, a priori sharia supervision over parliamentary approvals shall be exercised by the faqihs (Islamic jurists) of the Guardian Council ...
Read More
IntroductionThe Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran, particularly Principle (4), puts the emphasis on upholding Islamic standards in all legal norms. However, a priori sharia supervision over parliamentary approvals shall be exercised by the faqihs (Islamic jurists) of the Guardian Council concerning the specific laws outlined in Principles (94), (95), and (96) of the Constitution. Other approvals, notably the regulations specified in Principle (4), lack constitutional provision. To ensure optimal implementation of Principle (4), there is a need for an effective mechanism that can guarantee adherence to Sharia standards in regulations. The current Sharia-based supervision mechanism is executed through the Court of Administrative Justice, but this approach has several shortcomings. First, it does not ensure Sharia compliance for all regulations since it is not comprehensive, only addressing the contested aspect of regulations. Moreover, regulations may possess significant importance based on inclusion, hierarchy of legal norms, authority level, and their impact on citizens’ rights and duties, leading to prolonged violations of citizens’ rights even when there are no complaints. In this respect, the present research aimed to examine the feasibility of establishing a mechanism for a priori Sharia supervision over key regulations, addressing the challenges associated with its implementation. The study is based on the hypothesis that there are factors favoring a priori Sharia supervision over other types of monitoring when it comes to some aspects of regulations. Although most challenges are manageable, certain challenges make it both desirable and achievable to implement such a mechanism. Literature ReviewThe literature has offered solutions, suggesting the mandatory submission of government regulations and approvals from the Supreme Council of Cultural Revolution to the Guardian Council before their implementation—which can ensure supervision over regulations from both a Sharia and constitutional perspective (e.g., Amjadian, 2012; Haji Ali Khamseh et al., 2021). Another proposed solution involves the establishment of boards specialized in Islamic jurisprudence and legal matters, overseen by the Guardian Council faqihs tasked with proactive monitoring subsequent to the enactment of regulations (Fe’li, 2020). The novelty of the present study lies in its detailed analysis of the feasibility and challenges associated with a priori Sharia supervision over regulations. Materials and MethodsThe study relied on a descriptive–analytical method, using library research to collect and analyze the data. Results and DiscussionA priori Sharia supervision over regulations can viably be applied after the regulations are approved and before they take effect—similar to the supervision over Majlis approvals. A priori Sharia supervision is more aligned with the objective of Principle (4) of the Constitution, so it is favored over other forms of supervision, especially retrospective supervision. Furthermore, it is essential that Sharia-based supervision be applied in advance or a priori to the implementation, at least for critical regulations that are not subject to appeal in the Court of Administrative Justice. Moreover, for the sake of legal security of citizens and the prevention of rights violations, a priori supervision is preferable over alternative types of monitoring because it is difficult to claim and restore the rights of citizens that might have been infringed upon in the past, especially if regulations are retroactively annulled long after their implementation. ConclusionThe challenges related to the principles of continuity and acceleration in delivering public services do not pose a significant obstacle to a priori Sharia supervision because it is feasible to set a deadline for expressing opinions and the Guardian Council faqihs have opinions aimed at guaranteeing these principles. Furthermore, certain regulations that are not allowed to be delayed in their approval and implementation can exceptionally be subjected to Sharia supervision outside a priori Sharia supervision mechanism. It is plausible that the structure and organization of the Guardian Council may not be entirely conducive or equipped to implement such a mechanism, given the unique responsibilities of the faqihs. However, it can be limited to a priori Sharia supervision of critical regulations, and it is not challenging as such, given the reforms aimed at reducing the Court of Administrative Justice’s inquiries from the Council (e.g., the ability to refer to the procedure of the Council’s faqihs in similar cases), and a comprehensive revision of the Council’s organization to lay the ground for a priori Sharia supervision. Additionally, the Head of the Judiciary and the President of the Court can notify the Guardian Council faqihs of cases conflicting with Sharia in order to eliminate the structural defects of the Guardian Council that render it incompatible with supervising important regulations. It is worth noting that Note (1) of Article (87) of the Law of the Court of Administrative Justice (1402/2023) also lays the groundwork for establishing a suitable structure for Sharia supervision over regulations.
Labor Law
Saeb Dast Peyman; Davoud Mohebbi; Ali Mashhadi
Abstract
1. IntroductionHuman rights such as the right to life, the right to health, the right to work and social security, and the right to a healthy environment call for supporting workers of arduous or hazardous jobs in forms of their right to enjoy a proper, healthy and hygienic work environment and support ...
Read More
1. IntroductionHuman rights such as the right to life, the right to health, the right to work and social security, and the right to a healthy environment call for supporting workers of arduous or hazardous jobs in forms of their right to enjoy a proper, healthy and hygienic work environment and support during work and retirement. Clinical occupations have specifically been designated as arduous or hazardous occupations by the legislator's decree and its employees have been further supported. Unfortunately, because the mentioned employees work in different governmental and non-governmental sectors and that they are under different laws and regulations including different provisions depending on the relevant sector, different procedures have been adopted to support these employees which causes discrimination between people who have the same jobs with similar conditions and with the same duties. Those covered by the labor and social security law retire with at least 20 consecutive years or 25 alternating years of employment experience and without meeting the minimum age requirement, those subject to National Employment Laws and related regulations retire with at least 25 years of employment experience in non-specialized jobs and 30 years in specialized jobs, Azad University employees retire by having at least 20 years of employment experience, workers subjected to the Administrative Regulation for Employment and Organization of Non-faculty Employees of the University of Medical Sciences and Healthcare Services of the Country retire with 25 years of employment experience, and the employees of the armed forces retire with at least 20 years of employment experience. Therefore, extending the conditions of amendment 2 of Article 76 of the Social Security Law 1380 to all those working in arduous or hazardous clinical jobs can be considered a way forward. Literature ReviewSo far, no article has been written about supporting those working in arduous or hazardous clinical jobs. MethodologyDescriptive/analytical/exploratory research methods will be used in writing this research. Also, the method of collecting information in the upcoming research will be library research. Other methods of collecting information such as field research and questionnaires will not be used. ConclusionThe table below demonstrates the different approaches to supporting those working in arduous or hazardous clinical jobs based on the governmental and non-governmental sectors and the different applicable rules to the mentioned sectors: Therefore, this system has caused discrimination between people who are employed in the same jobs with the same conditions and with the same description of duties which necessitates the initiative of the legislator to solve it.
Hossein KAVIAR
Abstract
Article 10 (2) of the Law on the Organization and Procedure of the Administrative Justice Court determines the competence and ranges of the Court's powers to deal with and investigate objections and complaints against the final decisions of exceptional administrative authorities. According to the analysis ...
Read More
Article 10 (2) of the Law on the Organization and Procedure of the Administrative Justice Court determines the competence and ranges of the Court's powers to deal with and investigate objections and complaints against the final decisions of exceptional administrative authorities. According to the analysis of the General Assembly of the Court of Administrative Justice in decisions number 37, 38, 39 dated 1989/10/2 and also the branches of the Court from paragraph 2 of Article 10, only real or legal persons of private law are allowed to file complaints and objections against final decisions. Exceptional Administrative authorities and the legal persons of general law don’t have that kind of power.Recently, on 2020/7/14, according to the ,Uniform Judicial Precedent numbered 792 of the General Assembly of the Supreme Court, the jurisdiction of the Administrative Justice Court to review the appeal filed by the Regional State Water Company against the decision of the Commission for Groundwater Affairs is recognized. Now the question arises is that whether the Uniform Judicial Precedent No. 792 is exceptional and is only about appealing the indefinite opinions of the judge of the Groundwater Commission?
Abstract
In Iran, claims concerning administrative responsibility of State are dealt with in two different courts. When the Court of Administrative Justice (“CAJ”) has ascertained the breach of law, the Ordinary Court determines the extent of the damage suffered. This duality in judicial procedure ...
Read More
In Iran, claims concerning administrative responsibility of State are dealt with in two different courts. When the Court of Administrative Justice (“CAJ”) has ascertained the breach of law, the Ordinary Court determines the extent of the damage suffered. This duality in judicial procedure is the relic of the Law on the State Council approved in 1960, which seemed logical given the constraints of that institution, which was contrary to the constitutional rules. However, the CAJ is identified in the Constitution of the I.R.I as part of the country's judiciary and the article 173 of the Constitution grants the jurisdiction over complaints, grievances, and objections of the people against the State. Accordingly, this duality is not compatible with the current judicial structure of the country and it aggravates slowness of judicial process, and increases the complexity of the judicial system and its costs, without any clear necessity.
