Sociological Cultural Studies

Sociological Cultural Studies

A comparative study of the administrative system challenges of Iran and Iraq in dealing with violations A cultural-social approach

Document Type : .

Authors
Ali Faghih Habibi 1
Vajihe Mohseni 2
Motez Movafagh Khalil 3
1 Associate Professor of Law, Islamic Azad University, South Tehran Branch,Tehran, Iran
2 Assistant Professor of Public Law, Department of Public Law, Islamic Azad University, South Tehran Branch, Tehran, Iran
3 Master's student in Public Law, Department of Public Law, South Tehran Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran
10.30465/scs.2023.46209.2757
Abstract
Abstract
This comparative research examines the socio-cultural challenges confronting the administrative systems of Iran and Iraq in adjudicating administrative violations. Through a descriptive-analytical and comparative methodology, the study identifies key obstacles—such as discriminatory cultural norms, weaknesses in legal frameworks, organizational corruption, and gaps in education—that impede fair and effective handling of misconduct by public officials. Findings highlight deficiencies in independence and impartiality of adjudicatory bodies, lack of procedural guarantees, non-public hearings, inadequately reasoned decisions, and fragmented oversight mechanisms. The paper concludes with recommendations for strengthening social supervision, enhancing legal structures, promoting organizational culture reform, and integrating social theories of deterrence to foster good governance and respect for citizens’ rights.
Keywords
Administrative system; Administrative violations; Cultural-social approach; Governance; Iran; Iraq

Introduction
Administrative systems play a pivotal role in ensuring accountability, transparency, and citizen trust in government institutions. In Iran and Iraq, reforms in public administration have heightened the need to address administrative misconduct through culturally informed and socially sensitive frameworks. Administrative violations—defined as unlawful or undesirable acts by government bodies—undermine institutional integrity and public confidence. This study aims to dissect the socio-cultural impediments to effective administrative adjudication in both countries, asking: What cultural, legal, and organizational factors obstruct fair and impartial resolution of misconduct cases? By contextualizing these challenges within the legal traditions of Iran and Iraq, the research seeks to inform policy measures that align administrative justice with societal values and international standards of fair trial.

Materials & Methods
A qualitative, comparative design guided this investigation. Data sources comprised legal texts (laws, regulations, and procedural codes), judicial opinions (from Iran’s Administrative Violations Law and Iraq’s 2015 Administrative Violations Act), academic literature, and reports by oversight agencies. Three analytical stages were employed:
Documentary Analysis: Primary legal documents and regulations governing administrative misconduct in both jurisdictions were systematically reviewed to extract institutional structures, procedural safeguards, and sanctioning mechanisms.
Descriptive and Analytical Synthesis: Findings from the legal review were organized to identify patterns of cultural bias, procedural gaps, and organizational vulnerabilities. Key variables included independence of adjudicatory panels, accessibility of hearings, publicness of proceedings, and quality of judicial reasoning.
Comparative Evaluation: Cross-country contrasts were drawn to discern common challenges and jurisdiction-specific anomalies. Thematic coding allowed for the derivation of socio-cultural and structural indicators influencing administrative justice processes.
Validity was ensured through triangulation of sources and peer review by subject-matter experts. Ethical considerations included non-attribution of sensitive case data and adherence to local confidentiality standards.

Discussion & Result
Discriminatory Culture and Biased Adjudication: In both Iran and Iraq, deeply ingrained social hierarchies influence the composition and decision-making of administrative panels. Appointments by executive officials, coupled with absence of independent nomination bodies, create perceptions of partiality. Instances where adjudicators had prior involvement in investigative functions further erode impartiality.
Weak Legal Frameworks: Procedural rules are broadly defined, leaving significant discretion to panels. Crucial safeguards—such as the right to legal representation, formal notice periods, and defined pre-hearing procedures—are either absent or vaguely articulated, contravening principles of due process. Unlike criminal courts, administrative proceedings lack universal admission of public and oral hearings.
Non-Public and Non-Personal Hearings: Both countries permit non‑public, remote, or paper-based adjudication, undermining transparency and citizens’ confidence. The lack of stipulated timeframes for hearing notices, evidence submission, and decision issuance contributes to protracted delays and backlogs.
Insufficiently Reasoned Decisions: Although regulations call for reasoned rulings, in practice decisions are often terse and devoid of legal citations. The requirement to include “familiarity with legal matters” without mandating professional legal qualifications for panel members results in inconsistent application of legal norms.
Fragmented Oversight: Dual oversight by non‑judicial supervisory bodies (e.g., high supervisory boards) and judicial review courts (e.g., administrative justice tribunals) creates jurisdictional ambiguities. Supervisory boards can unilaterally annul panel decisions, while administrative courts provide only formalistic appeal, extending case durations to over two years.
Organizational Corruption and Education Gaps: Corruption network dynamics and lack of systematic training on ethics and citizen rights exacerbate procedural vulnerabilities. Low awareness among public servants of administrative law provisions diminishes voluntary compliance and acceptance of institutional sanctions.

Conclusion
The comparative analysis reveals that cultural biases, procedural deficiencies, and weak oversight mechanisms jointly hinder effective resolution of administrative violations in Iran and Iraq. To cultivate good governance and uphold citizens’ rights, the study recommends:
Establishing independent selection bodies for adjudicator appointments to safeguard impartiality.
Codifying detailed procedural guarantees: clear notice periods, public hearings, legal representation rights, and strict timelines for decisions.
Mandating presence of qualified legal professionals on panels and enforcing reasoned, citation‑based rulings.
Consolidating oversight under a unified, transparent judicial review structure to prevent conflicting interventions.
Implementing comprehensive training programs on administrative ethics and citizen rights, and promoting organizational cultures that value accountability.
Integrating deterrence theories by aligning severity and proportionality of sanctions with rehabilitative alternatives, such as administrative suspension or social service obligations, to balance punitive and reformative aims.
Such reforms can strengthen administrative justice systems, enhance public trust, and contribute to broader socio-economic stability in both nations.
Keywords
administrative system
administrative violations
cultural and social approach
supervisory authorities
Iran
Iraq
Subjects
استوار سنگری، کورش ، (1395)، حقوق تأمین‌اجتماعی، تهران: انتشارات میزان، چاپ پنجم. 
 انصاری، ولی الله ، (1386)، کلیات حقوق اداری، تهران: نشر میزان، چاپ ششم. 
 بولک، برنار ، (1385)، کیفرشناسی، ترجمه‌ی علی‌حسین نجفی ابرندآبادی، تهران: انتشارات سمت، چاپ ششم. 
 خداداد حسینی، سید حمید ؛ فرهادی نژاد، محسن، (1380)، «بررسی فساد اداری و روش‌های کنترل آن»،   مجله مدرس علوم انسانی  ، شماره 18، بهار. 
 خسروی، احمد ، (1392)، «آسیب‌شناسی حقوقی مراجع اختصاصی اداری در ایران و ارائه آیین دادرسی اداره واحد (مطالعه تطبیقی با حقوق انگلیس)»، پایان‌نامه دوره دکتری حقوق عمومی، دانشگاه تهران، پردیس فارابی. 
 رستمی، ولی ؛ آقایی طوق، مسلم؛ لطیفی، حسن، (1388)، دادرسی عادلانه در مراجع اختصاصی اداری، تهران: نشر گرایش. 
 رمضان مقدم واجاری، یاسمن ؛ جانی‌پور، مجتبی، (1396)، «رابطه عوامل اجتماعی و آگاهی از قوانین با آگاهی از حقوق شهروندی در بین شهروندان شهر رشت»،   مطالعات جامعه‌شناختی  ، شماره 34، بهار. 
 سبزواری‌نژاد، حجت ، (1396)، «جایگاه اصل تناسب جرم و مجازات در حقوق کیفری ایران و انگلستان»،   دوفصلنامه دیدگاه‌های حقوق قضایی  ، شماره 77 و 78، بهار و تابستان. 
 صادقی‌مقدم، محمدحسن ؛ نادر میرزاده کوهشاهی، (1396)، آیین رسیدگی به تخلفات اداری کارکنان دولت، تهران: مؤسسه انتشارات دانشگاه تهران. 
 عراقی، عزت‌الله ؛ و همکاران، (1386)، درآمدی بر حقوق تأمین‌اجتماعی، تهران: مؤسسه عالی پژوهش تأمین‌اجتماعی. 
 فریدمن، لارنس، (1386)، بازدارندگی، ترجمه‌ی عسگر قهرمان‌پور بناب، روح‌الله طالبی آرانی، تهران: انتشارات پژوهشکده مطالعات راهبردی. 
 فضائلی، مصطفی، (1387)، دادرسی عادلانه در محاکمات کیفری بین‌المللی، تهران: شهر دانش. 
 قربانی، فرج‌الله،(1371)، آرای وحدت رویه دیوان عدالت اداری، تهران: انتشارات فردوسی، چاپ اول. 
 کردنائیج، کوروش، (1386)، تخلفات اداری کارکنان دولت و نحوه رسیدگی به آن، تهران: نشر آرون، چاپ اول. 
 گرجی، علی اکبر ، (1388)، در تکاپوی حقوق اساسی، تهران: انتشارات جنگل، چاپ اول. 
 گرجی، علی اکبر ؛ فتحی، یونس، (1394)، «آسیب‌شناسی فرایند دادرسی در هیئت‌های رسیدگی به تخلفات اداری: تأملی پیرامون یک الگوی مطلوب»،   فصلنامه حقوق اداری  ، سال سوم، شماره 9. 
 محمودی جانکی، فیروز ؛ آقایی، سارا، (1387)، «بررسی نظریه بازدارندگی مجازات»،   فصلنامه حقوق  ، دوره 38، شماره 2، تابستان. 
 مولابیگی، غلامرضا، (1392)، حدود صلاحیت و جهات رسیدگی به ابطال مصوبات در هیئت عمومی دیوان عدالت اداری ،  اندیشه‌های حقوق اداری (مجموعه مقالات) ، تهران: انتشارات مجد. 
 نعیمی، عمران؛ پرتو، حمیدرضا، (1396)، حقوق تأمین‌اجتماعی با تأکید بر حوزه بیمه‌ای ، تهران: انتشارات سمت. 
 نکوئی، محمد، (1392)، نگرشی نو و تحلیلی بر قانون رسیدگی به تخلفات اداری ، تهران: افق اندیشه، چاپ اول. 
 هداوند، مهدی ؛ آقایی طوق، مسلم، (1389)،   دادگاه‌های اختصاصی اداری در پرتو اصول دادرسی منصفانه  ، تهران: خرسندی. 
 هداوند، مهدی ؛ مشهدی، علی، (1395)، اصول حقوق اداری در پرتو آراء دیوان عدالت اداری ، تهران: انتشارات خرسندی، چاپ چهارم. 
 وروایی، اکبر ؛ حریری، مهدی، (1395)، دادرسی عادلانه و منصفانه، تهران: انتشارات آریاداد. 
 یاوری، اسدالله ، (1387)، «رعایت اصل برائت در رسیدگی‌های شبه‌قضایی فرانسه در پرتو کنوانسیون اروپایی حقوق بشر»،   مجله تحقیقات حقوقی  ، شماره 49. 
 یزدیان جعفری، جعفر، (1388)، «فرآیند بازدارندگی مجازات (موانع و محدودیت‌ها)»،   فصلنامه دانش انتظامی  ، سال یازدهم، شماره 4، زمستان. 
Antonio Casses,(2003), International Criminal Law, Oxford University Press.
House, R.J., Hanges, P.J., Javidan, M., Dorfman, P.W., & Gupta, V(eds.). (2004). Culture, Leadership, and Organizations: The GLOBE Study of 62 Societies. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. 818 pages.
Sara, Joseph, Jonney, Schultz, Melissa, Castan,(2005), the international convenient of civil and Political Rights, cases materials and commentary, Oxford University Press, Second edition.
 
Sociological Cultural Studies
Volume 16, Issue 2 - Serial Number 56
Summer 2025
Spring 2025
Pages 307-335

  • Receive Date 19 July 2023
  • Revise Date 28 August 2024
  • Accept Date 20 February 2024
  • Publish Date 23 August 2025