Public Law Studies Quarterly

The Impact of Human Rights Standards on the Judicial Process With Emphasis on the legal Systems of the United Kingdom, Australia and Iran

Document Type : Article

Authors

Hassan Haghighi 1
Manuchehr Tavassoli Naini 2
Seyed Mohammadsadegh Ahmadi 3

1 Department of Law, Isfahan (Khorasgan) Branch, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran

2 Associate Prof., Department of Law, University of Isfahan, Isfahan, Iran

3 Assistant Prof., Department of Law, Isfahan (Khorasgan) Branch, Islamic Azad University, Isfahan, Iran

https://doi.org/10.22059/jplsq.2021.312724.2612
Abstract
Human rights is a superior and valuable system and an evolved and modern form of natural rights, which consists of four fundamental principles: "the principle of human dignity and dignity", "the principle of freedom", "the principle of equality" and "the principle of fraternity" and other principles and rights proposed in the human rights instruments are under the mentioned principles. On the other hand, administrative law, which is a sub-branch of public law and defined in the constitution of every political system, and compared to other legal trends,  is nascent and new,  deals with regulating the relations between the administrative apparatus and government organizations with individuals and citizens. Recent developments regarding the duties and performance of governments in the social arena and their use of public privileges in order to "advance public order and social services" have caused violations of human rights standards in the field of administrative law system. The important point is the impact of human rights standards on the decisions of administrative courts and the effectiveness of administrative proceedings from human rights standards. In this research, according to the examination of the administrative laws of Iran, England and Australia, it has been tried to take advantage of the judicial procedure that has led to the development and implementation of the principles and rules of human rights. The research method in this paper is based on library studies and analyzesinformation in a descriptive-analytical way.

Keywords

Australia
England
Iran
administrative law
human rights
administrative courts
Subjects

  1. English

    1. A) Books
    2. A. Wade H.W.R. &Forsyth C.F.)2004). Administrative Law. 9th ed. Oxford University Press.
    3. Aronson M.. B. Dyer and M. Groves.(2004). Judicial Review of Administrative Action (3rd ed).
    4. Bayne P. (2007). The Human Rights Act 2004 (ACT) and Administrative Law: A Preliminary View” 52 AIAL Forum 3. citing Walton v Gardiner (1993). 177 CLR 378.
    5. Beatty D. )2004). The Ultimate Rule of Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press) 144.
    6. Dicey A. )1959). Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution (10th ed. MacMillan. London.), pp 187ff. Diceyan model of rule of law.
    7. Dyzenhaus D.)1997). The Politics of Deference: Judicial Review and Democracy’ in M.Taggart (ed.). The Province of Administrative Law (Hart). M. Hunt. ‘Reshaping Constitutionalism’in J. Morison. K. McEvoy and G. Anthony (eds). Judges.(2007). Transition and Human Rights (Oxford).
    8. Dyzenhaus D. )2005). The Rule of (Administrative) Law in International Law 68. Law & Contemporary Problems 127.
    9. Dyzenhaus D.M. Hunt and M. Taggart )2001). The Principle of Legality in Administrative Law: Internationalisation and Constitutionalisation. 1 Oxford University Commonwealth Law Journal 5.
    10. Glenn H.P. )2005). On Common Laws (Oxford: Oxford University Press). See also Lauren Benton. Law and Colonial Cultures: Legal Regimes in World History. 1400-1900 (Cambridge: Cambridge).
    11. Goldsworthy J.)2006). Australia: Devotion to Legalism in J. Goldsworthy(ed). Interpreting Constitutions:A comparative Study (Oxford: Oxford University Press) 155 & 133.
    12. Griffith J.A.G.(1955). ‘Administrative Discretion and the Courts – the Better Part of Valour. 18 MLR 159-163.
    13. Harlow C. )2006). Global Administrative Law: The Quest for Principles and Values. 17 EJIL 187- 209.
    14. Held D. (2004). Democracy and the Global Order: From the Modern State to Cosmopolitan Governance Cambridge:
    15. Heydon D. (2003). Judicial Activism and the Death of the Rule of Law. 47 Quadrant 9. 13-14. This address is also published in: 23 Australian Bar Review 1.
    16. Ignatieff M. )2001). Human Rights as Politics and Idolatory .(Princeton University Press) 53.
    17. Jowell J. (2000). Beyond the Rule of Law: Towards Constitutional Judicial Review. PL 671.
    18. Knop K.)2000). Here and There: International Law in Domestic Courts.32 New York University Journal of International Law and Politics 501.
    19. Kukathas Cf C.)2003). The Liberal Archipelago: A Theory of Diversity and Freedom (Oxford: Oxford University Press)
    20. Luhmann N. Die Weltgesellschaft (1971). 57 Archiv für Rechts und Sozialphilosophie 21.
    21. Mason Sir A. (2003). The Centenary of the High Court of Australia. 5 Constitutional Law and Policy Review 41- 45.
    22. McCrudden C. (2000). A Common Law of Human Rights? Transnational Judicial Conversations on Constitutional Rights. 20 OJLS 499. Cf the idea of judicial globalization: A-M Slaughter. Judicial Globalization 40 Virginia Journal of International Law 1102. Justice L. Heureux-Dubé. The Importance of Dialogue. Globalization and the International Impact of the Rehnquist Court. (1998) 34 Tulsa Law Journal 15.
    23. Miles J.)1998). Standing under the Human Rights Act. Theories of Rights Enforcement and the Nature of Public Law Adjudication) CLJ 133.
    24. Poole T. (2009). The Reformation of English Administrative Law. 68 Cambridge Law Journal (forthcoming).
    25. Saul B. )2007). Australian Administrative Law: The Human Rights Dimension. in Groves M and Lee HP (eds) Australian Administrative Law: Fundamentals. Principles and Doctrines (Cambridge University Press. Melbourne) p 50.
    26. Simpson W.B. Human Rights and the End of Empire: Britain and the Genesis of the European Convention.
    27. Wheeler F. and J. Williams. (2007). x (ed.). Judicial Activism in Common Law Supreme Courts (Oxford: Oxford University Press).

     

    1. B) Articles
    2. Doyle J. (1996). mplications of Judicial Law-Making. in C. Saunders (ed.). Courts of Final Jurisdiction: The Mason court in Australia (Sydney: Federation Press) 83-96.
    3. Hunt, M. )2003). Sovereignty’s Blight: Why Contemporary Public Law Needs the Concept of . Due Deference in N. Bamforth and P. Leyland (eds), Public Law in a Multi-Layered Constitution (Hart) 1-304.
    4. Stern, K. )2007). Substantive Fairness in UK and Australian Law. 29 Australian Bar Review 138-158.
    5. Oliver D. )1999). The Underlying Values of Public and Private Law. in Taggart M (ed), The Province of Administrative Law (Hart, Oxford) p 223.

     

    References in Persian:

    1. A) Books
    2. Andre Dumichele Pierre Lalou Maire (2006). public Law. translated by Abulfazl Qazi Shariat Panahi, Tehran: Dadghostar (In Persian).
    3. Andre, Vincent, Andrew, (2015). State theories. Translated by Hossein Bashiriyeh, Tehran: ney (In Persian).
    4. Bakhshaishi Ardestani, A. (2015). The principles of political science. Tehran: Avaye Noor (In Persian).
    5. Gorji Azandariani A. A. (2015). In pursuit of fundamental rights, Tehran:Janghal (In Persian).
    6. Hadavand, M., , (2012). Decision-making rituals in administrative law. Tehran: Khorsandi (In Persian).
    7. Hashemi, S. M. (2004). Human rights and fundamental freedoms. Tehran: Mezan (In Persian).
    8. Haywood, A. (2017). Key concepts in political science. translated by Hassan Saeed Kolahi and Abbas Kardan, first edition, Tehran: Scientific and Cultural publication (In Persian).
    9. Naqibzadeh, A. (2013). Politics and government in Europe (England, France, Germany and Italy), Tehran: Samt.
    10. Rafiei, M. T. (2013). Comparative Law. Tehran: Majd (In Persian).
    11. Saket, M. H. .(2009). jurisprudence; An introduction to the knowledge of law. Tehran: sales publication (In Persian).
    12. Shami, M. (2016). Comparative administrative law. Tehran: Kavoshyar (In Persian).
    13. Tabatabai Motmani, M. (1997). Administrative law. Tehran: Samt (In Persian).
    14. Zweigert, K. Coats, H. (2016). An income on comparative rights. translated by Elias Noei and Mohammad Noei, Tehran: Majd (In Persian).

     

    1. B) Articles
    2. Aghaei Toqi, M. (2008). Comparative study of the administrative justice system in South Africa and Iran. Journal of Constitutional Rights, Tehran: Jangal Javadane Publications, 5(9), 57-70 (In Persian).
    3. Bagheri Khouzani, M. H. (2008). Introduction to the challenges facing the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran in the age of globalization. Islamic Studies Quarterly, Tehran, 5(2), 121-143 (In Persian).
    4. Marti, M. R. D. (2008). Globalization of Law - Opportunities and Risks. translated by Ardeshir Amir Arjamand, Legal Journal of International Legal Services Office, Tehran, 24, 121-148 (In Persian).
    5. Vijeh, M. R. (2004). The Concept of the Principle of Equality in Modern Public Law. Journal of Fundamental Rights, 2, 213-252 (In Persian).

     

     

     

     

Public Law Studies Quarterly
Volume 54, Issue 1
Spring 2024
Spring 2024
Pages 309-329

  • Receive Date 05 December 2020
  • Revise Date 02 February 2021
  • Accept Date 24 May 2021

Home

Journal Process Ethics

Peer Review Process

Submission

Indexing and Abstracting

Contact Us