فهرست مطالب reza parastesh

Guardianship of the Constitution is one of the most eminent subjects of public law which brings controversies among public lawyers. For instance, one of the most influential lawyers, a German jurisprudent named Carl Schmitt believed that it is the president who should be in charge of the guardianship and protect the constitution in the state of exception. In the constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran, according to article 113, it is the duty of the president to guard the constitution and on few instances Presidents struggled to take the position but they were not successful. Authors of this article believe that there is no resemblance between Carl Schmitt’s point of view and the constitution of the Islamic Republic, since president has minimal prerogatives which are not sufficient for the guardianship. Moreover, the president in the constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran is in fact a prime minister who has a few prerogatives of a president.

The higher education system is one of the structures of the social system that has fundamental missions, especially in training efficient human resources for society, and its legal structure is based on the rules and procedures of certain bodies. This research, which is written by descriptive-analytical method, with the belief that the actors of this sub-system need legal security to achieve the pre-planned goals, seeks to study its components in procedural justice. The fragmentation of decision-making authorities, heterogeneous rules and incoherent legal system in Iranian higher education show that the realization of the legal security standard for faculty members of some universities, especially from the perspective of guaranteeing it in the light of procedural justice, there are more challenges. Protecting the right to sue and access to the competent authority of the trial, observing the prohibition of retrial, the principle of innocence, openness of the trial, the possibility of defense or the need for equality of the litigants, the principle of impartiality, the right to object and appeal are some of the most important examples of justice guarantees procedures based on the principle of legal certainty in the field of higher education.

The various advances of human beings and  specialization have given rise to new realms of human activity. It has created in society and therefore has necessitated the emergence of professional systems. In line with the principle of the rule of law, each of these systems is subject to specific professional regulations, which, on the one hand, express the current trends of that profession and, on the other hand, deal with possible violations by members of the profession and their performance guarantees. The investigation of violations and the determination of the guarantees of the cases are carried out by quasi-judicial authorities, whose performance is important from the perspective of observing the important measure of fair trial. This descriptive-analytical research seeks to examine the principles of the rules of substantive measure of fair trial in the regulations of Iranian professional systems. Fair trial is one of the most important legal terms that has many practical implications for protecting the fundamental rights of both parties to the proceedings and to the community. The right to choose a lawyer, the right to remain silent, the right to defend oneself, etc., are the manifestations of a fair trial that must be exercised at various stages of the proceedings. The principle of innocence, the principle of legality of crime and punishment, and the prohibition of double punishment are some of the most important principles of the substantive rules of fair trial. The study found that under some professional regulations, fair trial principles were not explicitly accepted, and this shortcoming should be considered in future reviews. Until then, quasi-judicial authorities, which, in accordance with the regulations of the professional systems, are committed to the commission of a violation and guarantee its enforcement, must be diligent in enforcing the substantive rules of fair trial.

One of the main problems of the judiciary is caseloads and prolongation of the proceedings. But the statistics and interviews of officials in Iran show that normative and formal solutions have been unable to remove this problem. Therefore, changing the judicial approach, including the criminal policy is essential. One of the best solutions in this regard is the use of a cultural approach. According to this view, criminal policy, away from the instrumental approach, becomes grounded in nature and emphasizes its link with interdisciplinary studies. This article uses a descriptive-analytical method and using library resources to examine how to develop a criminal justice policy based on a cultural approach. The promotion of a culture of reconciliation and the use of solutions such as mediation and arbitration can reduce the volume of cases, eliminate prosecution and increase the effectiveness of the judiciary, following lack of litigation in the courts, as well as the avoidance of populist policies due to the reduction of judicial and authoritarian measures, causing a positive development in the judiciary. It is clear that such a thing can not be ignored by the research-educational, structural-organizational and normative requirements.

The Subject of this paper is a research about the limits of the privacy of the public authorities. The problem is whether protection of privacy, about the public authorities, can be the cause of limitation of the right to know and freedom of speech. This article is a normative, theoretical and consequences – oriented study that uses law codes, doctrine and related records. Our hypothesis is that the right to know is prior to the privacy. The results show that Iranian law system, in some cases, refused the privacy for the public authorities, and with the use of unity criteria, it is possible to extend it to other cases. Theoretically, inasmuch as the right to know is requisite for freedom of speech and democracy, it is prior to the privacy. Also, this article provides the triple processes that cover those goals, and allow the judge in case of lawsuit from the public authorities to answer this question: is that disclosure in the service of public interests or is it an undue curiosity about good performance of affairs? The Judge can use of the injunction for final caution in order to protect the right of alleged violation of privacy.

Labor is assumed to be as people´s job and the way to obtain income. It is meant employee's relationship with government and also among labors with employers of private sector.But, a number of people has a financial supremacy and can impose their own terms on the others and weasel from own warranties easily. On the contrary, a large group that is depended on their own survival and the other belonged persons to their job power has been in bad situation and they cant be in equal position with the first group. So, they are endangered wastage of own rights and exploitation.Also, with industrialization communities, a modern Man is endangered into pressures due to labor, horror of events and lack of job security.So, the portage tact must be forecasted for patronage of him and the security of his relief from any threat of losing job.This matter is undertaken on the law of each state. The provisions are enacted to prevent the endangering of the labors employment and their patronage and the creation security versus the danger to loss of job in the constitutional law, labor law, social security law and relevant regulations in our country.

Primitive human being because of the lack of knowledge about phenomena believed in the belief and ritual system with the purpose of keeping his worldly economic life. The priority of belief to existence was the nature of this belief system (mythical ideology) in which the existence of human being and observing his rights was subject to governing belief system. Religions were coincident to the time of human social life, when he came to understand causation rule and to know that his economic life was not related to will of the various Gods and the aim of religions is not to govern the world but to develope human being. Religions accepted the governing of wisdom for managing of society. To understand the real causes of phenomena instead of spirits and Gods, caused human freedom and his control of his destiny and paved the way for the priority of existence to belief. In fact, for this reason and also for superior position of morality in religions, religions must be regard as a supporter of human rights.