Legal Research Quarterly

Legal Research Quarterly

Reflection on thePathology of the Subsidiary Bodies of the Judiciary Functions from the Perspective of the Separation of

Document Type : Original Article

Author
University of Qom
10.22034/jlr.2020.115658.1102
Abstract
Now in the organizational structure of the judiciary, in addition to general and specialized courts, have numerous administrative organizations. Usually, each of these organizations has been formed in accordance with the goals of the judiciary. In the framework of the separation of powers, it can be said that the qualifications, functions, duties and powers and responsibilities of the judiciary, only limited to some judicial functions.
In addition, some non-judicial and organizational competencies have been identified to the Judiciary under different) articles including Article 156(of the constitution. This article analyzes the subsidiary organizations of the Judiciary from the perspective of the separation of powers doctrine. The basic assumption of this article is based on the belief that the judiciary is not only a matter judicial duty and to complete the tasks of judiciary, it is necessary, some administrative and quasi-executive functions may also be performed.
Keywords: Separation of powers, theory of the two powers, executive acts, Judiciary, functionalism
Keywords
Subjects

  1. منابع لاتین

    1. Ambra, Dominique D. L'objet de la fonction juridictionnelle: dire le droit et trancher les litiges. Diss. Université Robert Schuman (Strasbourg), 1991.
    2. Batiffol, Henri. "Observations sur les liens de la compétence judiciaire et de la compétence législative." Netherlands International Law Review04, 1962.
    3. Boucobza, Isabelle. "Un concept erroné, celui de l'existence d'un pouvoir judiciaire." Pouvoirs 4, 2012.
    4. Campos, Julio González. Les liens entre la compétence judiciaire et la compétence législative en droit international privé. Martinus Nijhoff, 1977.
    5. Costa, Jean-Louis. "Nécessité, conditions et limites d'un pouvoir judiciaire en France." Revue française de science politique2 ,1960.
    6. Fontaine, Lauréline. La notion de décision exécutoire en droit public français. Diss. Paris 10, 2001.
    7. Fricero, Natalie. L'essentiel des institutions judiciaires 2015-2016. Gualino éditeur, 2015.
    8. Gérard, Philippe, Michel van de Kerchove, and François Ost. Fonction de juger et pouvoir judiciaire: transformations et déplacements. Vol. 30. Publications Fac St Louis, 1983.
    9. Guastini, Riccardo. "Michel Troper sur la fonction juridictionnelle." Droits 1 (2003): 111-122.
    10. Guinchard, Serge, et al. Institutions juridictionnelles. Dalloz, 2015. Taisne, Jean-Jacques. Institutions juridictionnelles. Dalloz, 2016.
    11. Heydebrand, Wolf, and Bénédicte Vallet. "Technocratie et indépendance du pouvoir judiciaire." Sociologie du Travail , 1981.
    12. Jousserandot, Louis. Du pouvoir judiciaire et de son organisation en France. A. Marescq ainé, 1878.
    13. Krings, E. "Considération sur l’’État de droit, la séparation des pouvoirs et le pouvoir judiciaire." Journal des Tribunaux ,1989.
    14. Lavialle, Christian. L'évolution de la conception de la décision exécutoire en droit administratif français. Librairie generale de droit et de jurisprudence, 1974.
    15. Rassat, Michèle-Laure. Institutions judiciaires. Vol. 1. Presses universitaires de France, 1993.
    16. Troper, Michel. "Le pouvoir judiciare et la démocratie." Libertés, justice, tolérance. Mélanges en hommage au doyen Gérard Cohen-Jonathan 2 , 2004.
    17. Troper,Michel," Fonction juridictionnelle ou pouvoir judiciaire ?", Pouvoirs n°16 - La justice - janvier 1981.
    18. Vincent, Jean, et al. "Institutions judiciaires." Dalloz, coll.«Précis Dalloz», 7e éd ,2003.

     

    Reflection on the Functional Pathology of the Subsidiary Bodies of the Judiciary Functions from the Perspective of the Separation of powers

    Abstract:

    Now in the organizational structure of the judiciary, in addition to general and specialized courts, have numerous administrative organizations.  Usually, each of these organizations has been formed in accordance with the goals of the judiciary. In the framework of the separation of powers, it can be said that the qualifications, functions, duties and powers and responsibilities of the judiciary, only limited to some judicial functions.

    In addition, some non-judicial and organizational competencies have been identified to the Judiciary under different) articles including Article 156(of the constitution. This article analyzes the subsidiary organizations of the Judiciary from the perspective of the separation of powers doctrine. The basic assumption of this article is based on the belief that the judiciary is not only a matter judicial duty and to complete the tasks of judiciary, it is necessary, some administrative and quasi-executive functions may also be performed.

    Keywords: Separation of powers, theory of the two powers, executive acts, Judiciary, functionalism

     

     

     

     

  • Receive Date 16 January 2018
  • Revise Date 05 October 2019
  • Accept Date 30 June 2020