Document Type : Original Article
Highlights
Disagreements between government agencies are common and inevitable. Such differences are usually caused by many different factors. The main causes of these differences can be the lack of comprehensiveness in the formulation of laws and regulations, the increase in the size of the government before the institutions established in it are ready, the existence of parallel or similar organizations, the lack of desire to use the achievements of public rights, The government's widespread or unwanted involvement in business affairs, sometimes sectoral biases instead of a national perspective, lack of necessary training for administrative officials, and the problem of low attention to meritocracy in the management of human resources, and as a result, a lack of desire for strong interaction and movement on the axis He knew the law.
In line with the implementation of Article 134 of the Constitution and in accordance with paragraph 12 of the general policies of the administrative system based on paying attention to the effectiveness and efficiency of administrative processes and methods in order to speed up and facilitate the provision of state services and with the aim of decriminalizing and reducing the referrals of executive bodies to judicial authorities for solving Fast, specialized, lawful, flexible and cost-free settlement of disputes between executive bodies (both national and provincial) with the internal mechanisms of the executive branch, so far many efforts have been made by the Council of Ministers and the Islamic Council to prevent lawsuits between executive bodies. In the judicial and legal system, the prohibition of filing complaints in authorities outside the executive branch has been made, which includes the development of regulations on how to resolve disputes between executive bodies, procedures for handling and resolving disputes between executive bodies, Anticipating requirements in the laws and regulations of the country's annual budget, the laws of the fourth and fifth development programs of the country, and the law on the regulation of part of the government's financial regulations, etc., in which the executive bodies are required to settle their differences based on The internal mechanisms of the executive branch should be resolved.
The impact of dejudicial thinking on administrative law is to reduce the range of duties and competencies of public and special courts and to increase administrative-executive powers and mechanisms. Also, the legislator, along with expanding the powers of the existing administrative authorities, can establish new non-judicial authorities with new composition and competences during de-judicialization. In this way, the de-judgment process implicitly reinforces quick solutions with few formalities in the form of prescribing administrative proceedings in the executive branch of the country.
The experience in the administrative system shows that the resolution of disputes between executive bodies is mostly time-consuming and causes a lot of time and energy to be wasted on the part of administrative system activists. The reason for this can be found in several cases: including the lack of familiarity with the regulations and procedures related to the settlement of disputes, as well as the lack of interaction among managers at the macro level. The main question that this research seeks to answer is the investigation of the position of the governor as the highest official of the executive body regarding the resolution of disputes between the executive bodies. The hypothesis of the research is also based on the premise that by establishing the centrality of the executive branch to resolve disputes between executive bodies with internal mechanisms and with the approach of identifying and removing legal obstacles, pests, damages, (silence, ambiguity, conflict and contradiction) in the relevant laws and regulations) and applying some reforms in the legal structure of the mechanisms and the function of the dispute resolution authority based in the governorates with coherent administrative structures, it seems that it is possible to establish a legally coherent administrative structure that is low-cost, fast, efficient, Specialized and guaranteed high accuracy and responsiveness.
Despite the fact that the nature of resolving disputes between executive bodies through the internal mechanisms of the executive branch is mostly devoid of judicial aspects and does not conflict with Article 159 of the Constitution regarding the general authority of the judiciary in complaints and referring the matter in cases of disputes to the highest authority of the provincial executive body. Governor) and when necessary to the Legal Vice President and the Council of Ministers is different from the handling of grievances and complaints in judicial matters and is in accordance with Article 134 of the Constitution and in line with the country's general policies of reducing the number of cases entering the judicial system and the interests of the government. and it is based on reducing additional expenses and imposing costs on the government and will ultimately result in reducing the delay of proceedings. Nevertheless, the judiciary considers the requirements arising from the implementation of principles 57 and 159 of the constitution and having an exclusive, general and absolute view of its arbitral jurisdiction and The general ambiguities in the border between the implementation of principles 57, 134 and 159 of the constitution, the existence of some interpretations and the absence of an independent and transparent ordinary law, drawing the internal mechanism of the executive branch to resolve disputes between executive bodies based on regulations and procedures. Letters approved by the Cabinet of Ministers The prohibition of filing complaints in authorities outside of the executive branch, as well as in the implementation rules of the annual budget, as well as the lack of precedent and the establishment of a legal institution in this regard with a clear and approved organizational charter and duties description, as well as the absence of an independent and coherent administrative organization (Board) , working group, committee, commission, etc.) in the administrative organization of the governorates by combining specific members headed by the governor as a dispute resolution authority based in the governorates, currently the executive branch (governorates) with challenges, They have faced serious ambiguities and gaps so far that they have not been able to reach legal decisions with an acceptable executive guarantee, and these causes and factors have caused the failure to realize the principle of internalizing disputes in the executive branch. Therefore, he demands that the Islamic Council, by drafting a special law in this regard, put an end to the legal challenges that have caused many problems to the executive branch, governorates and the people for many years.
