نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

• علیرضا دبیرنیا ¹
• شقایق جهان بین هفشجانی ²

¹ دانشیار گروه حقوق عمومی، دانشکده حقوق، دانشگاه قم، قم، ایران

² دانشجوی دکتری حقوق عمومی، دانشکده حقوق، دانشگاه قم، قم، ایران

چکیده

در یک نظام مبتنی بر نمایندگی، حکومت تنها به‌مثابه ابزاری برای انعکاس اراده ملت می‌باشد. در واقع حکومت همانند پیمانکار امر عمومی است که از جانب کارفرما به اعمال حق حاکمیت در حوزه عمومی می‌پردازد. در این راستا ملت برای تحکیم حق حاکمیت خود، تنظیم قدرت سیاسی و جلوگیری از مداخله ساختارهای حکومت در سایر حوزه‌های زندگی‌شان، از حقوق ‌عمومی به‌عنوان سازوکاری بنیادین بهره می‌جویند تا علاوه بر تضمین حقوق و آزادی‌های اساسی‌شان، قدرت سیاسی را محدود کند. در رهیافتی مدرن، حقوق ‌عمومی نقشی همانند یک شمشیر دو لبه را در جامعه بازی می‌کند. در این صورت اگر ادات تنظیم‌گر حقوق ‌عمومی، مسیری جز حفظ توازن و متعادل‌سازی را در پیش گیرند و جذب قدرت و ثروت دولت شوند، آن زمان است که کفه ترازو قدرت دولت به قدرت ذاتی مردم می‌‌چربد و حقوق ‌عمومی و بازوانش تنها به منزله ابزاری برای تحکیم قدرت سیاسی دولت بکار می‌روند. نگارندگان در این پژوهش که به روش تحلیلی - توصیفی از طریق مطالعات کتابخانه‌ای گردآوری شده، بر آن هستند تا ضمن معرفی حقوق عمومی به‌عنوان یک سازوکار نهادینه در تضمین حقوق و آزادی‌های اساسی، به این پرسش پاسخ دهند که آیا احتمال تغییر مسیر حقوق عمومی و تقابل با حقوق و آزادی‌های اساسی وجود دارد یا خیر؟  

کلیدواژه‌ها

• حقوق عمومی
• حاکمیت مردم
• قرارداد اجتماعی
• حقوق و آزادی‌های اساسی
• قدرت سیاسی

موضوعات

• حقوق عمومی

عنوان مقاله [English]

The Position and Function of Public Law: Regulation or Consolidation of Political Power?

نویسندگان [English]

• Alireza Dabirnia ¹
• Shaghayegh Jahanbin Hafshejani ²

¹ Associate Professor, Department of Public Law, Faculty of Law, University of Qom, Qom, Iran

² Ph.D Student, Public Law, Faculty of Law, Qom University, Qom, Iran

چکیده [English]

Introduction

Public law serves as the foundational institutional mechanism governing the relationship between the state and its citizens, structuring political authority and ensuring the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms. In representative democracies, public law is a reflection of popular will—a contractual instrument through which the people delegate sovereignty to the state while retaining ultimate oversight. Nevertheless, a critical and often underexplored question arises as to whether public law operates to regulate political power, or it can be repurposed to consolidate it, thereby undermining the very freedoms it was designed to protect. In this respect, the current study aimed to examine the dual function of public law—as both a regulator and a consolidator of political power. The analysis focused on the institutional and social conditions that may lead to a functional shift in the role of public law from a regulator into a consolidator. While its normative role is to limit governmental overreach and safeguard individual rights, historical and theoretical evidence suggests that the instruments of public law—such as constitutional frameworks, judicial systems, and administrative bodies—may be co-opted by the state. When this occurs, public law risks becoming an instrument of domination, legitimizing authoritarian practices and eroding democratic foundations. The central problem, therefore, is whether public law can deviate from its regulatory mandate and instead serve to reinforce state power at the expense of popular sovereignty.

Literature Review

Existing scholarship has extensively analyzed public law as a guarantor of rights and a mechanism for limiting state power. Although research has examined its structural and normative dimensions, comparatively less attention has been paid to its potential transformation into an extra-legal or meta-legal phenomenon capable of reinforcing political authority. Building on the existing debates and literature, the current research explored the conditions under which public law may shift from a tool of regulation to one of consolidation.

Materials and Methods

The research adopted an analytical–descriptive approach, relying on library sources in both Persian and English. It engaged with theoretical frameworks from political philosophy, constitutional law, and sociology to construct a comprehensive understanding of public law’s evolving role in modern states.

Results and Discussion

According to the results, in well-functioning democracies, public law operates through mechanisms such as the separation of powers, the rule of law, electoral systems, civil society, free media, and political parties—with the ultimate aim of regulating and dispersing political authority. However, when these mechanisms are weakened, corrupted, or absorbed by the state, public law may begin to serve the opposite purpose and merely legitimizing concentrated power, restricting freedoms, and entrenching authoritarian governance. This shift is often accompanied by the strategic use of legal rhetoric to mask the erosion of substantive rights. The findings also revealed an inherent vulnerability. Power possesses a natural propensity for expansion and corruption, as noted in philosophical and historical discourse. The efficacy of public law as a regulator is contingent upon the genuine independence and vitality of its constituent mechanisms. When these oversight institutions (e.g., the judiciary, electoral bodies, or media) are weakened, absorbed, or aligned with the interests of the ruling political power, a critical inversion occurs. In this scenario, public law’s instruments are repurposed. Laws may be used to sanction repression, judicial oversight may be neutralized, and media may become platforms for state propaganda. Consequently, public law sheds its regulatory character and transforms into a sophisticated apparatus for consolidating state power, paradoxically using legal and institutional forms to undermine the very rights it was meant to protect.

Conclusion

While public law is conceptually and ideally established to regulate political power and cement popular sovereignty, it is not immune to functional perversion. Its role is not static but dynamic and context-dependent. The perpetual and absolute independence of oversight institutions, coupled with an active and aware citizenry, constitutes the essential precondition for preserving public law’s true mission. Without these safeguards, the system designed to restrain power risks becoming its most potent instrument. Thus, the current inquiry underscores that the ultimate guarantor of public law’s proper function is not the law itself, but the sustained political vigilance and constituent power of the people it serves.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

• Public Law
• Popular Sovereignty
• Social Contract
• Self-Determination
• Political Power