چکیده:
Paragraph 4 of the General Policies of the Legislative System issued in 1398 emphasizes that oversight of the non-contradiction or compliance of laws with the general policies of the system should be conducted in cooperation with the Guardian Council and the Expediency Discernment Council. This mode of cooperation and interaction, especially in cases where the Expediency Discernment Council has not expressed an opinion on a bill passed by the Islamic Consultative Assembly, has been a source of ambiguity and questions. In this regard, the "cooperation" between the two mentioned bodies should be defined in a way that does not violate their inherent competencies while also establishing how this cooperation is recognized as a legal principle. This research adopts a new approach to the nature of general policies and examines documents and practices, including the letter dated 11/03/1393 from the Supreme Leader, and draws from the concept of jurisdiction in international criminal law. It considers the nature of the Guardian Council's jurisdiction in relation to the Expediency Discernment Council as a dual nature of inherent-complementary jurisdiction, prioritizing the complementary jurisdiction. The research method is descriptive-analytical, and data collection is library-based.
خلاصه ماشینی:
This research, with a new approach to the nature of general policies and by examining documents and practices, including the letter dated 1393/03/11 from the Supreme Leader, and drawing on the concept of jurisdiction in international criminal law, considers the nature of the Guardian Council’s jurisdiction in relation to the Assembly of Experts as a dual inherent – complementary jurisdiction, with priority given to complementary jurisdiction.
After determining the general policies of the system in the policymaking and legislative system of the Islamic Republic of Iran, in addition to the fact that the concept and nature of general policies have been debated, the responsibility for supervising their implementation and application has also been a matter of disagreement among scholars, the most important indication of this conflict of opinions being the religious or legal (constitutional) nature of the policies and also the disagreement over whether the Guardian Council or the Assembly of Experts should supervise them.
Article 91 of the Constitution we will address and then, by examining the inherent and complementary jurisdiction of the Guardian Council and the Assembly of Experts, we will answer the ambiguity regarding the competent authority in supervising the general policies of the system and other related issues.
To explain, if we consider the nature of the system’s general policies to be a religious nature, based on Article 4 of the Constitution, only the jurists of the Guardian Council have the authority to express opinions regarding the supervision of general policies or to examine the claim of inconsistency of regulations with them or their incompatibility with them (a group of experts, 1380: 402).
(
, 
, 
)
