نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
عنوان مقاله English
نویسندگان English
Disputes between government agencies are inevitable due to the expansion of agencies and subordinate institutions and complex intergovernmental relations. The internal litigation of government agencies, in refrences such as the justice administration, requires a long time to complete the process, excessive costs and expertise - which due to the necessity of work with the cooperation and coherence of the government agencies, as components The body of government has not met the needs of the government in the course of the country's development, so the government has always given priority to internal and non-judicial mechanisms for resolving disputes due to faster, simpler and easier procedures. In the legal regime of the Islamic Republic of Iran, according to Article 134 of the Constitutional Law, which refers to the authority of the Council of Ministers to handle disputes between executive agencies, various resolutions have been written by the Council of Ministers since 1357. Which is in conflict with the general jurisdiction of the judiciary (derived from Article 159 of the Constitutional Law). The government of the Republic of South Africa has a similar mechanism to Iran in resolving intergovernmental disputes. Also, according to INTERGOVERNMENTAL RELATIONS FRAMEWORK ACT, 2005 of South Africa, in resolving disputes between government agencies, priority is given to resolving disputes within the government system. It is through the methods set out in the law, and only if the dispute is formally declared or none of the methods in the law are effective, government agencies can institute judicial action. In this brief, we will discuss the historical course of the mentioned procedure, the interpretation of the constitution in the mentioned subject and the comparative comparison of the mentioned mechanism in Iran and South Africa, and while pointing out their advantages and disadvantages, we offer a suitable solution.
کلیدواژهها English
