مسئولیت انضباطی قضات در نظام حقوقی کامن‫لا: مطالعة تطبیقی ایالات‌متحده آمریکا، کانادا و انگلستان

نوع مقاله : علمی - ترویجی

نویسنده

دکترای حقوق عمومی، دانشکده حقوق، دانشگاه اِکس مارسی 3 فرانسه/ مدرس دانشگاه، شیراز، ایران.

چکیده

حقوق انضباطی شاخه‫ای از حقوق عمومی است که قواعد حاکم بر مجازات تخلّفات کارکنان یک نهاد را ـ که جایگاه و شأن واحدی دارند ـ بررسی می‌کند. حقوق انضباطی، حقوق جزا نیست و هدف مجازات در این دو شاخه از حقوق یکسان نیست. هدف در حقوق جزا، می‫تواند نقش بازدارندگی برای مجرم، تأدیب بزهکار و تشفی خاطر بزه‫دیده باشد درحالی‌که مجازات‫ها در حقوق انضباطی با هدف اصلی حفظ و اجرای صحیح وظایف شغلی اعمال می‌شوند. رفتار قضات به‌دلیل جایگاه و قدرتی که درباره جان، مال، عرض و ناموس شهروندان دارند، آثار سرنوشت‫ساز یا سرنوشت‫سوزی بر زندگی مراجعان به دادگاه‫ها دارد. به همین دلیل در همه کشورهای پیشرفته نظام‫نامه‫های رفتاری و کدهای اخلاقی برای تعریف مسئولیت انضباطی قضات پیش‫بینی شده است. در همین راستا در سال 1390 قانون نظارت بر رفتار قضات در ایران به‌تصویب رسیده که مطالعه تطبیقی نظام‫های حقوقی مختلف می‌تواند در شناسایی نقاط ضعف و قوت این قانون مؤثر باشد. بررسی جایگاه و مقررات انضباطی قضات در کشورهای مبتنی‌بر نظام حقوقی کامن‫لا، باتوجه‌به نقش و جایگاهی که قاضی در این نظام‌ها دارد، می‌تواند معیار سنجش مناسبی برای شناسایی کمبودهای پیش‫بینی‌شده در قوانین و مقررات ایران به‌دست دهد. به این منظور و در این مقاله، نهاد مسئولیت انضباطی قضات را در سه کشور آمریکا، انگلیس و کانادا بررسی می‫کنیم.

کلیدواژه‌ها

عنوان مقاله [English]

Disciplinary Responsibilities of Judges in Common Law Legal Systems: A Comparative Study in the Contexts of USA, England, and Canada

نویسنده [English]

  • Azadeh Abdollahzadeh Shahrbabaki
Ph.D. in Public Law, Faculty of Law, University of Aix-Marseille, France, Researcher, Shiraz, Iran.
چکیده [English]

Disciplinary law, as a subcategory of public law, investigates the major regulations of the punishments for the employees of a highly creditable organization. Disciplinary law is different from criminal law and the purpose of punishment in these two types of law is not the same. In the criminal law, the purpose of punishment might be criminal deterrence, delinquent civilization and training, or victim cooling, whereas in disciplinary law, the major purpose of punishment is to monitor the maintenance and correct carrying of job responsibilities. Because of the position and authority of judges, their behavior would have important positive or negative effects on the lives and rights of litigators. Therefore, in the developed countries, the behavioral manuals and moral codes are set for the definition of disciplinary responsibilities of judges. In the same vein, the control of judge behavior law was legislated in 1390 in Iran. A comparative study of the different legal systems can contribute to the identification of weaknesses and strength points of the legislated law. Moreover, the investigation of position and disciplinary regulations of judges in those countries which have their legal system based on the Common Law can be a suitable criterion of measurement for identification of predicted shortcomings in the law and regulations of Iran with respect to the position and role of judges in these systems. For this purpose, the present study investigates the issue of judge’s disciplinary responsibilities in the contexts of United States of America, England, and Canada.

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

  • Disciplinary Offense
  • Code of Conduct
  • Common Law

مراجع

فهرست منابع

الف) منابع فارسی
شیروی، عبدالحسین. حقوق تطبیقی. تهران: سمت، 1391.
ب) منابع خارجی
Canadian Judicial Council. “Annual Report, April 1, 2014 to March 31, 2015.” Last Accessed July 18, 2020. https://www.cjc-ccm.gc.ca/cmslib/ar14-15/en.html.
Canadian Judicial Council. “Ethical Principles for Judges, 2004.” Last Accessed July 18, 2020. https://www.cjc-ccm.gc.ca/cmslib/general/news_pub_judicialconduct_Principles_en.pdf
Canadian Judicial Council. “Irreproachable behaviour.” Last Accessed July 18, 2020. https://www.cjc-ccm.gc.ca/english/about_en.asp?selMenu=about_mp_judgesact_en.asp.
Canadian Judicial Council. “Procedures for the Review of Complaints or Allegations about Federally Appointed Judges, 2015.” Last Accessed July 18, 2020. https://www.cjc-ccm.gc.ca/cmslib/general/CJC-CCM-Procedures-2015.pdf.
Canadian Judicial Council. “The Conduct of Judges.” Last Accessed July 18, 2020. https://www.cjc-ccm.gc.ca/cmslib/general/news_pub_judicialconduct_CJCRole_en.pdf.
Cornell Law School. “Complaints against Judges and Judicial Discipline, 28 U.S. Code Chapter 16.” Last Accessed July 18, 2020. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/part-I/chapter-16 (United States).
Courts and Tribunals Judiciary. “Judicial Conduct.” Last Accessed July 18, 2020. https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/about-the-judiciary/the-judiciary-the-government-and-the-constitution/jud-acc-ind/jud-conduct/.
Gov.UK. “A Brief Guide to the Equality Act, 2010.” Last Accessed July 18, 2020. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/equality-act-2010-guidance.
Government Publishing Office. “The Ethics Reform Act of 1989.” Last Accessed July 18, 2020. https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-103/pdf/STATUTE-103-Pg1716.pdf (United States).
Houses of the Oireachtas. “Sanctions for Misconduct in Judicial Office, 2014.” Last Accessed July 18, 2020. http://www.oireachtas.ie/parliament/media/housesoftheoireachtas/libraryresearch/spotlights/20140603sanctionsformisconductinjudicialoffice_163348.pdf.
“Judicial Accountability Mechanisms, 2007.” Last Accessed July 18, 2020. http://www.deontologie-judiciaire.umontreal.ca/en/textes%20int/documents/Judicial_Accountability_SOUTH_AFRICA.pdf (Canada).
Judiciary.Uk. “Guide to Judicial Conduct, 2013.” Last Accessed July 18, 2020. https://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/JCO/Documents/Guidance/judicial_conduct_2013.pdf (UK).
Naïs, Acquaviva, Castagnet Florence and Evanghelou Morgane. “A Comparative Analysis of Disciplinary Systems for European Judges and Prosecutors.” 2012. http://www.ejtn.eu/Documents/Themis%202012/THEMIS%202012%20ERFURT%20DOCUMENT/Written%20paper%20France%203.pdf (Last Accessed July 18, 2020).
Office for Judicial Complaints. “Annual Reports for 2012/2013 and 2013/2014.”Last Accessed July 18, 2020. https://s3-eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/jcio-prod-storage-1xuw6pgd2b1rf/uploads/2015/12/jcio_annual_report_2013_-2014.pdf (UK).
The Canadian Superior Courts Judges Association. “How Judges are Held Accountable and by Whom.” Last Accessed July 18, 2020. http://www.cscja-acjcs.ca/judges_accountable-en.asp?l=5.
The Inquiry Committee. “Filing a Complaint.” Last Accessed July 18, 2020. https://www.cjc-ccm.gc.ca/english/conduct_en.asp?selMenu=conduct_complaint_en.asp#s5.
The Inquiry Committee. “Inquiries Listings.” Last Accessed July 18, 2020. https://www.cjc-ccm.gc.ca/english/conduct_en.asp?selMenu=conduct_inquiry_en.asp.
The Official Home of UK Legislation. “The Judicial Discipline (Prescribed Procedures) Regulations, 2014.” Last Accessed July 18, 2020. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2014/1919/pdfs/uksi_20141919_en.pdf (UK).
United States Court. “Administrative Oversight and Accountability.” Last Accessed July 18, 2020. http://www.uscourts.gov/about-federal-courts/judicial-administration/administrative-oversight-and-accountability.
United States Court. “Code of Conduct for United States Judges, 2014.” Last Accessed July 18, 2020. http://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/vol02a-ch02_0.pdf.
United States Court. “Judicial Business of the United States Courts.” Last Accessed July 18, 2020. http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/analysis-reports/judicial-business-united-states-courts.
United States Court. “Strategic Plan for the Federal Judiciary, 2015.” Last Accessed July 18, 2020. http://www.uscourts.gov/statistics-reports/strategic-plan-federal-judiciary (United States).
United States Court. “The Judicial Conference Gift Regulations, 2010.” Last Accessed July 18, 2020. http://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/vol02c-ch06.pdf (United States).
پژوهشهای حقوقی
دوره 19، شماره 42
مرداد 1399
صفحه 345-375

فایل ها

هم رسانی

ارجاع به این مقاله

آمار