نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
نویسندگان
1 گروه حقوق بین الملل، دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی، دانشگاه خوارزمی، تهران. ایران
2 دکترای حقوق عمومی، دانشکده حقوق، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران
چکیده
کلیدواژهها
موضوعات
عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسندگان [English]
During the years of the Guardian Council's activity, many opinions have been expressed by this council in reviewing the approvals of the parliament. A review of these views shows that there is a significant difference in the extent to which the Council cites various principles of the Constitution: from unsubstantiated principles to principles with numerous citations. The present article seeks to answer the important question by taking a descriptive-analytical method, what are the effective reasons for the extent to which the Guardian Council invokes the principles of the Constitution? Based on the findings of this paper, the difference in the amount of the council's citations to the constitutional principles is not a fault in itself to the performance of the Guardian Council, but the performance of the Council will be evaluated according to the causes of the difference in the amount of citations as discussed in this article. Efforts to partially address these causes seem necessary. Legislative reform, reform of the Guardian Council procedure and approach, and revision of some constitutional principles are some of the solutions suggested in this paper.
کلیدواژهها [English]
)