نظریه‌ سوء استفاده از اختیارات در حقوق اداری مدرن

سوء استفاده از اختیارات از مفاهیم مبهم و در عین حال پیچیده‌ حقوق اداری است. رویه قضایی و حقوقدانان بسیاری کوشش نموده‌اند مبانی و مصادیق آن را تبیین و با توجه به شرایط هر فرهنگ و نظام حقوقی معیارهای آن را مشخص نمایند. بنابراین، هدف مقاله ارائه‌ نظریه‌ای برای فهم دقیق این مفهوم است. پرسش این است که آیا در حقوق اداری مدرن، مفهوم روشنی از سوءاستفاده از اختیارات وجود دارد و معیارهای آن مشخص است؟ پاسخ به دشواری مثبت است. بنابراین برای تحلیل دقیق سوءاستفاده از اختیارات، نیازمند استفاده از مفاهیم مشابه در حقوق خصوصی و فقه اسلامی و نیز مفهوم سوءاستفاده از اختیارات در نظام‌های دیگر هستیم تا با استخراج معیارهای لازم، با روش توصیفی، تحلیلی و تطبیقی، نظریه‌ای خاص را طراحی نمود که الزاماً با آنها یکسان نیست. عناصر اصلی این نظریه وجود اختیار مقام اداری، سوءنیت و قصد اضرار هستند که با غایت منافع عمومی هویت می‌یابند. به بیان دیگر در این نظریه در تلاش می‌شود میان این عناصر با جهت‌گیری تامین منافع عمومی پیوند ایجاد گردد. بدیهی است که با تمسک به این نظریه، چارچوب اعمال اختیار مقام اداری اتقان بیشتر و رویه‌ قضایی نیز از سرگردانی رهایی می‌یابد و از منافع عمومی به‌عنوان غایت تمامی اعمال اداری، پاسداری بهینه خواهد شد.

the theory of abuse of authority in modern administrative law

introductionin order to make a decision, the administrative authority must act within the legal framework governing that decision. however, administrative acts are always susceptible to various issues, which judicial review seeks to address. these issues include incompetence, substantive violations of the law, procedural violations of the law (such as failure to adhere to necessary procedures), transgression of the limits of authority, and abuse of authority within legal systems. among these violations, abuse of authority is undoubtedly the most challenging. its form and nature complicate verification, so the judicial precedent of the court of administrative justice is less inclined to verify or annul administrative acts based on allegations of abuse of authority. in this respect, the present research aimed to determine whether a clear concept of abuse of authority exists in modern administrative law and to define the criteria associated with it. literature reviewthe literature on comparative administrative law and several articles have addressed the topic primarily from a descriptive perspective regarding this institution in various legal systems. in a rather different approach, the present study aimed to examine and critique similar concepts based on a specific understanding of abuse of authority. furthermore, the study reviewed the relevant concepts to extract criteria for addressing abuse of authority and develop a unique theory that may differ from the corresponding concepts in private law and the concept of abuse of authority in other legal systems. this approach highlights the innovative aspect of the present inquiry. materials and methodsthe present study used a descriptive–analytical approach and library resources to collect and analyze the data. results and discussionan examination of the development of abuse of authority in legal doctrines and judicial precedents suggests that such a clear concept may not exist. instead, the findings revealed that the concept of abuse of authority is often analyzed in relation to other concepts, contributing to its ambiguity. the results helped propose a comprehensive theory regarding the abuse of authority by administrative bodies, including its indicators and criteria. the first criterion is the discretionary power of the administrative authority. abuse is particularly relevant in the context of discretionary power, as it is the administrative authority that must determine whether an administrative act serves the public interest—the decision in which the potential for abuse arises. the question also arises as to whether the malicious intent on the part of the administrative authority is a necessary condition for establishing abuse of authority. while the existence of general malice is typically assumed in cases of abuse of authority, the abuse of administrative position requires evidence of both general and specific malice, as necessary conditions to be proven. furthermore, if the administrative authority seeks to realize interests other than public interests with malicious intent, should there also be an intention to harm public interests? there is inherently an intent to harm, as pursuing benefits that do not align with the public interest is always associated with the intention to undermine the public good. conclusionabuse of authority is a complex and often vague concept within administrative law. to reach a full understanding of the concept, it is insufficient to rely solely on the existing components and criteria that define abuse of authority. a comprehensive explanation must also consider closely related concepts, such as the abuse of rights in islamic jurisprudence and iranian private law, as well as principles like reasonableness, legality, fairness, and procedural propriety.