اخبار و اعلانات
آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 20 |
| تعداد شماره‌ها | 546 |
| تعداد مقالات | 4,725 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 10,460,020 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 6,047,933 |
آیین نظارت سیاسی پارلمان بر وزرا در عصر مشروطه و نظام جمهوری اسلامی | ||
| پژوهشنامه حقوق اسلامی | ||
| مقاله 3، دوره 24، شماره 2 - شماره پیاپی 60، تیر 1402، صفحه 225-254 اصل مقاله (613.23 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.30497/law.2023.245070.3418 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| علی‌محمد فلاح‌زاده1؛ مازیار خادمی* 2 | ||
| 1دانشیار، گروه حقوق عمومی و بین‌الملل، دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی، دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی، تهران، ایران. | ||
| 2دانشجوی دکتری حقوق عمومی، دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی، دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی، تهران، ایران. | ||
| چکیده | ||
| در نظام‌های پارلمانی، اصولاً پارلمان قادر است به دلیل نقض قوانین و یا کوتاهی در انجام وظایف حکومتی از سوی قوه مجریه، منصب سیاسی را از ایشان سلب نماید. مکانیسم‌های نظارت سیاسی بر وزرا عبارتند از تذکر، سؤال و استیضاح. در این مقاله، با روش توصیفی تحلیلی و با تکیه بر منابع کتابخانه‌ای به بررسی موضوع آیین نظارت سیاسی بر وزیران در نظام حقوقی جمهوری اسلامی ایران و نظام مشروطه خواهیم پرداخت. تحلیل تطبیقی و تطوّر تاریخی موضوع مذکور این سؤال را پیش روی ما قرار داده است که با توجه به وضعیت حقوقی، فرهنگی و تاریخی ایران، آیین نظارت سیاسی در کدام یک از دو نظام مشروطه و جمهوری اسلامی از روند شایسته‌تری برخوردار بوده است؟ رهیافت این نوشتار چنان حاصل شد که در مکانیسم‌های تذکر و سؤال، نظام جاری مملکتی بر خلاف نظام مشروطه به گونه‌ای معقول و ضابطه‌مند به تعیین مقررات حاکم بر اعمال این صلاحیت‌های پارلمانی پرداخته است. از سوی دیگر در استیضاح، محدود بودن نمایندگان برای طرح آن در موارد مشخص و بررسی مؤثر و دقیق کمیسیون، روند استیضاح را به فرایندی معقول و کارآمد در دوران مشروطه تبدیل کرده بود، در حالی که نظام جمهوری اسلامی، با چالش‌هایی نظیر حدّ نصاب پایین برای طرح استیضاح و سهولت فرآیند اعمال آن و موسّع بودن دامنه موضوعات مورد استیضاح روبه‌روست. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها | ||
| نظام پارلمانی؛ نظارت پارلمان بر وزرا؛ تذکر؛ سؤال؛ استیضاح | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| Parliamentary Political Supervision of Ministers in the Mashrooteh (Constitutional) Era and the Islamic Republic Regime | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| Ali Mohammad Fallahzadeh1؛ Maziyar Khademi2 | ||
| 1Associate Professor, Department of Public and International Law, Faculty of Law and Political Science, Allameh Tabataba'i University, Tehran, Iran. | ||
| 2PhD Student in Public law, Faculty of Law and Political Science, Allameh Tabataba'i University, Tehran, Iran. | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| ∴ Introduction ∴ In parliamentary regimes, the parliament fundamentally holds the power to remove political officials from office if they violate laws or fail to execute governmental duties. This authority is exercised through mechanisms of political supervision of ministers, which primarily include notification, questioning, and impeachment. This research is situated within the field of public law, examining the application of these parliamentary competencies under two significant legal frameworks in Iran: the Mashrooteh (Constitutional) Era and the Islamic Republic regime. This comparison is crucial given the transformation of legal systems and the continuing necessity for effective political oversight of the executive branch. ∴ Research Question ∴ The core research question addresses the formality of parliamentary supervision of ministers in Iran. Specifically, the study employs comparative analysis and historical evolution to pose the question of which system—either the Mashrooteh (Constitutional) Era or the Islamic Republic regime—has provided a more dignified approach to the formality of political supervision of ministers, taking into account the legal, cultural, and historical background of Iran. The research seeks to identify how the formal rules governing notification, questioning, and impeachment compare across these two distinct constitutional periods. ∴ Research Hypothesis ∴ While not explicitly termed a hypothesis, the research posits a differential outcome regarding the formality and efficiency of the oversight mechanisms across the two regimes. The hypothesis suggests that the Islamic Republic system is expected to show superior systematic regulation in mechanisms like notification and questioning, while the Mashrooteh system is anticipated to have demonstrated a more controlled and efficient formality regarding the severe mechanism of impeachment. This expectation is based on observing distinct regulations and outcomes for each supervisory tool in each era. ∴ Methodology & Framework, if Applicable ∴ This article employs a descriptive-analytical method utilizing library sources to examine the formality of political supervision of ministers. The overarching framework is a comparative analysis tracing the historical evolution of parliamentary supervision in Iran. The study specifically compares the formality of three key oversight mechanisms—notification, questioning, and impeachment—within the legal systems of the Mashrooteh Era and the Islamic Republic regime. This methodological approach allows for an assessment of which system provided a more organized and respectable process for these crucial parliamentary competencies. ∴ Results & Discussion ∴ The research outcome demonstrates that for the mechanisms of notification and questioning, the current political system (Islamic Republic), contrary to the Mashrooteh one, has systematically and rationally provided rules governing the application of these parliamentary competencies. However, the opposite is true for impeachment. During the Mashrooteh Era, the impeachment process was a reasonable and efficient formality because it limited Members of Parliament to proposing it in specific, defined cases and required effective and accurate examination by a commission. In contrast, the Islamic Republic system faces notable challenges in the impeachment mechanism due to the low quorum required for proposing impeachment, the ease of its application, and the broad scope of impeachable subjects. ∴ Conclusion ∴ The article concludes that the two systems exhibit mixed results concerning the dignity of supervisory formality. The Islamic Republic has successfully institutionalized and rationalized the lower tiers of political supervision (notification and questioning). Conversely, the Mashrooteh system provided a more robust and orderly framework for impeachment. The findings suggest that the current system's impeachment regulations pose challenges that threaten efficient governmental execution and stability, requiring reconsideration of the proposal quorum, ease of application, and the scope of impeachable issues to align with the systematic dignity observed in the Mashrooteh era's approach to this severe oversight tool. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها [English] | ||
| Parliamentary Regime, Parliamentary Supervision of Ministers, notification, Question, Impeachment | ||
| مراجع | ||
| ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 812 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 734 |
||