نشریه دانش حقوق عمومی
سال دهم شماره 2 (پیاپی 32، تابستان 1400)

General principles of criminal law are rules that are provided in criminal law to guarantee the rights, freedoms of individuals and the health of the fair trial process, which, given the nature and effective operation of these principles, their effectiveness cannot be limited to criminal proceedings and their effectiveness in the process of administrative and disciplinary proceedings should not be neglected. International instruments, in order to guarantee the human dignity of individuals, have provided for requirements based on the observance of these principles in court proceedings, in order to ensure the principle of a fair trial as one of the most important human rights of individuals. In this regard, considering that the verdicts issued by the administrative courts can have the greatest impact on the social personality of the employee, the observance of these principles in administrative proceedings is very important. Findings indicate that in the field of administrative law, the legislator has taken a different approach to the application of these principles. Thus, in the territory of some administrative regulations, it has applied the general principles of criminal law, but in some administrative regulations, it has not paid attention to these principles. This has led to violations of human rights and human dignity of employees.

Conflict of interests is directly related to corruption, conflict of interests creates the fear that one's personal interests will be preferred to the interests that are responsible for supporting them, and therefore is one of the opportunities for corruption. One of the most important areas of conflict management is the conflict of interests of the judicial officials; because the sensitivity of the judicial Officials and its relationship to public rights requires special rules in conflict management to prevent mistrust of this post. Therefore, the important question of this research is: what are the strategies for managing the conflict of interests of judicial officials? In Iran’s legal system, there are several ways to manage the conflicts of interests of these officials; In some areas, such as the ban on simultaneous employment and the ban on receiving gifts, our country's legislative approach is considered desirable; However, in other areas, such as the asset declaration system, the ban on litigation, the ban on Revolving Door, and the ban regarding political activities, conflict resolution management strategies are often incomplete, and it is necessary for the legislature to address the shortcomings in this area in order to limit the grounds for corruption by the judicial officials.

One of the basic and fundamental rules of jurisprudence is the system disruption prohibition rule that is, the obligation to maintain the political system. In jurisprudential texts, there are cases in which jurists deny the existence of something due to disorder of the system or, on the contrary, consider it necessary in order to maintain the system. On the other hand, according to jurisprudential principles, one of the ways to receive financial rights is Taqas rule or retaliation. This institution was not recognized by the legislature after the revolution, while judicial precedent following jurisprudence in many cases has considered retaliation as a justifiable factor. The reason for the negligence of the legislator is that some jurists believe this institution as a cause of chaos; but by reviewing the conditions of retaliation, we will see that the territory of this institution is not vast and unruly, and depends on the realization of conditions that are created according to public order. Therefore, the prohibition of committing a crime in retaliation is a condition and hence, inflicting damage with retaliation is not accepted. In this research, in a descriptive-analytical method, while emphasizing the importance of maintaining the political system and preventing its disruption, it is stated that according to the conditions stated in the Sharia, there is no conflict between these two rules.

The Article 52 of the Constitution makes the review and approval of the annual budget of the country within the competence of the Islamic Consultative Assembly. On the other hand, Article 85 of the Constitution considers legislation to be within the competence of the Islamic Consultative Assembly and considers the delegation of the approval of laws to the internal commissions of the Assembly to be possible only under certain conditions. This research by using library studies and adopting an analytical-descriptive approach, in the position of explaining the relationship between the Articles 52 and 85 of the Constitution and the feasibility of approving the budget bill in the internal commissions of the parliament has reached the conclusion that the unauthorized approach to experimental budget approval is legally more robust. The license-based approach for experimental approval of the budget, is based on four axes: "Philosophy of the experimental legislation", "Non-fulfillment of the necessity stated in Article 85 of the budget laws", "Exceptional nature of legislative delegation and suffice to axioms in its interpretation" and "budget allocation based on the provisions of Article 85 of the Constitution". On the contrary, the view of the impermissibility of experimental budget approval is based on "Compatibility in the philosophy of experimental legislation with experimental budget law", "Similarity of budget and other laws in terms of "experimental implementation", "Inclusion of general and exceptional rules of legislation in relation to the budget law" and "Presentation of a new analysis of the phrase "Some Laws ".

By following the works of Shia jurists, various aspects of expediency are raised, including the concept of "social expediency". The meaning of this concept, which is opposite to the individual interest, is the interests that exist in the field of society and have examples such as establishing order and proper management of society, promoting the level of education and culture in Islamic society and things like that. Examination of jurisprudential texts shows that although individual interest has an effective role in legislating the rulings, but in the position of conflict with social interests, it is usually overshadowed and in the view of Sharia, typical and social interests always take precedence over individual interests. Nevertheless, the important thing is that every decision or discretion cannot be classified as social expediency. According to Shia jurists, social expediency has rules and criteria that define and revise its boundaries from other issues. In this article, an attempt has been made to explain the limits, criteria and indicators of the concept of social expediency. It should be presented in Shiite jurisprudence in order to limit or block the possible abuses.

Passing resolutions, as one of the tasks of the Supreme National Security Council’s secretariat, constitutes one of the most important legal aspects of SNSN’s functions which has been subject to some legal ambiguities. Since Enactments of the secretariat of the Supreme National Security Council are not officially published (just like those of the council itself), the quality of the impact of these enactments on the rights and duties of citizens has also been associated with some ambiguities. Therefore, the important question raised in this field is how and in what way, one can determine the extent of legal competency of SNSN’s secretariat regarding passing resolutions. In the present article, the descriptive-analytical method was used to prove that according to the sources and standards governing the Iranian Constitution, it is clear that the legal principles and documents used for clarification of passing resolutions by SNSN’s secretariat may be criticized; while proponents defend and accept such power in three areas: devolution, resemblance to the internal committees of the parliament and the theory of structure-agency. On the other hand, according to the views of the Supreme Leader of the Islamic republic of Iran, the views of the Guardian Council as well as the legal procedures, it can be argued that the secretariat of the Supreme National Security Council is only qualified to make decisions and provide the ground for rule-making by SNSN. In fact, this secretariat has no independent authority to pass resolutions.