جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه "impeachment" در نشریات گروه "فقه و حقوق"

Impeachment is an institution that can remove high-ranking officials of the executive who are disqualified and unfit to continue the office. Impeachment could be seen in the constitutional law of all kinds of political systems, including presidentialism, semi-presidentialism and the parliamentary Republic. In some instances of domestic research, we see the fusion of impeachment and interpellation, which sometimes leads to mistakes leading to deduction. Scrutinizing the terminology of impeachment is the solution for such fusion. Accordingly, the question of the research is: what are the elements of impeachment in order to recognize it from interpellation? By the descriptive-analytic method, the research concludes that differences in officials and differences in grounds of removal are the most important elements and parameters for the distinction of these two terms. While impeachment targets officials with protected tenures or terms of office, interpellation is practiced mostly where ministers are subject to the confidence of the parliament. The common ground of Impeachment is removing a person or persons in the government whom the legislature deems unfit to continue in office due to subversive acts against the country and grave violations of public trust, which contain several instances like violations of law, corruption and treason. In addition, the procedure, stages and outcomes of impeachment and interpellation would be distinguished in many aspects. The paper is about to explain impeachment and distinguish it from interpellation.

This article, with a descriptive-analytical method, tries to answer the question of whether in Iran's legal system, the criminal policy of the Estiza Foundation has been fair and effective in dealing with and fighting the crime of disrupting the economic system. Therefore, while referring to the process of approval of Istiza, the challenges of Istizia in 1397 and 1399 have been examined and finally, their function as well as their strengths and weaknesses have been evaluated. The findings indicate the inefficiency of the judicial criminal policy and the failure to achieve the desired result in curbing the crime through its implementation and restricting the rights of the accused. Therefore, measured and scientific methods in the fight against economic corruption should replace the symbolic emphasis on the "war on corruption" and a fair and discriminatory judicial system for economic crimes should be designed and approved in the light of legislative criminal policy in the form of a comprehensive plan or bill.

In parliamentary regimes, principally parliament has the authority to remove political officials from office due to violation of laws or failure in execution of governmental duties. Mechanisms of political  supervision of ministers include notification, questioning, and impeachment. This article employs a descriptive-analytical method, by using library sources, to examine the subject of formality for the political supervision of ministers under the legal system of Islamic Republic of Iran and the Mashrooteh (Constitutional) era. Comparative analysis and historical evolution of this topic pose the question of which system, either the Mashrooteh (Constitutional) or Islamic Republic, has had a more dignified approach to the formality of political supervision of ministers by taking into account the legal, cultural, and historical background of Iran?     The outcome of this research demonstrates that in the mechanisms of notification and questioning, the current political system, contrary to the Mashrooteh (Constitutional) one, has systematically and rationally provided rules governing the application of these parliamentary competencies. On the other hand, in impeachment mechanism, limiting the Members of Parliament to propose it in specific cases, and the effective and accurate examination by Commission had turned the impeachment process into a reasonable and efficient formality during the Mashrooteh (Constitutional) Era, while, in the Islamic Republic system, the quorum for proposing impeachment, the ease of the application of impeachment process, and the broad scope of impeachable subjects have posed notable challenges.

The president’s interpellation before the Islamic Consultative Assembly (ICA), set in the Constitutional law of the Islamic Republic of Iran, has been a challenge. The cause of the challenge is the contrast between the 2nd clause of Article 89 of the Constitution and Article 114 of the Constitution. Article 89 says: “In the event that at least one-third of the members of the Islamic Consultative Assembly interpellate the President concerning his responsibilities for leadership of the executive power and managing the executive affairs of the country, the President must present himself to the Assembly within one month after the submission of the interpellation and to give adequate explanations regarding the matters raised. After hearing the statements of the opposing and favoring members and the reply of the President, if two-thirds of the members of the Assembly vote for his incompetency, the vote will be communicated to the Supreme Leader for implementation of Article 110(10)”. Article 114 holds: “The President is elected for a four-year term by the direct vote of the people. His re-election for a successive term is permissible only once”In other words, The main cause of the challenge is the appointment of the president through elections and the lack of any power by the Islamic Consultative Assembly in this regard. The current presumption among the legal society is that interpellation would be applied to an authority that is elected by the ICA. Although the current presumption is relatively true, what has been neglected during these years is that in fact, the interpellation of the president in the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran is impeachment in a different, unique concept.

In some political systems, the president would be removed by legislative assemblies by means of impeachment.  Comparing the elements of the term impeachment with the elements of interpellation proves the above claim. Hence, comparing the two elements of  their grounds and their procedures are notable.in the draft of the Constitution, a two-stage procedure for the removal of the president was set, but after the enactment of the Constitution, two different one-stage procedures were created. One procedure would be run by the Islamic Consultative Assembly, and the other would be run by the Supreme Court. In fact, two procedures that work together in an impeachment, have been transformed into two independent procedures, both of which leave the final decision-making  to the Supreme Leader.

Conclusion:

The grounds for the president’s removal have been changed from “treason or conspiracy against national security” in the text of the Constitution to “treason and violation of legal duties” and eventually, to “violation of legal duties” and “lack of qualification”. Lack of qualification and being unfit to continue in office are common concepts among the grounds of impeachment in different political systems. lack of qualifications, incapability in doing his executive duties, or ineptitude in executive management in the text of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran are the instances of the general notion of “being unqualified unfit”. Both concepts of “lack of qualification” and “violation of legal duties” are incorporated in the general notion of unfitness in the legal and political literature of the Islamic Republic of Iran and are equal to impeachment in other systems; However, interpellation is often based on political reasons. Since the causes and the grounds of the president’s removal are enumerated in the Constitution, we can conclude that the nature of presidential removal in the Constitution is impeachment, but its title is interpellation.Thus, some clarification and some reforms are required by amending the Constitution. Before any constitutional amendment, the nature of the interpellation of the president and its elements should be explained by the legal society. It may prevent this oversight tool to become a reason to remove the president based on political disagreements and may regulate and restrict the oversight tool to only clear legal grounds. This may, in the future, be the inspiration to possibly omit or add to the grounds for presidential removal in the constitutional amendment. According to the current laws and regulations, the procedure of presidential removal via Islamic Consultative Assembly is almost clear but the procedure of presidential removal through the Supreme Court is unclear. Again, reforming the procedure of presidential removal and merging the two procedures requires an amendment to the Constitution. Another subject that must be considered is the effect of this presidential removal mechanism and whether, irrespective of the removal from office, there are any other effects and sanctions for the president or not. Another sanction for the president’s incompetency would be exclusion and prohibition from holding any public office which is worthy to be debated and considered for the future.

Uterine rent is one of the almost new topics in which the nature, validity and invalidity and its effects have been variously debated and different opinions have been expressed. In most studies and researches in this field, the nature of this obligation and the rules governing it have usually been considered as the criterion for the man and woman who have the sperm, but in this research, the main attention and emphasis is on the woman who undertakes this Commits and what is the necessity and justification on the basis of which he agrees to this action. Can the subject of the contract be the encroachment on a part of the human body? In this study, the correctness of citing the principle of immorality has been criticized and evaluated, and by examining one of the pre-Islamic marriages called "marriage of impeachment", it is concluded that the ownership of ablution, including the rights of God It has been given exclusively to the couple through marriage. Finally, due to the conflict of this contract with the general rules of contracts, including the subject of marriage and good morals, the rights of the child and the rules of non-mahram, the promise to annul it is strengthened.

Sovereignty، government، and power are concepts which have important determining meanings and interpretations as far as politicians and scholars are concerned. People form governments، however for its survival and effectiveness need a system of supervising and control. So، the main question raised in this research is that in an Islamic society with an Islamic government which is believed to have its legitimacy bestowed upon by God، what sort of surveillance and control is foreseen for the survival and prevention of not being evolved into an autocratic government. By looking deep into the guidelines and Islamic teaching we find the mechanism of monitoring and control in the Islamic concepts such as the order of doing right things and not wrong as prescribed by Islamic teaching. The obedience of Imams'' advices and suggestions، guiding of ignorant، accountability of the rulers، breaking away with the unjust rulers، all of which play determining role in keeping and guaranteeing the survival and the success of an Islamic state in compatible to the Islamic jurisprudence.

Appointment of ex-public and revolutionary prosecutor of Tehran to managing director of social security fund was seriously criticized by Parliament and it was requested from the Minster of Cooperative for his dismissal. Minister reject this issue and he was gone under impeachment at parliament, finally the decision of impeachment was rejected and Parliament instead of continuing political control, assigned this issue to The Judiciary and General Board of Court of Administrative Justice. By virtue of written verdict No. 261 dated July 30, 2012 this appointment was cancelled; in which, is regarded as exception case in history of Court of Administrative Justice. This article investigates validity of judgment in administrative law system of Iran and ambiguity in competence of general board and even regarding written verdict as the only judicial review on acts of government. By hoping competence of branches of Court of Administrative Justice for investigating such lawsuit in relation to interpreting public interest and applying rule of law upon amending act of this court.