Document Type : Original Article
Highlights
Summary
The structure of financial oversight of government bodies is a key factor not only in ensuring the proper conduct of the administrative process, but also in the optimal use and protection of public assets. These regulatory bodies, which must necessarily have administrative and financial independence, have an effective role to play in combating corruption and adhering to the principles of transparency and honesty. As a result, it becomes clear why the constitutions of the Kurdistan Region, Iraq, and Iran specifically address computational oversight bodies.
In this regard, in the present article, the laws of Kurdistan, Iran and Iraq on the structure of financial oversight institutions are examined and while analyzing the structural differences and similarities of the institutions in question, the strengths and weaknesses of the financial institutions in the countries The issue and the climate of Iraqi Kurdistan have been discussed.
The executive branch has a large share in the study of administrative sciences. Because in addition to government affairs in the political sense, it is also entrusted with the performance of administrative duties. In this regard, it can not be denied that every administrative authority is eager to achieve a set of goals under a legal system, and as it initially seeks to achieve the public interest, for this purpose it should have the privilege to be able to do its job. Privileges that other private individuals and legal entities do not share, but the scope of these privileges is limited to the administrative and governmental position.
To enter the discussion, it is first necessary to fully identify the subject of the research and explain its legal nature. If addressing the administrative authority in the context of its activities is aimed at achieving the public interest and, as a result, enjoying exceptional privileges, this will be one of the factors in having a number of tools that can achieve this goal in a real and legal manner. In this regard, there are legal management tools that are reflected in management decisions and contracts. There are also human tools that are official; Those who express the will of the government carry out administrative activities and thus form the main element of the administrative process. There are also material tools that include a set of funds belonging to the government and the country that enable it to perform its administrative function to achieve the desired goals of the administrative authority.
According to the teachings of administrative law, there is a kind of administrative decentralization in government offices. This type of decentralization refers to systems in which the decision-making and management of one or more public affairs is given to independent authorities or institutions, and decision-making power is divided at various administrative, geographical, and organizational levels.
Hence, in most existing systems today, facilities are created that have a separate personality from the central government organizations and are created to perform public functions. Of course, there are no uniform patterns for such institutions.
Thus, it is not surprising that the government begins to develop tools and means to further control and oversee administrative affairs, because the government is not just a guardian government, but intervenes in all activities, and this interventionist action to governments given the tools Effective in the process of change for the better, imposes efforts to reform the bureaucracy. This also leads to the expansion of new types of agencies to oversee administrative work to combat and eliminate corruption, on the one hand, and to guide the elimination of deficiencies and deviations and to identify deficiencies in administrative work methods in order to correct and They have a role to play in their future development.
Hence, we can understand the sensitivity of the legislators of the Kurdistan Region, Iraq and Iran to establish many regulatory bodies whose purpose is to fight financial and administrative corruption in all its forms to protect public services from this devastating scourge.
The Court of Accounts of Iran: In order to carry out its duties, in accordance with Articles 54 and 55 of the Constitution, it conducts audits, examinations and care to spend the approved credits and to spend everything in its place. The Court of Audit is a governmental organization that is independent in financial and administrative affairs and is one of the institutions affiliated to the parliament.
The Court of Accounts is governed by the organizational structure approved by the parliament. The pillars of this structure are as follows: a) General Director B - Prosecutor C - Deputies D - Advisers.
The Court of Audit examines or audits all the accounts of ministries, institutions, all state-owned companies and other bodies that use the state budget in some way.
Administrative and Financial Oversight of Iraq: The law of the Court of Supervision states: "The Court is a financially and administratively independent entity with legal personality and is the highest financial oversight body associated with the House of Representatives on behalf of the Chief of Staff or his Deputy.
Structure of the Iraqi Court of Financial Supervision: A. The Council of the Court. B. The President of the Court. C- Two Deputy Presidents of the Court. D- Central audit circles. E- Audit offices in the provinces, with the exception of the Kurdistan region.
In addition to the expenses of the bodies under its control, the Court of Financial Supervision has financial authority to review and audit the transactions related to the expenses.
Structure of the Kurdistan Region Financial Supervision Court: A- Financial Supervision Council. B. The President of the Court. The following organizations accompany the President of the Court: 1- Organ of administrative, financial and legal affairs. 2- Organ of technical affairs and research. 3- Inspection bodies. C- Deputy Chairman of the Court. D- Office of the President of the Court.
Financial Supervision: In Iran, for pre-expenditure supervision, the budget is allocated to the organizations that use the budget in accordance with the rules and taking into account the budget approvals. Hence, the approval of the budget is one of the factors in exercising government oversight.
In Iraq, none of the provisions of this article stipulates that it should grant these powers to the Court in accordance with its previous laws.
In the Kurdistan Region, none of the articles of the Financial Supervision Law mentions that the Court has the right of prior supervision and control.
Simultaneous cost monitoring, in Iran, will review the documents related to receipts and payments during the fiscal year and during the implementation of various stages of budget implementation within the scope of the General Accounting Law and the Budget Law of the whole country.
In Iraq, the Financial Supervision Act applies this type of control and the Court of Supervision has jurisdiction over it.
In the Kurdistan Region of the law, the Court of Financial Supervision considers this form of supervision in the second stage, to "inspect and audit the transactions of evaluation, verification and collection of resources and to ensure the appropriateness of the approved procedures and how to implement them."
In Iran, cost monitoring will be performed by the Court of Audit. This type of control is also exercised by the Iraqi Court of Supervision. The Court of Financial Supervision of the Kurdistan Region also carries out this enforcement.
The type of audit of the Court of Audit of Iran is compliance auditing. According to the existing laws, the audit in the Court of Financial Supervision of Iraq and the Kurdistan Region is done in two ways: 1- Audit of financial statements. 2- Performance audit.
There are more than 22 monitoring devices in Iran that directly or indirectly inspect and monitor the process of payments and expenses.
By studying the laws, regulations, and guidelines for determining the authority of Iraqi regulators, we find that there is a commonality with some of the specializations granted to them by the legislature. In addition, some of these institutions have powers that interfere with the powers of some judicial institutions.
Extensive clashes of tastes of these devices, especially in Iran and Iraq, have led to the lack of a specific strategy and strategy to deal with corruption. It is obvious that this multiplicity leads to the overlap of the duties of each of these organizations, so that the relevant organization does not perform its duties as it should and leaves it to other. These oversight bodies are more ceremonial. All of them should have unity of procedure and there should be a higher authority such as the Court of Accounts that has the most duties and powers.
Inclusion of supervision is another common denominator of the financial monitoring system of Iran, Iraq and the region. At all three points, the scope of financial oversight is the cost of the country's public resources. Therefore, in Iran, Iraq and the Kurdistan Region, only institutions and bodies that are financially controlled that use and exploit public resources will be included.
The Court of Supervision of Iraq and the Kurdistan Region, at the discretion of the Inspector General, investigates exploitation and large investments that affect the future of the people, as well as plans and submits its findings to parliament for decision. Hence, the most important difference between financial supervision in Iran, Iraq and the climate goes back to its competence and mission in these three points. The Court of Audit of Iran has only a supervisory role and is responsible for overseeing how the government spends and spends, while the Court of Audit in Iraq and Iraq, in addition to overseeing, conducts research, prioritizes budget allocations, and evaluates government activities.
Another fundamental difference in the financial monitoring system of Iran, Iraq and the Kurdistan Region is in the organizational mechanism; The Court of Audit of Iran has a prosecutor's office and a prosecutor, and also conducts a kind of prosecution and supervision of quasi-judiciary.
In Iraq and the Kurdistan Region, given that the structure of the federal government is based on the absolute separation of powers, there is no prosecutor in the Court of Financial Supervision, no prosecutor, and no judicial mechanism, but the judiciary is the authority to deal with violations.
