The Supreme Council of Cultural Revolution in the Scale of the Independence of Powers

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Public Law, Faculty of Law, Shahid Behehshti, Tehran, Iran.

2 public law, Faculty of Law and Political Science, Allameh tabatabaei university, tehran, iran.

Abstract

The Supreme Council of Cultural Revolution as one of the institutions that has been created in the first years of the revolution, has always posed challenges in the Iranian legal system. One of the most important issues related to the activities of the institution is violating the jurisdiction of legal institutions of the country and in particular three branches of government. In the field of entry into legislative competence, we can say about the legislation, policymaking, demarcation of freedom of the press, ratification of international treaties and interpretation of the constitution. And among the violation of executive competence, entering into budgeting and violating the qualifications of ministries are more important. Finally, regarding the violation of the judiciary's independence, violation of the right to fair procedure, the jurisdiction of the administrative justice court and the general inspection organization have been struck by this council and also council enacted provisions in the field of judicial formation, bills and prisons which led to the limitation of the legislative competence. The most prominent consequences of violation of these qualifications are spending founds, parallelism, bureaucracy, government authority, deprivation of individual initiatives, preventing citizens from participation in decision-making and denial of representation theory. In this article, we intend to provide necessary grounds in order to amend the current situation by reviewing council's regulations, and identify social pathologies regarding council's activities.

Keywords

References

  1. Absavarian, Hadi & Saeid Mohammadi-Sadegh (2016) »Tasks and Duties of the Supreme Council of Cultural Law«, Journal of Law Review, Vol. 2 (2), pp 42-45.
  2. Alder, John (2002) General Principles of Constitutional and Administrative Law, Fourth Edition, London: Palgrave Macmillan.
  3. Barak, Aharon (2005) Purposive Interpretation in Law, Translated from the Hebrew by Sari Bashi, Princeton and Oxford: Princeton University Press.
  4. Bradley A. W. and K. D. Ewing (2007) Constitutional and Administrative Law, Fourteenth Edition, London: Pearson Education Limited.
  5. Cane, Peter (1992) An Introduction to Administrative Law, London: Oxford University Press.
  6. Cane, Peter (2011) Administrative Law, Fifth Edition, London: Oxford University Press.
  7. Cerar, Miro (2009) »The Relationship between Law and Politics«, Annual Survey of International Comparative Law, Vol. 15, Issue 1, Article 3, pp 19-41.
  8. Elliot, Mark and David Feldman (2015) Public Law, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  9. Ellis-Jones, Ian (2001) Essential Administrative Law, Second Edition, London: Cavendish Publishing.
  10. McEldowney, John (1998) Public Law, 2nd Edition, London: Sweet & Maxwell.
  11. Grabenwarter, Christoph (2011) »Separation of Powers and the Independence of Constitutional Courts and Equivalent Bodies«, 2nd Congress of the World Conference on Constitutional Justice, Rio de Janeiro, (30 July 2018) on: https://www.venice.ceo.int.
  12. Henderson, Edith G. (1963) Foundations of English Administrative Law, Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press.
  13. Jahanbaksh, Forough (2001) Islam, Democracy and Religious Modernism in Iran (1953-2000), Leiden, Boston, Koln: Brill.
  14. Malekian, Farhad (2011) Principles of Islamic International Criminal Law, Second Edition, Leiden, Boston: Brill.
  15. Parpworth, Neil (2012) Constitutional and Administrative Law, 7th Edition, London: Oxford University Press.
  16. Pierson, Christopher (2004) The Modern State, 2nd Edition, London & New York: Routledge.
  17. Rasekh, Mohammad (2016) »Sharia and Law in the Age of Constitutionalism«, Journal of Global Justice and Public Policy, Vol. 2, No. 2, pp 259-276.
  18. Saiegh, Sebastian M. (March 2005) »the Role of Legislature in the Policymaking Process«, (31 July 2018) on: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/228471685.
  19. Tamanaha, Brian Z. (2004) On the Rule of Law, History, Politics, Theory, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  20. S. Department of State (nd.), »Duties of Secretary of State«, (18 December 2018) on: www.state.gov/secretary/115194.htm.
  21. Vile, Maurice C. (1967) Constitutionalism and the Separation of Powers, Second Edition, Oxford University Press.
  22. Waldron, Jeremy (2012) »Separation of Powers or Division of Power?«, New York University School of Law: New York University Public Law and Legal Theory Working Papers, (31 July 2018) on: accessible on
  23. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2045638.
  1. Biadegleng, Ermia Takeste (2006) "IP Rights under Investment Agreements: The TRIPS - PLUS Implication for Enforcement and Protection of Public Interest", .Research Paper South Centre.
  2. Boie, Betram (2010) "The Protection of Intellectual Property Rights Through Bilateral Investment Treaties: Is There a Trips-Plus Dimesion", Swiss National Centre of Competence in Researc.
  3. Brid, Robert & Cahoy, Daniel R. (2008) "The Impact of Compulsory Licensing on Foreign Direct Investment: A Collective Bargaining Approach", American Business Law Journal Volume 45. Issue2, pp 1-48.
  4. Brown, Chester and Miles, Kate (2011) Evolution in Investment Treaty and Arbitration, Cambridge University Press.
  5. Correa, Carlos M. (2004) "Bilateral Investment Agreements: Agents of New Global Standards for the Protection of Intellectual Property Rights ",Visited 15/4/2013, available at http://www.grain.org/briefings/?id=186.
  6. Correa, Carlos M. (2007) Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, Acommentary on The Trips Agreement, Oxford University Press.
  7. Correa Carlos M. (2013) "Harzad in Bilateral Investment Treaties(BITs): Investor Rights v Publice Health", South Bulletin, 69 Article.
  8. Christie, GE (1962) "What Constitutes a Taking of Property Under International Law?", British Year book of International Law.
  9. Eli Lilly Can. UNCITRAL, Notice of Arbitration (Sept. 12, 2013), available at http://italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/italaw1582.pdf
  10. Gibson, Christopher S (2009) "A Look at the Compulsory License in Investment Arbitration: The Case of Indirect Expropriation", Legal Studies Researcher Series Research Paper.
  11. Hindman, David (2006) "The Effect Of Intellectual Property Regimes On Foreign Investments In Developing Economies", Arizona Journal Of International & Comparative Law, Vol. 23, No. 2, pp 467-492.
  12. Liberti, Lahara (2010) "Intellectual Property Rights in International Investment Agreements: an Overview OECD Working Papers on International Investment",OECD Publishing.
  13. Mafi, Homayoun (2011) "Controversial of Compensation in Cases of Expropriation and Nationalization: Awards of The Iran-United States Claims Tribunal",J Humanities, 701-18(1), pp. 83-102.
  14. Mercurio, Bryan (2012) "Awakening the Sleeping Giant: Intellectual Property Rights in International Investment Agreements", Journal of International Economic Law 15(3), pp. 871-915.
  15. Okediji, Ruth L. (2014) "Is Intellectual property “Investment”? Eli lilly v. Canada and the International Intellectual Property System", University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Law, Vol. 35, No. 4,pp 1121-1138..
  16. Peria, Elpidio V (2011) "Making Sense of BITs of IPRs in International Investment Agreements". Biodiversity, Innovation, Trade and Society (BITS) Policy Centre Regional Forum on Investments Quezon City. 21-22 September.
  17. Ruse – Khan, Henning Grosse (2010) "Protecting Intellectual Property Under BITs, FTAs and Trips: Conflicting Regimes or Mutual Coherence?", Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property and Competition Law Research Paper No. 11-02.
  18. Rutledge, Peter B (2012) "Trips and BITs: an Essay on Compulsory Licenses, Expropriation and International Arbitration", Carolina Journal of Law Technology 13 N.C.J.LN&Tech on, pp. 149-164..
  19. Schreuer , Christoph (2005) "Fair and Equitable Treatment in Arbitral Practice", The Journal of World Investment & Trade,Vol.6, No.3, pp 357-386..
  20. South Centre (2005) "Intellectual Property in Investment: The Trips-Plus Implications for Developing Countries", South Centre Analytical Note.
  21. UNCTAD (1999) "Most Favoured Nation Treatment". Series on Issues in International Investment Agreements United Nation, Newyork and Geneva.
  22. UNCTAD (2000) "Taking of Property", Series on Issues in International Investment Agreements.
  23. Vivas-Eugui, David (2003) "Regional and Bilateral Agreements and a Trips-Plus World. Trips Issues Paper", Quaker United Nation Office & International Centre for Trade and Sustainable.
  24. Yin, Tsai-lu (2009) "Compulsory Licenses for Access to Medicines, Expropriation and Investor-State Arbitration Under Bilateral Investment Agreements- Are There Issues Beyond the Trips Agreement?", Published by Max Planck Institute for Intellectual Property, Competition and Tax Law, Munich, Volume 40.
  25. Yu, Peter K. (2017) "The Investment-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights", American University Law Review, Volume 66, Issue 3,pp. 829-910.

                                                                                              

Journal of Legal Studies
Volume 11, Issue 3 - Serial Number 33
December 2019
Pages 105-141

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics