نوع مقاله : علمی و پژوهشی
نویسندگان
1 گروه حقوق عمومی، دانشکده حقوق، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران.
2 گروه حقوق عمومی، دانشکده حقوق، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران
چکیده
کلیدواژه‌ها
موضوعات
عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسندگان [English]
Abstract
Administrative litigation serves as a fundamental mechanism for ensuring administrative justice and regulating the relationship between citizens and public institutions. This study conducts a comparative analysis of the structural and functional role of administrative litigation within the legal systems of the United Kingdom and the United States. In both jurisdictions, administrative disputes are adjudicated through quasi-judicial bodies and general courts. However, the United Kingdom’s administrative litigation system is primarily grounded in common law principles, which, despite their simplicity and flexibility, suffer from reduced transparency, particularly in terms of statutory deadlines and high litigation costs. In contrast, the United States' Administrative Procedure Act (APA) provides a more structured framework for adjudicating such disputes, ensuring greater procedural transparency and clearly defined statutory deadlines. While these features enhance efficiency and accuracy at the federal level, the duality of federal and state laws creates legal complexities that may restrict access to administrative justice. A hybrid approach that integrates the strengths of both systems could improve administrative justice, enhance transparency, and increase the efficiency of resolving administrative disputes in other jurisdictions, including Iran.
کلیدواژه‌ها [English]
)
ارسال نظر در مورد این مقاله