خلاصة:
Attention has been paid to the issue of public participation in local affairs as a fundamental factor in development studies. In Iran, the beginning of the idea of establishing formal institutions for public participation in the executive affairs of their place of residence dates back to the Constitutional Revolution. Since then, various and diverse institutions with a local nature have emerged, the purpose of which has been to involve people in local affairs and to delegate the administration of local affairs to them. Among these local institutions are the House of Justice in the Pahlavi regime and the Dispute Resolution Councils in the Islamic Republic era, which were created with the aim of playing a mediation role at the local level. This research, using a descriptive-analytical content method and collecting data based on official and library documents, examines the two institutions mentioned in terms of their formation and composition of members, duties and powers, administrative organization and budget, central government supervision and the degree of independence of the two institutions, and measures the belief and conviction of the ruling political system in the strategy of spatial distribution of power and delegating local affairs to the people to better manage society. The basis of this research is the Law on the Establishment of the House of Justice and the Executive Regulations of the Dispute Resolution Council. Based on the results of analyzing the findings, it was found that the lack of a specific organizational structure and physical identity, limited duties and powers, and strong central government supervision turned the House of Justice into a neutral and ineffective institution. However, the Dispute Resolution Council has enjoyed more operational independence than the House of Justice in playing a local mediation role and has more power to influence. The present study shows that the Islamic Republic believes in the strategy of spatial distribution of power and delegating local affairs to the people to better manage society. But this does not mean that the Dispute Resolution Council is a complete and flawless local institution, but the executive regulations of the Dispute Resolution Council have fundamental weaknesses in the way of delegating local mediation to the people. If the regulations are amended and legal weaknesses are removed, this council can operate much more efficiently and effectively as a local mediation institution than it does now.
ملخص الجهاز:
This research, using a descriptive-analytical content method and data collection based on official documents and library resources, examines the two institutions mentioned in terms of their formation and composition of members, duties and powers, administrative organization and budget, central government supervision and the degree of independence of the two institutions, the belief and conviction of the ruling political system in the strategy of spatial distribution of power and delegating local affairs to the people for better governance of society.
Discussion and Findings In the findings section of the research, with an analysis of the content of the Law on the Establishment of the House of Justice approved on 1344/2/25 and the executive regulations of the Dispute Resolution Council, the formation and composition of members, duties, powers, administrative organization and budget, central government supervision, and the degree of independence of each of the two institutions are presented separately.
Article Eleven of the Law on the Establishment of the House of Justice and Paragraph Two of Article Seven of the Executive Regulations of the Dispute Resolution Council, which were presented in the research findings section, specify the limits of jurisdiction of these two arbitration bodies for adjudicating and issuing judgments in civil and legal matters.
(
, 
, 
)
