Document Type : Research Paper
Authors
1 Department of Public and International Law. Faculty of Law and Political Science.allame tabatabai university.Tehran.Iran.
2 Philosophy Department, Faculty of Literature and Humanities, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.
Abstract
The contemporary understanding of social justice is to ensure that resources are distributed throughout society in such a way that everyone enjoys a certain level of facilities, and therefore most discussions of social justice are based on two basic questions; first, how much facilities should be guaranteed, and second, how much government intervention is needed to distribute these facilities. Notwithstanding the differences that can be observed between different theories of social justice, these theories agree that the realization of justice requires some degree of state intervention in the basic rights and freedoms of citizens - especially property rights. Thus, state intervention in the management of the market and the establishment of anti-monopoly mechanisms, as well as the ownership of the means of production, are among the issues examined under the theme of social justice.
Justice-oriented policies, however, are linked to basic rights and freedoms, including property rights; that is, they either completely negate or limit private ownership of the means of production, or they leave ownership free and instead confiscate the individual's profit and levy taxes to reduce inequalities and provide a minimum for the less fortunate. The staircases use redistributive policies. On the other hand, not accepting government intervention in property with the aim of redistributing resources leads to the denial of social justice. On this basis, the discussion assumes that social justice can conflict with the application of legitimate rights and freedoms.
On the one hand, a cursory glance at the Constitution shows that social justice is widely emphasized in its principles as one of the main objectives of the legal system. On the other hand, this fundamental document observes a broad protection of legitimate fundamental rights and freedoms, to the extent that their deprivation is even prohibited by law. Thus, the maximum guarantee of social justice and the application of fundamental rights and freedoms are in conflict with each other, and this conflict is the problem of the present research. Therefore, the main issue in the agenda of this article is the answer to this question: Can the government limit the fundamental and legitimate rights and freedoms of citizens in order to achieve social justice? The authors have tried to find the answer to the aforementioned problem by referring to the constitution and its foundations in Islamic jurisprudence and thought.
The results of the research show that the principle that "the government can intervene in the legitimate rights and freedoms of citizens for the sake of social justice" is one of the basic principles of the theory of social justice in the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran. On this basis, preparations were made to resolve this conflict.
Firstly, in order to resolve the conflict, it should be noted that the reduction of public law relations to private law is normative reductionism and therefore the government is not a person among other natural and legal persons. It is therefore not justified by the norms of private law on which relations between persons are organized. Rather, the legal personality of the government and its obligations to the citizens require that it have its own rules, which are not derived from the development of private rights in the public sphere.
Based on Islamic thought and also on the rational-jurisprudential rule of "Negation of loss and damage", public rights and freedoms, especially property rights, cannot lead to harm to others. The collective good and the public interest precede and limit the conflict between personal interest and profit. The legitimate government, as the representative of the public good, has the right to recognize the position of this conflict and also to resolve it by prioritizing the collective good and public benefit.
Based on the constitution, Velayat-e-Faqih can be formulated as a plan to move from an unjust situation to a just society. Therefore, it can be said that the legitimizing element in the constitutional system of the Islamic Republic of Iran in the government's intervention in favor of social justice is the theory of the absolute authority of the jurist. Therefore, Velayat al-Faqih is not only the implementation of Islamic rules, but also the authority of temporary legislation with the aim of achieving the main objectives of the Sharia. Therefore, it should be said that whenever a ruling temporarily shuts down the Islamic system and society, the jurist has the authority to resolve the conflict on the basis of absolute authority. Of course, this conflict resolution is not without criteria; rather, its rule is expediency. However, expediency is not a matter of transition to secularism and formalization of laws; rather, expediency also has a function within jurisprudence.
Finally, the final aim of the current research is to explain the relationship between the public interest and social justice. The public interest has a common rule with the public good; that is, whatever the public good requires is also the public good. On the other hand, in determining expediency, the purposes of the legal system act as rules. That is, the expediency that the ruler recognizes must necessarily lead to the achievement of the purposes of the legal system. On the other hand, social justice is one of the main objectives of the Sharia and the Constitution. Therefore, social justice, expediency and public interest are mutually exclusive. Therefore, the need for justice is the same as the need for the collective good, public interest and ultimately the expediency of the Muslim social system. Therefore, justice cannot conflict with the efficiency, development and maintenance of the system. As a result, justice plays a key role in determining expediency, and the expediency that the ruler recognizes cannot be in conflict with social justice, and its closure is the result.
Based on the previous principles, it can be briefly stated that "since justice is the goal of the legal system provided for in the Constitution, the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran can prefer it to the personal interests of individuals".
Keywords
- Social justice in the constitution
- public interest and personal interest
- the priority of justice over freedom
- the ratio of freedom and equality
- government intervention in the market
Main Subjects
)