نشریه حقوق عمومی تطبیقی
پیاپی 3 (پاییز 1403)

The concept of the Public Sphere (PS) and the works that are related to its recognition have not been discussed in Iranian law, especially the public law, to the extent necessary. This concept has been discussed and challenged in the last two decades with the translation of Jürgen Habermas's book in Iran. The existing literature in this regard is also influenced by Habermas's thought. In this article, the author, while examining the concept of PS from the viewpoints of Habermas and Hannah Arendt, believes that the Habermas' interpretation of PS is not legal and it cannot be the basis of legal investigation about the subject. Therefore, at first the legal concept PS should be defined in order to divide it from private sphere and determine the consequences. In this article, the legal concept of PS is taken into consideration based on the role of human's will in determination of a matter; if only an individual's will would be considered as the basis of decision making, the matter is interpreted within the area of private sphere, and whenever another person's will would be imposed on the individuals, the matter is considered within PS.

It is highly believed that often the addition of philosophy to a science is the analytical and rational meaning of that science. The combination of philosophy and law promises the science of law. Philosophy, as the mother of science, enriches the intellectual foundations and basis of the scientific field. In this comparative study, there are three philosophical critical views regarding the law of modern technologies and the certain realities of contemporary society, as follows: 1) Technology as an independent force that meets the requirements of society determines 2) technology as a human construct that can be shaped by human values, and 3) a common evolutionary perspective on technology and society that accelerates emerging realities and values; the comparative analysis of these three perspectives is vividly discussed in this article. It is placed and it is argued that all three of the mentioned cases still have a great impact on technological changes and how they affect the society. This is also true for artificial intelligence.

History is full of popular struggles against oppression and tyranny. When a government undermines the existing democratic regime and jeopardizes the constitutional order, there is a need for a mechanism to safeguard the rule of the Constitution. To address this, democratic systems worldwide have long recognized the concept of the Right to Resistance (RtR) within their constitutional laws. However, this issue has been overlooked in Iran, leading to a dearth of legal research in this area. This theoretical gap necessitates comprehensive research to advance the public law literature. This article adopts a descriptive-analytical approach to answer this question: What is the position of the RtR IN the international legal system and constitutions, particularly in the Iranian Constitution? The research findings reveal that the RtR is regarded as a fundamental human right within the international legal system. Additionally, this right has been enshrined in numerous constitutional laws due to its dual function (both forward-looking and backward-looking). In the Constitution of Iran, the right to resist can be inferred from the affirmation of "the right to sovereignty and self-determination of the people" or "enjoining the good and forbidding the evil of the people towards the government". Resistance can also be justified as a "non-peaceful assembly" and as a "guarantee of popular implementation of deprivation of rights and freedoms".

In the French legal system, which employs a dual court system, there are specialized bodies known as administrative courts to handle administrative disputes, with the Council of State at the head of these courts. Iran has also been influenced by France in the area of administrative justice and has established the Administrative Justice Court, modeled after the French Council of State, to adjudicate administrative disputes. However, in its administrative adjudication structure, Iran has not fully benefited from the experiences of France and, contrary to the French model, has a centralized approach where the Administrative Justice Court serves as both an appellate and a supreme authority in administrative disputes. This situation has led to issues and challenges for the legal system. This paper, using a comparative-descriptive-analytical method, aims to identify the advantages of a decentralized administrative adjudication system and, with a holistic view, to examine the existing problems and challenges of a centralized administrative adjudication system. It will also offer legal measures and solutions, employing comparative legal approaches, to outline an ideal system in this area. Among the visible challenges of the centralized system are the violation of the principle of easy and affordable access to justice, lack of judicial organization, the presence of quasi-judicial instead of judicial bodies, lack of in-person proceedings, and prolonged litigation. Among the advantages of a decentralized system are the guarantee of the principle of easy and affordable access to justice, attention to judicial organization, in-person proceedings, expedited adjudication, and enforcement of rulings. The major solution proposed is to replace the centralized system with a decentralized one.

The concept The discretionary powers has, these days, considerably entered the German administrative laws system. Its legitimacy, jurisdiction, implementation, and judiciary control are among the debatable issues of the administrative laws system of the country. The specific rules, in the German administrative laws system, which are introduced in the constitutional and administrative laws, are not determining the mechanisms of the discretionary powertheories of the country. Hence, it has been tried to make up for it in some constitutional and administrative courts and law literature. The ideas are diverse, though. This study attempts to present types of discretion adequacy, judiciary control aspects, and the development of judiciary policies in Germany.Then let's take a look at Iran's administrative law.The basic question of this article is what is the importance and position of discretionary jurisdiction in German administrative law. The basic premise of this article in response to the main question is that discretionary jurisdiction in German law has provided the basis for the creation and expansion of some concepts and institutions of administrative law.

Regarding the concept of revolution, in addition to different comprehensive definitions throughout history, its result, that is, the governments emerging from the revolution, have also emerged in different forms from each other. But it seems that what determines these differences depends more than anything on the opinions and opinions of the thinkers of the revolutionary societies, rather than the field struggles of these societies. From this point of view, the new political-legal system after the revolution can be called more modern than its predecessors only if its fundamental ideas are true to their essence and far from any basic imitation of other traditions. be revolutionary. Therefore, this research, the sources of which were collected in a library method and subjected to a descriptive-analytical study, with the aim of better understanding the idea that the stability of a modern political society depends on paying attention to traditions, values and basic needs and The continuous protection of them during the different periods of the government of the most efficient governments in that society, while examining the government-making views of the thinkers and founding fathers in the two revolutions of France and America in 1789, raises as the main question that What differences have the mentioned views created in terms of limiting the authority of the government in the context of the political history of these two republican systems? The results show that the extremely unequal class political system and the existence of monarchy derived from the divine right of kings in France before the revolution, by the thoughts of philosophers such as Jean-Jacques Rousseau based on the principle of equality and its precedence over freedom and security, ultimately lead to The establishment of a centralized social democratic republic system in which all the sovereign powers belong to the spiritual personality of the whole, which is called the nation. However, according to the thinking of the founding fathers, a free government is a government that has the ability to control the "directions of a biased and domineering majority" and is officially based on the "principle of a republican government based on the opinion of a respectable majority, that is; The principle of agreement" which precedes freedom and equality. The fundamental principle on which the liberal democratic republic of the United States is based.