Document Type : Original Article
Highlights
The status of the constituent elements of modernity and the relationship between the elements and the legal system in Iran and the UK
The administrative system of any country as one of its modern manifestations consists of vital components such as human resources, organization, and structure, systems and methods and procedures, laws and regulations, and facilities and resources (physical and financial resources). In the meantime, the prosecution of administrative violations is one of the important issues of such a system, to the extent that none of the administrative systems can be designed lacking devoting a part of its laws and regulations to determining the duties of delinquent employees. On the other hand, fairness concerning the handling of administrative violations is a very important matter that must be taken into account in the formulation and adoption of disciplinary regulations, which require the observance of the principles of a fair trial.
A fair trial and the principles governing it are referred to as procedural rights, in the sense of its claimed right against the duty of governments, are achieved, enforced in the modern world, and were not recognized in the old world. Accordingly, the principles of a fair trial, which have been considered significant due to the introduction of criminal and civil law and, more recently, administrative law, are contemplated as a modern phenomenon. In this sense, in the administrative system, although dealing with administrative violations of the staff in any country, regardless of its legal system, requires a process from the beginning to the end of prosecution, decision-making and decision-making and issuance of votes, however, the aforementioned process is not necessarily due to the principles of a fair trial.
As explained above, the practice of administrative violations and the principles of a fair trial is embedded in modern law as manifestations of modern life. However, since the manifestations of modern life in traditional life have not been nurtured in this region, the fruits of elongated historical interactions of Iran are not in the field of theories and actions and the interactions have been misunderstood regarding these principles as procedural rights and have not been considered and analyzed as they should be. In addition, this paper seeks to unravel the issue theoretically and determine the ratio between consumption of the majority of components and the existence of legal components among those components. Because in the case of modern society and maximum support for the objective elements (national state and pluralistic society) and subjective / value (self-founded reason and right) modernity, the legal system of that modern country and consequently the four aspects of the relevant legal system changes (purpose of law, the source of the law, the method of legal inference and the competent legislative authority). Thus, the enactment of the law refers to the "determination of the duties of the pious or the performance of the divine duties or, in principle, the implementation of a particular ideology" to "regulate the relationship between man and man in the political unit of the national government while preserving his freedom and equality".
The transformation of the source of law occurs from "a particular eternal and universal religious or non-religious source such as the sacred texts" to "society, history, nature, the instrumental intellect of man or even religion" based on the rule and interpretation of reason, as the manifestation of the element of plural society".
The method of legal inference changes from "text-based method or method of interpretation and explanation of sacred texts and methods using religious philosophy" to "reasoning method" as a manifestation of the element of "self-founded reason" and the competent legislative authority transform from "God's representatives on earth and official guardians of the religion" to the " National Legislative Assemblies " as the manifestation of the element of the "national state" in the requirements of modern times.
In this regard, with a comparative study between Iran and the United Kingdom, the present article has been written on the relationship between the consumption of elements of modernity and modern law. By proving this, the necessity to observe these principles, the transition from traditional rights to modern rights, which in order to enjoy modern rights, society must have the maximum objective and epistemological elements of modernity.
The comparative study of this article shows that England has all the constituent elements of modernity, including objective and subjective / value elements, although, in terms of the four rights of the system, it has the rights of the modern system. This is to ensure the existence of the whole set for all and one, and the principles of a fair trial to guarantee fundamental human rights are considered as one of these measures. Thus, the British legal system, due to the existence of elements of modern life (modernity), in the realm of principles and guarantees of employee procedural rights, is more developed than Iran and the exercise of these rights is documented in human rights documents. In contrast, the situation in Iran is different in terms of having elements of modernity. In that way, although Iran has an objective element of national government with internal character and condition and independence in foreign policy, which is reflected in the competent legislative authority, the effectiveness of the law and its success in managing public affairs depends on adhering to legislative requirements that such acceptance and adherence is not possible. As for the other objective elements of modernity, pluralism, despite Iranian society being very pluralistic, not all different individuals, groups, styles, ideologies, and opinions within the national territory have been accepted equally. In addition, self-founded reason and right in the modern sense have a different place in the Iranian legal system. Therefore, in Iran, due to the absence of the elements of modern life, and consequently in such a legal system, the procedural principles and guarantees are not completed and developed. Thus, it should be noted that modernity is a graded and dubious phenomenon, and all modern societies do not possess the same combination of constituent elements of modernity. Hence, in societies that are on the path of modernity, it is possible to exploit the theories and practices of the modern societies` experiences, because despite the institutional and fundamental differences between the two legal systems of Iran and the United Kingdom, in many cases that are not dependent on specific local conditions, such as the principles and guarantees of employees' administrative rights, it is possible to exploit the modern legal system such as The United Kingdom. However, since public law in every country resonates with the voice of historical developments in that country, therefore, in proportion to progress in the way of the emergence of elements of modernity, those experiences should be localized to help solve problems in this field.
