نشریه حقوق عمومی تطبیقی
پیاپی 1 (زمستان 1402)

Individuals with mental illnesses, historically referred to as "mad," have been marginalized and deprived of their fundamental rights. The right to mental health offers a pathway to reclaiming their violated rights and improving the psychological well-being of all members of society. This human right is a fundamental component of the right to health and emerges through the cooperation of governments. State intervention in this right aims to create conditions that facilitate access to resources and facilities for achieving mental health. Based on this premise, this research employs a descriptive-analytical approach to examine the legal system of England in order to assess the extent to which this right is secured in the country, considering its existing legal structures and norms. England addresses issues related to mental patients through the enactment of laws in the field of mental health, and through specialized mental health courts, it enables the judicial restoration of their violated rights. In its latest stage, England also takes steps towards reducing societal psychological harm and improving mental health through the provision of structural and organizational frameworks. In contrast, the situation in Iran lacks such norms, specific judicial structures, and faces multiple uncertainties regarding the status of mental health patients. Considering England's approach as the first country to enact mental health legislation can provide suitable solutions for Iran in establishing legal frameworks.

The main philosophy of establishing a political system in a democratic society is to create the necessary mechanisms to recognize and guarantee rights and freedoms. For this purpose, the representative system is recognized so that the political power that is in the hands of political and legal institutions, through free elections, turns people's votes into law and policy.Accordingly, the validity of the government is measured by the votes and satisfaction of the people. In this way, all the components of the government are established through the process of a political-legal relationship. The government exercises public power on behalf of the citizens and relying on their votes. Governance based on religious values has foundations and principles that distinguish it from other forms of governance in such a way that its formation in any society requires the existence of special social and cultural structures and the belief of the majority of people in assigning the foundations of governance to God. It seems that the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran has followed the modern model in significant cases and has recognized the will of the nation as the foundation of the government; Protecting the sovereignty of the nation as the main goal of the constitution and guaranteeing rights and freedoms as the main goal of the government have been considered.The current research is descriptive-analytical and has been compiled with the approach of modern public law and in response to the question that "what are the foundations, position and function of public opinion in the democratic and constitutional systems of Iran?"

The discourse and theories of governance are among the important subjects in the field of public law. Liberal and constitutional states, despite their theoretical and sometimes functional differences, share certain common elements as theories of governance in their essence and foundation. Among these shared elements are freedom, equality, and impartiality of the state. The variations in the understanding and interpretation of these elements and their interrelationships are the most justifiable reasons for the emergence of different types of liberal and constitutional states within the broader scope of these elements. This descriptive-analytical article suggests that the differences in liberal schools of thought have their roots in the perception of the "freedom" element and its relationship with other elements. Depending on the prioritization of the quantity and extent of individuals' enjoyment of fundamental freedoms or the prioritization of the quality of people's enjoyment of these freedoms, other elements, such as equality and impartiality of the state, assume different natures and functions. The formation of classical liberalism and egalitarian liberalism can be attributed to this very matter. John Rawls distinguished freedom from the value of freedom by establishing two principles of justice. He rejected the mere enjoyment of freedom without considering the quantity and quality of people's enjoyment of it. Rawls interpreted the value of freedom as equal enjoyment of it by all individuals, and his views on the elements of equality and impartiality of the state aimed to uphold the value of freedom and enable a greater portion of the population to enjoy these freedoms.

Public interest is one of the deep constructs and essential aspects in legislation, policymaking, and administrative decision-making, which intricately relate to the mechanisms governing public order and the provision of public services, constituting the basis of modern public law. Within the paradigm of Droit Public Économiqué (DPE), the concept of public interest pertains to the collective welfare of the general public concerning economic matters. It is formulated within legal frameworks and regulations governing economic activities with the aim of promoting these interests in the economic sphere. This formulation necessitates navigating conflicting priorities, finding a balance between competing necessities, and engaging with various stakeholders and their interests. This research, conducted through a descriptive, analytical, and comparative approach, utilizing library resources, examines the concept of public interest, its scope, and its evolution in the 19th and 20th centuries within various legal systems and philosophical-political schools. It should be noted that the concept of public interest is open to interpretation which could yield diverse understandings depending on social values, cultural norms, and political ideologies. Furthermore, the extent of public interest and the scope of state intervention in safeguarding and promoting it is often controversial within the discourse of modern DPE. Prominent characteristics of public interest include its pervasiveness across various domains of social life as a public right and in the fabric of civil society organization, as well as its close connection with other constituting constructs of public law, economics, and politics in safeguarding other public rights.

This article provides an analysis of the evolution of democracy and the impact of abuses within political systems on electoral processes. It explores the historical development of parliamentary election systems worldwide, considering their susceptibility to manipulation and abuse. The study employs a comparative analysis of different parliamentary election systems, including majority, proportional, and mixed systems, to assess their vulnerabilities. Furthermore, the article examines the influence of economic interests on legislative decision-making, potentially undermining democratic principles. The central question addressed in this article is whether certain parliamentary election systems are more susceptible to manipulation than others, and how they consequently affect the trajectory of democracy. The article references democratic developments, proposes potential solutions, and introduces an expertise-based electoral system as a suitable approach to strengthen democratic mechanisms while mitigating the influence of economic elites in legislative processes.

The significance of comparative study in the field of administrative law, which heavily relies on foreign legal frameworks unlike other domestic legal fields, cannot be overstated. Within this context, the examination of administrative justice, which plays a pivotal role in the establishment and evolution of administrative law in influential legal systems, becomes increasingly important. This article aims to explore the characteristics and distinctions of administrative justice models across the globe, with a focus on the legal foundations of each respective legal system and the extent to which these distinctions are reflected in the procedural components. Among the various classifications of administrative justice patterns, the classification of countries based on organizational criteria and competency appears to be the most meaningful and comprehensive. From this perspective, countries can be categorized into three models: judicial unity (English model(, judicial duality (French model(, and mixed system (Germany-Belgium model(. Key factors such as the definition of the concept of public interest, the relationship between substantive and formal rules, the nature of the judge-administration relationship, and the unity or duality of the legal framework and judicial authorities significantly influence the formation and differentiation of each justice model. These factors manifest themselves to varying degrees in the quality and manner of justice, as well as in the issue of control and the authorities of the administrative judge.