نسبت سنجی اصل الزام به بیان دلایل تصمیمات و حاکمیت قانون

نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

1 عضو هیات علمی دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی

2 دانشجوی دکترای حقوق عمومی دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی

چکیده

ایده اصلی این مقاله آن است که در تفکر حقوقی معاصر، ارائه دلایل تصمیم، جزیی جدایی­ناپذیر از اصل حاکمیت قانون به­مثابه بنیادی­ترین اصل حقوق عمومی است. در واقع، سؤال آن است که تا چه حد حاکمیت قانون می­تواند تأسیس کننده قاعده «حاکمیت دلایل» باشد؟ این مقاله، مبتنی بر تلازمالزام به ارائه دلایل تصمیم با حاکمیت قانون است؛ یعنی اگر در نظام حقوقی، تصمیمات مقامات عمومی با دلایلِ بیان شده همراه نشود، آن نظام نسبتی با حاکمیت قانون نمی­یابد. نگارندگان مقاله معتقدند که ارائه دلایل، برداشت­های رویه­ای و ماهوی از حاکمیت قانون را تأیید می­کند. ارائه دلایل، لازمه برداشت رویه­ای از حاکمیت قانون است، زیرا این برداشت مستلزم آن است که اقدامات دولت به­روشی پیش­بینی­پذیر و منسجم انجام و با دلایل موجه شود. همچنین، ارائه دلایل از برداشت ماهوی حاکمیت قانون حمایت می­کند. هدف اصلی برداشت­های ماهوی حاکمیت قانون تضمین نتایج عادلانه است. الزام تصمیم­گیران به بیان دلایل، موجب تضمین رفتار عادلانه با شهروندان می­شود. همچنین چارچوب­های نظری در خصوص حاکمیت قانون باید نسبت به قبل، توجه بیش­تری به الزام به ارائه دلایل به­منظور تحقق ارزیابی بافت­مند از حاکمیت قانون داشته باشند.
 

کلیدواژه‌ها


عنوان مقاله [English]

Evaluation the Relation between Duty to Give Reasons Principle and Rule of Law

نویسندگان [English]

  • mahdi rezaei 1
  • nima khosravi 2
2 Ph.D. Candidate of Public Law, Allameh Tabatabaei University, Faculty of Law and Political Science
چکیده [English]

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.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Administrative law
  • Duty to give reasons
  • Rule of law
  • Procedural Fairness
  • judicial review
الف- فارسی
کتاب‌ها
-           فلاح زاده، علی محمد، (1394)، حقوق اداری تطبیقی، تهران: انتشارات شهر دانش.
-           هایک، فردریش، (1395)، راه بردگی، ترجمه فریدون تفضلی و حمید پاداش، چاپ سوم، تهران: نشر نگاه معاصر.
-           هداوند، مهدی، (1389)، حقوق اداری تطبیقی، جلد اول، تهران: انتشارات سمت.
 
مقاله‌ها
-           زارعی، محمدحسین، (1376)، «تحلیلی از پیوند حقوق اداری و مدیریت دولتی بر پایه حاکمیت قانون»، نشریه مدیریت دولتی، پاییز و زمستان، دوره 11، شماره 3.
-           فلاح­زاده، علی­محمد، (1396)، «اصل بیان دلایل و مستندات آرا و تصمیمات اداری و انعکاس آن در رویه قضایی دیوان عدالت اداری»، مجله پژوهش حقوق عمومی، بهار، دوره 18، شماره 54.
-           قاری سید فاطمی، سید محمد، و فلاح زاده، علی محمد، (1393)، «عدالت رویه­ای و تکلیف به بیان دلایل تصمیمات اداری: روی­کردی حق بنیاد»، مجله تحقیقات حقوقی، ویژه نامه شماره 10.
 
ب- انگلیسی
Books
-             Allan, Trevor, (1998), “Procedural Fairness and the Duty of Respect”, in: Oxford Legal Studies, Vol. 18.
 -             Kornblith, Hilary, (2002), Knowledge and Its Place in Nature, Oxford: Clarendon Press, especially chapter 3.
 -             Levine, James P, (1991), Juries and Politics (Contemporary Issues in Crime and Justice), Brooks/Cole Publishing.
 -             Pettit, Philip, (1997), Republicanism:  A Theory of Freedom and Government, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
 -             Stein, Peter, (1966), Regulae Iuris: from Juristic Rules to Legal Maxims, Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press
 
Articles
-             Adams, Brian E, (2014), “Reason-Giving In Deliberative Forums”, in: Journal of Public Deliberation, Vol. 10: Iss. 2, Article 6. Available at: http:// www. publicdeliberation. net/ jpd/ Vol.10/iss2/art6.
 -             Administrative Review Council, (2003), “The Scope of Judicial Review”, Discussion Paper, available at:  http://www.arc.ag.gov.au /Documents/Judicial+ Review+21_3.pdf.
 -             Alexy, Robert and Aleksander Peczenik (1990), “The Concept of Coherence and Its Significance for Discursive Rationality”, in: Ratio Juris, Vol. 3.
 -             Amaya, Amalia, (2013), “Coherence, Evidence and Legal Proof’, in: Legal Theory, Columbia University Press, Vol. 19, Issue 1.
 -             Beck, Leland E, (2013), “Agency Practices and Judicial Review of Administrative Records in Informal Rulemaking”, Report to the Administrative Conference of the United States, available at:  https://www.acus.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Agency Practices and Judicial Review of Administrative Records in Informal Rulemaking.pdf.
 -             Bingham, RT Hon Lord Justice, (1988), “Reasons and Reasons for Reasons:  Differences between a Court Judgment and an Arbitration Award”, in: Arbitration International, Vol. 4.
 -             Black, Matt and Paul Flintoft, (2011), “Challenging Administrative Decisions (Considerations for merits review and judicial review)”, Continuing Professional Development Seminars, available at: http://mblack.com.au/papers/mattblack-challenge-admin-decisions.pdf.
-             Brooke, John L, (1998), “Reason and Passion in the Public Sphere: Habermas and the Cultural Historians”, in: Journal of Interdisciplinary History, Vol. 29 (1).
 -             Carbonell, Flavia, (2011), “Coherence and Post-sovereign Legal Argumentation”, in: Agustin Jose Mendez and John Erik Fossum (eds.), Law and Democracy in: Neil MacCormeik’s Legal and Political Theory (The Post Sovereign Constellation), Springer, Chapter 9.
 -             Craig, Paul. P, (1997), “Formal and Substantive Conceptions of the Rule of Law: An Analytical Framework”, in: Public Law, available at:  weblaw.haifa.ac.il/en/ Judges Academy/workshop3/Documents/A/A/PL-Craig.pdf.
-             Eliot, Mark, (2012), “Has the Common Law Duty to Give Reasons Come of the Age”, in: Legal Studies Research, University of Cambridge, and Paper No. 7 /2012, available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2041362.
 -             Elster, Jon, (1998), “Deliberation and Constitution Making”, in Jon Elster (ed.), Deliberative Democracy, NewYork: Cambridge University Press.
 -             Fuller, Lon L. (1958), “Positivism and Fidelity to Law—A Reply to Professor Hart”, in: Harvard Law Review, Vol. 71.
-             Goldman, Alvin I, (1994), “Argumentation and Social Epistemology”, in: The Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 91.  
 -             Kant, Immanuel, (1784), “Idea for a Universal History from a Cosmopolitan Point of View”, in: Lewis White Beck (ed.), On History, translated by Lewis White Beck, Robert E. Anchor and Emil L. Fackenheim, Indianapolis: Bobbs-Merrill, Fourth Thesis.
 -             Kress, Kenneth J, (1984), “Legal Reasoning and Coherence Theories:  Dworkin’s Rights Thesis, Retroactivity, and the Linear Order of Decisions”, in: California Law Review, Vol. 72. Available at: http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/ californialawreview/ vol72/iss3/3.
 -             Lindquist, Stefanie A. and Frank C. Cross (2010), “Stability, Predictability and the Rule of Law: Stare Decisis as Reciprocity Norm”, Available at: https:// law. utexas. edu/ conferences/ measuring/The%20Papers/Rule%20of %20Law%20Conference. crosslindquist. pdf.
 -             Lovett, Frank, (2001), “Domination:  A Preliminary Analysis,” in: The Monist, Vol. 84.
-             Mashaw, Jerry L, (2007), “Reasoned Administration: The European Union, the United States, and the Project of Democratic Governance”, in: Yale Law School Legal Scholarship Repository, Faculty Scholarship, Paper 1179, available at: http://digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/fss_papers/1179.
 -             Matthew D. McCubbins et al, (1987), “Administrative Procedures as Instruments of Political Control”, in: Journal of Law and Economics, Vol. 3.
 -             Montpetit, Éric, (2005), “Westminster Parliamentarism, Policy Networks, and the Behaviour of Political Actors”, in: Andre Lecours (ed.), New Institutionalism: Theory and Analysis, University of Toronto Press, available at: www.jstor.org/stable/ 10.3138/9781442677630.18.
 -             Mureinik, Etienne (1994), “A Bridge to Where? Introducing the Interim Bill of Rights”, in: South Africa Journal of Human Rights, Vol. 10.
 -             Onishi, Norimitsu, “Japan Learns Dreaded Task of Jury Duty”, in: NY Times, July 16, 2007.
 -             Pettit, Philip (2000), “Democracy, Electoral and Contestatory,” in: Ian Shapiro and Stephen Macedo (eds.), Designing Democratic Institutions, Nomos XLII, London and New York: New York University Press.
 -             Ronald Dworkin (1984), “Rights as Trumps”, in: Jeremy Waldron (ed.), Theories of Rights, Oxford University Press.
 -             Stalnaker, Robert (1973), “Presupositions”, in: Journal of Philosophical Logic, Vol. 2.
 -             Staszewski, Glen (2012), “Reason-Giving and Accountability”, in: Minnesota Law Review, Vol. 93, available at: http:// www. minnesotalawreview. org/wp-content/ uploads/ 2012/ 01/ Staszewski_MLR.pdf.
 -             Visram, Alnashir (2010), “Review of Administrative Decisions of Government by Administrative Courts and Tribunals”, 10th Congress of the International Association of Supreme Administrative Jurisdictions (Sydney – March 2010).
 -             Waldron, Jeremy (2008), “The Concept and the Rule of Law”, in: Public Law & Legal Theory Research Paper Series, Working Paper NO. 08-50, New York University School of Law. Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1273005.