Citizens’ Rights in the Light of Modern Administrative Procedures

Alireza Jamshidi, Arian Petoft

Abstract


91

In the post-modern era of government administration, role and responsibility of government, compared to what has previously played, is changed and citizens role-playing and their rights in the context of a good administrative system, are the main modern governance parameters. Two major steps in the contemporary governments’ performance are put at the top of new governance’s agenda: A) Establishing good governance system and decent government according to new and valuable norms such as general principles of administrative law; B) Guaranteeing and safeguarding citizens’ rights by supervisory mechanisms and also beget a platform for their active play-role in the arena of state affairs management. Hereto, these factors, which are put at the top of government duties’ agenda, provide main citizens’ modern rights in contemporary governance. Due to extreme importance of these citizens’ rights in new administrative procedures, this paper strives to investigate in the most important of these rights, via pondering into the good administration principles, and present them clearly.

Primary question of this paper relies on explanation of citizens’ rights instances which are derived from fundamental parameters and values of good administration. By pondering and investigation on relative books, articles and legal rules in this research, we have received that the most important of these citizens’ rights are as below: right to equality in protection under the law and to enjoyment of opportunities and facilities, right to freedom and customer appreciation, right to proportional, rational, accurate, evaluated government functions, right to enjoyment of on time and quick public services, right to transparent government and freedom of information, right to recognition and respecting to legal expectations and acquired rights, right to accountable government, right to sound state and prohibition of abuse of power, right to smart government adopted to  science and technology, right to participation, right to effective and efficient government and right to responsive government.

Please cite this article as: Petoft A, Jamshidi A. Citizens’ Rights in the Light of Modern Administrative Procedures. Bioeth J Q 2016; 6(21): 23-50.


Keywords


Citizens’ Rights; Good Administartion; Good Governance; Administrative Justice System; Correct Administrative System

Full Text:

PDF

61

References


Bălan E. The right to a good administration and its impact on public administration's procedures. Comunicare.ro; 2010. p.1-5.

Katz R. Skills of an Effective Administrator. Harvard Business Review Press; 2008. p.1-25.

Petoft A. The evolution of government intervention in the economy from the perspective of public law, welfare to post regulatory governments. The quarterly journal of public law research 2015. 17(47): 190-198.

Petoft A. Concept and scope of the general principles of administrative law and referring possibility in the judicial procedure. The Judiciary Research Institute Publishing Center, Jungle Publishing; 2016. p.94-107.

Petoft A. Analysis of post-modern concept of sovereignty from the perspective of public law with an emphasis on the ideas of Foucault. The Quarterly Journal of Public Law Research 2016; 18(52): 1-31.

Monfared HN. The Good Governance in the Light of Human Rights Globalization. Tehran: Shahreh Danesh Publishing; 2010. p.110-114.

Resolution No. 6/2000 The International Law Commission of the United Nations.

Blandine K. The State and the Rule of Law. Princeton University Press; 1995. p.74.

Meenu R. Bureaucracy, Development and Good Governance. In Good governance and administrative practices By Mootheril Raghavan Biju; 2007. p.93-104.

Grimheden J. The right to Good Administration in Multilevel System of the European Union. In Human Rights and Good Governance. Edited by Wei Zhang, Ruoyu Li, Zihan Yan; 2016. p.109-122.

Michael H. Administrative Justice in the 21st Century. Oxford: Hart Publishing; 1999. p.112-126.

Petoft A. Moral Dimensions of Rules Governing Journalism in Islamic Republic of Iran. Journal of Qom University Research Ethics 2013. 4(1): 147-152.

Alder J. Constitutional and Administrative Law. London: Palgrave Macmillan; 2015. p.44-45, 50.

Dierking H. Engineering Good Governance in Open Government: Collaboration, Transparency and Participation in Practice by Daniel Lathrop, Laurel Ruma, O'Reilly Media, Inc. 2009. p.71-80.

Petoft A. New enforcements feasibility in the Administrative Court of Justice. The Judiciary Research Institute Publishing Center, Jungle Publishing; 2015. p.1-6.

Mashaw JL. Bureaucratic Justice: Managing Social Security Disability Claims. NewYork: Yale University Press; 1983.

Hadavand M. Principles o Administrative Law. NewYork: Khorsandi; 2013. p.85.

Petoft A. Scope of legislative supervision of the decisions of the council of ministers, emphasis upon articles 85 and 138 of the constitution of the Islamic republic of Iran. Public Law Studies Quarterly 2015; 45(1): 68-70.

Petoft A. Due Process of Law in the United States Judicial Review. Shiraz University Journal of Legal Studies 2016; 8(3): 33-57.

Petoft A. Cultural preservation and citizenship rights. Symposium on cultural protection in the use of ICT: the needs, issues and challenges, Khajeh Nasir University. ICT Journal 2015; 1(1): 35-47.

Barnett H. Constitutional and Administrative Law. London: Cavendish Publishing; 2001.

Petoft A. Comparative comparison of restrictions on freedom of the press in the Iranian legal system and the UK. Islamic Human Rights Journal 2014; 2(5): 90-94.

Petoft A. Politicization of administrative systems and provide guidelines for the Islamic Republic of Iran (A Case Study of Pakistan, China, UK). Tehran: Islamic Parliament of Iran Research Center; 2013. p.5-9.

O'Neill M. Property-Owning Democracy: Rawls and Beyond. Oxford: Martin O'Neill, Thad Williamson; 2011. p.70.

Tella María José Falcón Y. Equity and Law. Madrid: BRILL; 2007. p.214.

Turner PG. Equity and Administration. NewYork: Cambridge University Press; 2016. p.350.

Huber GA. The Craft of Bureaucratic Neutrality. NewYork: Cambridge University Press; 2007. p.3-6, 13-26.

Soroush A. Justice Freedom. Kian Journal 2000; 7(3): 1-7.

Fatemi SMG. Ethical Theories in the Light of Law. Nameh Mofid 2002; 29: 31.

Meshkini SA. Principles' Idioms. Qom: Madreseh Feghahat; 2000. p.203.

Prakke L. Constitutional Law of 15 EU Member States. London: Kluwer; 2004. p.401.

Petoft A. (Ed.) Anthology of Cultural Rights. Iranian Cultural Society Services Publishing; 2013. p.1-12.

Andreescu M. Principle of Proportionality, Criterion of Legitimacy in the Public Law. Lex ET Scientia Juridical Series 2015; 1: 1.

Berelian M. Principle of Proportionality. Tehran: Khorsandi; 2013. p.40.

Herwig CH. Administrative Law and Policy of the European Union. London: Oxford University Press; 2011. p.196-197.

Bongiovanni G. Reasonableness and Law. NewYork: Springer Science & Business Media; 2009. p.5-7.

Groves M. Australian Administrative Law: Fundamentals, Principles and Doctrines. NewYork: Cambridge University Press; 2007. p.214.

Curtin D. Good Governance and the European Union: Reflections on Concepts, Institutions and Substance. Oxford: Intersentia; 2005. p.39.

Thomas R. Legitimate Expectations and Proportionality in Administrative Law. Oxford: Hart Publishing; 2000. p.41-45.

Ávila H. Certainty in Law. NewYork: Springer; 2016. p.305-309.

Leyland P. Textbook on Administrative Law. NewYork: Oxford University Press; 2016. p.307.

Bamforth N. Accountability in the Contemporary Constitution. NewYork: Oxford University Press; 2013. p.30-31.

Matei L. European Administrative Space. Speyer: Lucica; 2011. p.215.

Schwartz B. French Administrative Law and the Common-law World. London: The Lawbook Exchange; 1954. p.216-218.

Elgie R. The Changing French Political System. Paris: Psychology Press; 2000. p.167.

Rose-Ackerman S. Comparative Administrative Law. London: Edward Elgar Publishing; 2010. p.357-361.

Hartnett T. Consensus-Oriented Decision-Making: The CODM Model for Facilitating Groups to Widespread Agreement. Cabriola: New Society Publishers; 2013. p.1-3.

Maiti P. Development Studies. New Delhi: Atlantic Publishers; 2006. p.181.

Sprenger RK. The Principle of Responsibility: Pathways towards Motivation. Frankfurt: Campus Verlag; 1999. p.173.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.22037/bj.v6i21.14702

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


 

 

 

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License CC BY-NC 4.0. Copyright © 2016 Bioethics Journal (Quarterly). All rights reserved.  All credits and honors to PKP for their OJS.

For Author | Online Submission | About Contact