اخبار و اعلانات
آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 20 |
| تعداد شماره‌ها | 546 |
| تعداد مقالات | 4,725 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 10,460,191 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 6,047,948 |
واکاوی مفهومی «احیای حقوق عامه» با مطالعه تطبیقی دعاوی منفعت عمومی | ||
| پژوهشنامه حقوق اسلامی | ||
| مقاله 5، دوره 24، شماره 2 - شماره پیاپی 60، تیر 1402، صفحه 285-316 اصل مقاله (589.47 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.30497/law.2023.245036.3412 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| محمدحسن کبگانی* 1؛ مصطفی منصوریان2؛ فاطمه افشاری3 | ||
| 1دانشجوی دکتری حقوق عمومی، دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران. | ||
| 2استادیار، گروه حقوق عمومی، دانشکده حقوق قضایی، دانشگاه علوم قضایی و خدمات اداری، تهران، ایران. | ||
| 3استادیار، پژوهشگاه قوه قضائیه، تهران، ایران. | ||
| چکیده | ||
| مفهوم کارویژه «احیای حقوق عامه» در دکترین و رویه قضایی همواره مورد اختلاف بوده است. حقوق عامه و مصادیق آن از یک سو و مفهوم احیاء از سوی دیگر محل اصلی این اختلاف می‌باشند. این ابهام با ظهور تحولات اجتماعی جدید و ملموس‌تر شدن نیاز به پیش‌بینی روش‌های نوین برای تضمین نفع عمومی پررنگ‌تر شده است. ضرورت پیگیری تخلفات زیست‌محیطی، تخلفات مربوط به بازار سرمایه، مشکلات مربوط به کیفیت خودروها و در سالیان اخیر مصائب ناشی از شیوع کرونا، از جمله مواردی است که باعث مطرح‌شدن مباحث مرتبط با احیای حقوق عامه و روش‌های قضایی تضمین منفعت عمومی شده است. مباحث مرتبط با تضمینات قضایی منفعت عمومی در نظام حقوقی ما غنای چندانی ندارد، اما در نظام حقوقی سایر کشورها تا حد زیادی شرح و بسط یافته است. حقوق منفعت عمومی و مباحثی که ذیل آن مطرح می‌شود (مانند دعاوی منفعت عمومی، سمت و حقوق قابل استناد در این دعاوی) ارتباط بسیار زیادی با کارویژه احیای حقوق عامه دارد. در این مقاله با روشی توصیفی تحلیلی و با استفاده از داده‌های کتابخانه‌ای و انجام مصاحبه با اکثر دادستان‌های مراکز استان و با بررسی رویه دادستان‌ها درصدد خواهیم بود تا حد امکان ابهامات مرتبط با مفهوم حقوق عامه و احیای آن را با استفاده از داده‌های تطبیقی (با تمرکز بر نظام‌های کامن‌لا) برطرف نماییم. بر اساس بررسی‌های انجام‌شده در این پژوهش، حقوق عامه را باید حقی تلقی کرد که ذی‌نفع محصور ندارد و احیاء نیز از حیث ماهیت، بیانگر مفهوم نظارت و معادل با صلاحیت‌های غیرکیفری دادستان‌ها است. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها | ||
| منفعت عمومی؛ حقوق عامه؛ حقوق فرا فردی؛ دادستان؛ دعوای جمعی | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| Conceptual Exploration of ‘Revival of Public Rights' through a Comparative Study of Public Interest Lawsuits in Iran | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| Mohammad Hasan Kabgani1؛ Mostafa Mansourian2؛ Fatemeh Afshari3 | ||
| 1PhD Student in Public law, Faculty of Law and Political Science, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran. | ||
| 2Assistant Professor, Department of Public Law, Faculty of Judicial Law, University of Judicial Sciences and Administrative Services, Tehran. Iran. | ||
| 3Assistant Professor, Judiciary Research Institute, Tehran, Iran. | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| ∴ Introduction ∴ The notion of the "Revival of Public Rights", anchored in Article 156 of the Iranian Constitution, has consistently been a subject of controversy within legal doctrines and judicial practice. This divergence fundamentally stems from the ambiguities surrounding the definition and instances of public rights, coupled with the conceptual nature of 'revival' itself. The necessity to judicially address emerging social challenges, such as environmental violations, capital market misconduct, and issues related to the quality of goods and services, has intensified discussions regarding the appropriate judicial methods for guaranteeing the public benefit. While robust discussions concerning judicial guarantees of public interest (Public Interest Law) have been extensively elaborated in legal systems of other countries, they remain less enriched within the Iranian legal framework. This transformation highlights the need to remove definitional and practical ambiguities concerning the core concepts. ∴ Research Question ∴ The core research question investigates how the dependency of adjudication on the "Revival of Public Rights" is affected by a process-oriented view of judicial resolution. The study aims to remove the ambiguities associated with the concept of public rights and its revival through comparative data analysis, with a focus on common law systems, specifically public interest law and associated lawsuits. The research specifically seeks to clarify the conceptual scope of public rights and determine the precise functional nature of the revival mechanism within the Iranian legal structure. ∴ Research Hypothesis ∴ The article hypothesizes that a strict, restrictive interpretation of public rights is necessary to maintain the integrity of the judicial system's mandate. It posits that public rights must be interpreted as rights without any limited beneficiaries (transpersonal rights), thereby excluding claims that have a direct, specific beneficiary. Furthermore, the hypothesis holds that the "retrieval," or "revival," function—concerning its nature—signifies the concept of supervision. Consequently, this function is anticipated to be equivalent to the non-criminal authorities of prosecutors (such as issuing warnings and notices) rather than direct judicial execution. ∴ Methodology & Framework, if Applicable ∴ The research employed a descriptive-analytical method, utilizing systematic library data collection. A critical component of the methodology involved primary data gathering through interviews with most provincial prosecutors and an examination of their operational practices concerning the revival of public rights. The primary framework is comparative data analysis, emphasizing legal systems where Public Interest Law is established (specifically common law systems). This comparative approach enabled the assessment of related concepts such as transpersonal rights and the condition of Locus Standi (standing to sue) to clarify the scope of Revival of Public Rights. ∴ Results & Discussion ∴ The results confirm that the defining characteristic of public rights, in the context of revival, is their non-assignability to specific, confined beneficiaries. Public rights are those where the benefit or harm affects the general public or a "social collective". Therefore, the pursuit of damages for single individuals or small, specific groups, even in high-profile cases, falls outside the definition of public rights. The analysis of prosecutors' actions (instructions and notices) reveals that the nature of the revival function is primarily supervisory and executive, not judicial. This is supported by the fact that the prosecutor’s directives, such as warnings and notices, often lack specific, direct judicial enforcement guarantees, emphasizing their role in overseeing the execution of laws by administrative agencies. This approach prevents the judiciary's supervisory role from conflating with other legal functions, such as criminal prosecution or civil damages claims. ∴ Conclusion ∴ The article concludes that the inherent ambiguities surrounding the concept of the "Revival of Public Rights" are best addressed by conceptual precision derived from comparative analysis. Public rights must be precisely understood as transpersonal rights that lack specific beneficiaries, based on a "general need" of the community. Consequently, the role of the prosecutor in the 'revival' of these rights is confirmed to be equivalent to a supervisory function, focused on the non-criminal authorities vested in them. This finding underscores the necessity of distinguishing this constitutional mandate from conventional private or criminal proceedings. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها [English] | ||
| Public Interest, Public Rights, Transpersonal Rights, Prosecutor, Class Action | ||
| مراجع | ||
| ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 1,019 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 694 |
||