نشریه دانش حقوق عمومی
سال یازدهم شماره 2 (پیاپی 36، تابستان 1401)

Judicial independence is a complex and wide-ranging issue, the realization of which requires the preparation of appropriate contexts and comprehensive planning. One of the main issues in this area is the relationship between the independence of the judiciary and the financial and budgetary system above it. The present study, with the hypothesis, that "the idea of institutional independence of the judiciary fails regardless of the financial system and budgetary prevailing", makes it possible to improve the budgeting system of the judiciary within the framework of the constitutional system of the Islamic Republic of Iran. In this regard, the main issue of the article is based on the question that: "Can the theory of financial and budgetary independence of the judiciary be defended?" This question has been answered through the critique of various theories, by the theory known as: "relative competence of the government to change the proposed budget of the judiciary" that can ensure a favourable budgeting system for the judiciary and protect its independence from government pressures and threats with budgetary means, while being compatible with the principles of the Constitution, the procedure of the Guardian Council and the financial and budgetary laws and regulations of the country.

According to Article 124 of the Constitution, the president can delegate some of his legal duties. Deputies of the president are divided into two categories according to the nature of their duties and powers: Deputies who are solely responsible for the affairs of the deputies, whose authority is delegated by nature, and deputies who are also in charge of the apparatus or organizations under the supervision of the President, whose nature of duties is inherent. The main question of this research is: ”Which duties of the vice-presidents can be performed by the deputies and what are the legal requirements governing this issue?” This is the main challenge that the present article seeks to resolve with a descriptive-analytical approach and by focusing on the opinions of the Guardian Council. The findings indicate that the President can delegate his duties in addition to the main and vertical duties of a person by observing the conditions of delegation. The president has the exclusive authority to determine the duties and powers of the vice-presidents. Political responsibility does not include vice presidents, but parliament can oversee vice-presidents in other ways, while vice-presidents have administrative and judicial responsibilities.

Rights, especially human rights, are playing a special role in the legal system of different countries, and every day, due to the development of technologies, the number of these rights is increasing. Meanwhile, the concept and the examples of them are also ambiguous. One major type of these rights is “Digital Rights”. the meaning, nature and examples of them are not very clear in the mentioned legal systems. This paper seeks to answer the questions of: “What are the meaning and the nature of digital rights and what are the examples?” Digital rights are realized in the Internet zone and various platforms and have many examples on the basis of the different dimensions of these technologies. In legal texts, special examples are mentioned that are strongly influenced by human rights literature. Some of these examples have no legal basis in Islamic law, such as the right to sexual expression on the Internet, and in addition, many rights are missing from this list of rights. Also, a correct explanation of the concept and its examples will provide a platform for the realization of digital citizenship and e-government.

Principles number 40 & 41 of the Constitution are devoted to “Nationality”. This matter, apart from indicating the importance and the status of nationality institution, represents the necessity of studying this subject in the field of basic rights as well as the effect of these two principles on ordinary rules concerning the title. However, unfortunately, such a thing has been ignored and neglected by the legislators, expositors of the constitution, and authors of books on basic rights. This matter necessitates the rereading of the two mentioned principles so that ambiguous, or at least implicit, expressions of these two principles can be clarified. On the other hand, by explaining the relationship of these two principles to ordinary rules, specifically, paragraph 2 of article 976 of Civil Law, the necessity of changing and modifying the mentioned paragraph can be clarified by a legislator, and as a result, it can be proved that children born by Iranian mothers are Iranian according to the constitution. Obviously, to achieve this purpose, this article has mostly benefited from the analytical method due to the lack of history of the issue.

the manner of determining the leader by the Assembly of Experts, has considered several preferences (advantages and priority attributes in determining the leader) in one and the other, without any possible explicit or implicit references to the existence of priority among them. This means that all the mentioned advantages should be at the same level. But, "Public Acceptance" as one of those privileges, has an unstable position alongside others and may be denied. Because mentioning other preferences as the characteristics of the leader in article number 5 & article number 109 of the constitution has created a solid base for them, and on the other hand, the general opinion of the jurists has emphasized the priority of these preferences due to the existence of religious criterion. So, the question is whether “Public Acceptance" is an emphasis on the direct involvement of "Acceptance" in determining the leader, and whether this principle is expressed and structured will weaken the position of "Public Acceptance" and "Acceptance" In determining the leader. Using descriptive and analytical method, and in order to remove the ambiguity of this basic principle, by citing various sources and documents, this article has reached the conclusion that "Public Acceptance" is an essential feature in the leader. The members of the Assembly of Experts are obliged to achieve this feature in their chosen case in order to ensure the maximum functioning of the established Islamic government. Based on historical interpretation, the intention of the constitutional legislator also confirms this meaning. Accordingly, the way in which the concept of "Public Acceptance" is established in this principle is not compatible with the purpose of the legislator. Therefore, in this article, a review and revision of the mentioned principle is suggested.

Recently, a theory on the interpretation of the constitution has been proposed as the “theory of ijtihadi interpretation” or "systematic interpretation", according to which, interpretation is more than discovering the expression of the words or intentions of the legislator, and is rather reaching the answer of the legal system to the main issue. Since among the components and pillars of the legal system, the two important parts, ie. foundations and goals, have a critical role in regard to other components. The interpretation of the constitution must guarantee the principles in the existential dimension and the goals of the legal system in the functional dimension. Based on this theory, the present article, in a descriptive-analytical manner, by using library resources, seeks to answer the question of: “How giving priority to the principles of the legal system of the Islamic Republic of Iran can play a role in the process of interpreting the principles of the constitution?” In other words: “By prioritizing the principles of the legal system in the process of interpretation, what different interpretation will it offer than Verbal, Intentional, Teleological?” Based on the research findings, we have found that chosen statement about the concept of the principles of the legal system is the reason for its validity and legitimacy, and it can be mentioned at two levels: “The principles governing character” and “The principles governing the form”. It is also by prioritizing the principles of the legal system that one can attribute the primitive and non-provisional religious oversight of the Guardian Council to laws and regulations. As the interpretation of the limits of authority of the Supreme Leader in the constitution, by giving priority to the principles of the legal system, which will not be limited to the cases specified in the principles of the constitution.