Share
تنازع الاختصاص بين السلطة المركزية والسلطات اللامركزية : دراسة مقارنة == Conflactive Between Centerul Athourity And Uncenterul Athourites Comparative Study
Author name:
عادل حنين عبد الله الزيدي
Supervisor name:
علي احمد حسن اللهيبي
General topic:
Law
Specific topic:
Administrative Law
Degree:
Master
University:
Mustansiriyah University - Faculty Of Law - Department Of Public Law
Language:
Arabic
University location:
Baghdad
First pages:
13T1496 - p.pdf
Abstract:
تناولنا في هذه الدراسة تنازع الاختصاص بين السلطة المركزية والسلطات اللامركزية في كل من الدولة الموحدة والدولة الاتحادية، وبينا فيها مفهوم السلطة المركزية ودلالاتها في الدولة الموحدة، وكيف انها تنصرف الى السلطة التنفيذية من دون غيرها من سلطات الدولة الا | We dealt with in this study conflicts of jurisdiction between the central authority and decentralized authorities in each of the unitary state and the Federal State , and Show us in which the concept of the central authority and its implications in the unified state , and how they go off to the executive branch without other state authorities , other ( legislative and judicial ) because of the growing role of power Executive and increasing its involvement in all activities of life , versus the limited role of the legislature and the judiciary , are almost exclusively in the legislation of laws and oversight - for the legislature , and the application of the law on conflicts - for the judicial authority. While the concept of going out of the central authority in the federal state to the three authorities ( legislative , executive and judicial ) , called the federal authorities to distinguish it from the three regional authorities. As for the concept of decentralized powers It differs as well as in the unified state than in the federal state because of the different nature of each of them , in the unified state , which is characterized by unity of power and lack of fragmentation , where the legislative and executive powers and judicial works according to the principle of separation of powers within the scope of a single state , but it does not mean the central absolute , which has become almost impossible , which means that the adoption of a method of decentralization has become a must for the executive power as a result of widening its role as we have said , which means that there are powers decentralized shared administrative function with the executive branch and called authorities, administrative decentralization which takes one of two forms two cabtial decentralization and regional decentralization , and the latter is the focus of the study , which was in its relationship with the central authority because of the capacity of its powers and the degree of its independence as a result of being elected by the local population. The differing nature and the concept of the central authorities and the decentralized authorities in each of the unitary state and the State Federation , lead - of course - to the difference in the nature of the conflict of jurisdiction between the authorities in both countries , where shown that conflicts of jurisdiction between the central authority and decentralized authorities in the unified state almost exclusively on the side of the functions of the executive branch and is the administrative function , while extending conflict of jurisdiction between the central authority ( federal authorities ) and decentralized authorities ( regions) to include the terms of reference of legislative , executive and judicial , and this in turn leads to the different nature and ways to solve the problems of conflict of jurisdiction in each of the unitary state and the state Federation - depending on the nature of the conflict and the parties to the conflict , in the unified state under chapter in the conflict of jurisdiction by the competent court , which is the ordinary courts - in states that adopt the judicial system uniform - and the administrative court in states that have adopted the system, eliminating the double - while being chapter in the conflict of jurisdiction between the federal authorities and regions in the federal state , by the judiciary and the constitutional goal of the highest judicial authority in the federal state which the Federal Supreme Court. But we do not luck and through the study that the Constitution of the Republic of Iraq for the year 2005 has adopted two Mata two different natures and two systems of administrative decentralization and political decentralization at once , which means overlap in the terms of reference and powers , and for conflict is inevitable between these authorities , calls the multiplicity of ways to solve and resolution , and that the Constitution has brushed turn strange when entrusted the task of resolving conflicts of jurisdiction between the central governorates not organized province , and between the federal authorities and regions - to the Federal Supreme Court , despite the obvious difference between the systematic decentralization of administrative and political decentralization , and the consequent outcomes and impacts.In addition to the judicial ways to solve the problem of conflict of jurisdiction between the central authority and decentralized authorities - both in the unified state or federal , show us the existence of other ways to resolve and settle the disputes and differences between these authorities - differ as well as the nature of the state, where the methods of management in the unified state , as a result logical nature of the conflict , while the methods of political and non - political in the federal state , depending on the nature of the federal system and the required of the development of solutions and treatments to ensure the continuity and sustainability of the system.May have walked through research method analytical study of comparison, by analyzing the provisions of the constitutions and laws of matter in more Be state whether standardized or federal whenever possible , strictly speaking of which stand on the experiences of these countries in the distribution of specialties and solving problems of conflict on these terms of reference , with the extent of the differences in attitudes and legislation of these countries , whether through judicial decisions or legislative texts. The study concluded that the most important conclusion Pena our findings , and the proposals that we consider necessary to address these findings.It is God's help and draw strength.
