میز خدمت الکترونیک
دوره ویراستاری

  اخبار و اعلانات

 آمار

تعداد نشریات127
تعداد شماره‌ها7,196
تعداد مقالات77,227
تعداد مشاهده مقاله157,234,786
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله118,412,574
کاویار, حسین. (1404). استقلال قضایی دانشگاه؛ بررسی تطبیقی حقوق امریکا و ایران. , 16(1), 355-381. doi: 10.22059/jcl.2025.374202.634619
حسین کاویار. "استقلال قضایی دانشگاه؛ بررسی تطبیقی حقوق امریکا و ایران". , 16, 1, 1404, 355-381. doi: 10.22059/jcl.2025.374202.634619
کاویار, حسین. (1404). 'استقلال قضایی دانشگاه؛ بررسی تطبیقی حقوق امریکا و ایران', , 16(1), pp. 355-381. doi: 10.22059/jcl.2025.374202.634619
کاویار, حسین. استقلال قضایی دانشگاه؛ بررسی تطبیقی حقوق امریکا و ایران. , 1404; 16(1): 355-381. doi: 10.22059/jcl.2025.374202.634619

استقلال قضایی دانشگاه؛ بررسی تطبیقی حقوق امریکا و ایران

مطالعات حقوق تطبیقی
دوره 16، شماره 1 - شماره پیاپی 31، تیر 1404، صفحه 355-381    اصل مقاله (524.73 K)
نوع مقاله: مقاله علمی - پژوهشی
شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.22059/jcl.2025.374202.634619
نویسنده
حسین کاویار*
گروه حقوق، دانشکدۀ علوم اداری و اقتصاد، دانشگاه اراک، اراک، ایران
چکیده
فلسفۀ استقلال دانشگاه پایش درونی است. اگرچه استقلال دانشگاه‌های ایران به‌رسمیت شناخته شده است، اما در دهۀ گذشته تمایل فزاینده‌ای از سوی شورای عالی انقلاب فرهنگی برای منع ورود مراجع قضایی به دعاوی دانشگاهی مشاهده می‌شود. ورود شورای عالی انقلاب فرهنگی به موضوعاتی از قبیل تحدید صلاحیت دیوان عدالت اداری و سایر مراجع قضایی می‌تواند نظم حقوقی دادگاه‌ها را در ابتدایی‌ترین و در عین حال، مهم‌ترین موضوع یعنی «صلاحیت» مختل نماید. این اقدام دخالت در وظایف مجلس شورای اسلامی است و شورای عالی انقلاب فرهنگی را هم‌ردیف با مجلس قرار می‌دهد. هیئت عالی تجدیدنظر دو وزارتخانۀ علوم و بهداشت و و نیز دانشگاه آزاد که در سال 1387 با مصوبۀ 630 این شورا تأسیس شد و صلاحیتش اخیراً به‌موجب مصوبۀ تجمیعی- تکمیلی در جلسۀ شمارۀ 893 گسترش یافته است، نمی‌تواند صلاحیت مراجع قضایی را تحدید کند. ایجاد هیئتی از بطن دانشگاه برای رسیدگی به مرافعات واجد ویژگی علمی دانشگاهیان، ایدۀ بسیار مطلوبی است که در حقوق امریکا نیز با دکترین امتناع آکادمیک پایه‌گذاری شد، ولی هیئت عالی تجدیدنظر دو وزارتخانۀ نامبرده و دانشگاه آزاد در حال حاضر ماهیت و خصوصیات مراجع شبه‌قضایی را ندارد. انتقاداتی که به هیئت عالی وارد شده به نحوۀ ورود آن به مراجع شبه‌قضایی ایران است. در حقوق امریکا دادگاه‌ها تلاش می‌کنند تا تعادلی بین استقلال دانشگاه و قوانین ضدتبعیض برقرار کنند. آنها به تخصص دانشگاهیان در امور علمی، آموزشی و پژوهشی احترام می‌گذارند، اما در عین حال، سوءاستفاده از قدرت و تبعیض را تحمل نمی‌کنند. دادگاه‌ها در صورت سوءاستفاده از اختیارات یا اقدام خودسرانۀ مقامات دانشگاهی مداخله می‌کنند.
کلیدواژه‌ها
حقوق امریکا؛ دکترین امتناع ‏آکادمیک؛ دیوان عدالت اداری؛ ‏شئون علمی- آموزشی و ‏پژوهشی؛ هیئت عالی تجدیدنظر.‏
عنوان مقاله [English]
Judicial Independence of the University:‎ A Comparative Study of American and Iranian Law
نویسندگان [English]
Hossein KAVIAR
Department of Law, Faculty of Administrative Sciences and Economics, Arak University, Arak, ‎Iran
چکیده [English]
Although the independence of higher education institutions in Iran has been recognized, in the last decade, there has been an increasing tendency on the part of the Supreme Council of the Cultural Revolution to prohibit the involvement of judicial authorities in university lawsuits. The intervention of the Supreme Council of the Cultural Revolution in issues such as limiting the jurisdiction of the Administrative Court of Justice and other judicial authorities can disrupt the legal order of the courts in the most basic and, at the same time, the most important matter: “jurisdiction”. This action interferes with the duties of the Islamic Consultative Assembly and places the Supreme Council of the Cultural Revolution on the same level as the Parliament. The Supreme Appellate Board of the Ministers of Science, Health, and Azad University, which was established in 2008 by Council Resolution No. 630 and whose jurisdiction was recently expanded by the supplementary collective resolution in Session No. 893, cannot restrict the jurisdiction of judicial authorities. Creating an internal university committee to handle academic appeals is a highly desirable idea, one that has also been established in American law through the doctrine of academic deference. However, the current Supreme Appellate Committee of the ministers and Azad University does not yet possess the nature and characteristics of quasi-judicial authorities. The criticisms directed at the Supreme Council relate to the manner of its intervention in Iran’s quasi-judicial authorities. In American law, courts try to strike a balance between university autonomy and anti-discrimination laws. They respect academic expertise in scientific, educational, and research matters, but at the same time, they do not tolerate abuse of power or discrimination. Courts intervene in cases of abuse of authority or arbitrary actions by academic officials.
کلیدواژه‌ها [English]
American law, scientific, ‎educational and research ‎affairs, doctrine of ‎academic refusal, Court of ‎Administrative Justice, ‎Supreme Court of Appeals.‎
مراجع
References

  1. A) Books
  2. Abdollahian, O., & Rafiei, M. R. (2018). Strategies for Improving Fair Adjudication in Non-Judicial Specialized Bodies (2nd ed.). Tehran: Judiciary Research Institute (In Persian).
  3. Alstyne, W. (1993). Freedom and Tenure in the Academy, Duke University Press.
  4. Edwards, Harry. T., Nordin, Virginia Davis. (1979). Higher Education and the Law, Institute for Educational Management, Harvard University.
  5. Farasatkhah, M. (2022). The Intermittent University in Iran (5th ed.). Tehran: Agah (In Persian).
  6. Ghamami, M., & Mohseni, H. (2013). International Civil Procedure. Tehran: Enteshar (In Persian).
  7. Golsheni, M. (2017). What are the characteristics of a desirable independent university? (Proceedings of the National Conference on University Autonomy, 1st ed. Tehran: Allameh Tabataba’i University Press (In Persian).
  8. Hadavand, M. (2019). Comparative Administrative Law, Vol. 2 (7th ed.). Tehran: Samt (In Persian).
  9. Jaspers, K. (2015). The Idea of the University (translated by M. Parsa & M. Parsa, 1st ed.). Tehran: Qaqnus (In Persian).
  10. Mahmoudi, J. (2014). An Analytical Study of Administrative Adjudication in Iranian Law (2nd ed.). Tehran: Jangal (In Persian).
  11. Mahmoudi, J. (2016). An Introduction to the Legal System of Iranian Universities (1st ed.). Tehran: Mizan (In Persian).
  12. Matei, L., Iwinska, J., (2014). University Autonomy-A Practical Handbook, Publisher: Central European University. Higher Education Observatory, available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331345204
  13. Molabigi, G. (2014). Jurisdiction and Procedure of the Administrative Court (1st ed.). Tehran: Jangal (In Persian).
  14. Moosavi, A. (2023). Structure, Jurisdiction, and Enforcement System of the Administrative Court Rulings (1st ed.). Tehran: Shahrdanesh (In Persian).
  15. Nahreini, F. (2021). Civil Procedure, Vol. 1, Part 2 (3rd ed.). Tehran: Ganje Danesh (In Persian).
  16. Shams, A. (2004). Civil Procedure (Vol. 2, 6th ed.). Tehran: Derak (In Persian).
  17. Standler, R.B. (2011). Academic Abstention in the USA, available at: rbs2.com/AcadAbst.pdf
  18. Vahedi, Z. (2020). The Legal Status of the High Court of Appeals of the Ministries of Science and Health and Judicial Oversight over It (1st ed.). Tehran: Judiciary Research Institute (In Persian).
  19. Zaker-Salehi, G. R. (2018). Issues in Higher Education in Iran (1st ed.). Tehran: Cultural and Social Studies Research Center (In Persian).
  20. Zaker-Salehi, G. R. (2019). Higher Education Law (Vol. 1, 2nd ed.). Tehran: Institute for Research and Planning in Higher Education (In Persian).
  21. Zaker-Salehi, G. R. (2021). Higher Education Law (Vol. 2, 1st ed.). Tehran: Institute for Research and Planning in Higher Education (In Persian).
 

  1. B) Articles
  2. Banaei Oskooei, M. (2015). Legal Position of Resolutions Drafted by Board of Trustees of Universities and Educational Institutions. Public Law Researsh, 17(47), 35-69. doi: 10.22054/qjpl.2015.1528 (In Persian).
  3. Banaei Oskooei, M. (2015). Self-initiated denial of jurisdiction: A critique of the final ruling on cases 94/75 to 94/141 and 94/232, dated 3/5/1394, by the esteemed president of the Administrative Justice Court. Ra'y Journal, 4(11), 52-37 (In Persian).
  4. Banaei Oskooei, M. (2016). Demarcating the competence of administrative justice court by the supreme council of the cultural revolution. Public Law Studies Quarterly, 45(4), 631-665. doi: 10.22059/jplsq.2016.56443 (In Persian).
  5. Byrne, J.P. (1989). Academic Freedom: A “Special Concern of the First Amendment”, Yale Law Journal, 99 (2), 251-340. https://openyls.law.yale.edu/handle/20.500.13051/16647
  6. Dutile, F. N. (1991). The Law of Higher Education and the Courts: 1990 in Review, Journal of College and University Law, 17 (2), 149-242.
  7. European University Association. (2017). University Autonomy in Europe III Country Profiles, available at: https://eua.eu/resources/publications/351-university-autonomy-in-europe-iii-country-profiles.html (2024/3/13)
  8. Evans, G. R. (2001). University Autonomy and State Control: Legal Implications of the Historical Invasion of Oxford and Cambridge, Education Law Journal.
  9. Frei, M. (1971). Campus Unrest, University Autonomy, and the Legal Process, Utah L. Rev., Vol. 3, 355-367.
  10. Harker, D.O. (1911). The Use of Mandamus to Compel Educational Institutions to Confer Degrees, The Yale Law Journal, 20 (5), 341-352.
  11. Jalali, M. (2004). A critique of the Administrative Justice Court's ruling on the annulment of the Supreme Council of Cultural Revolution's resolutions regarding the review of disciplinary committee decisions in universities. Constitutional Law, 2(3), 347-335 (In Persian).
  12. Jenkins, Ch. R. (2003). Selected legal aspects of academic administrative leadership: An orientation for new academic administrators, New Directions for Higher Education, No. 124. at: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/he.131
  13. Khalili, E. , Khorsandi Taskoh, A., Ghiasi Nodooshan, S., Arasteh, H. (2023). Sociological problems of university autonomy in Iran; a qualitative study. Quarterly Journal of Research and Planning in Higher Education, 25(3), 73-97 (In Persian).
  14. Kohlburn, W. A. (1987). The Double-Edged Sword of Academic Freedom: Cutting the Scales of Justice in Title VII Litigation, 65 Washington University Law Quarterly, 445. https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol65/iss2/5
  15. Leas, T. (1991). Evolution of the Doctrine of Academic Abstention in American Jurisprudence, Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association (Chicago, IL, April 6, 1991). At: https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED330280.pdf
  16. Leas, T. (1991). Higher Education, the Courts, and the Doctrine of Academic Abstention, 20 J.L. & Educ., 135. https://scholarcommons.sc.edu/jled/vol20/iss2/3
  17. Mashhadi, A. (2016). A reflection on the judicial oversight of the Administrative Justice Court over discretionary powers in light of Article 64 of the Court's Law. Law Research Journal, 19(74), 193-210. https://lawresearchmagazine.sbu.ac.ir/article_56344.html (In Persian).
  18. Mohseni, H. (2012). The Notion of Jurisdiction in Iranian Judicial System. The Judiciary Law Journal, 76(79), 99-123. doi: 10.22106/jlj.2012.11048 (In Persian).
  19. Mohseni, H. (2017). Access to Justice and Government's Right of Action. Law Quarterly, 47(3), 531-550. doi: 10.22059/jlq.2017.63146 (In Persian).
  20. Mohseni, H. (2021). Access to Justice and Attack on the Official Body for Referral of Complaint & the Opinion of Disciplinary Council of Order of Engineering and Building Controlling. Journal of Legal Studies, 13(3), 213-240. doi: 10.22099/jls.2021.36844.3847 (In Persian).
  21. Nordin, V. D. (1981). The Contract to Educate: Toward a more Workable Theory of the Student-University Relationship, Journal of College and University Law, 8 (2).
  22. Schrecker, E. (2001). Universities and the Law, Academe, 87 (6).
آمار
تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 1,007
تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 419





سامانه مدیریت نشریات علمی. قدرت گرفته از سیناوب