دستورية الاستجواب الغيابي للوزارة وفقاً لدستور جمهورية العراق لسنة 2005 (دراسة مقارنة)

الباحث

دعاء إبراهيم زهراو الموسوي

المشرف

أ.د. عدنان عاجل عبيد

الجامعة

جامعة الكوفة

الكلية / القسم

القانون / القانون العام

الشهادة

دكتوراه

السنة

2022

لغة الرسالة

عربي

الكلمات المفتاحية

الاستجواب الغيابي;الوزارة;دستور 2005;الرقابة البرلمانية

An interrogation in absentia is defined as an accusation by a member of Parliament against a Minister or the entire government. It may result in political responsibility being triggered against people being interrogated. It is so called because the interrogated people are absent from the interrogator's hearing . After the House of Representatives realized the need to reduce the frequent absence of the people being interrogated, 2013 has been the actual beginning of the idea of interrogation in absentia. This idea then became a parliamentary tradition in any similar situation, because the absence of the interrogated people made the parliamentary interrogation a weak tool. Moreover, this absence may cripple one of the most important control tools entrusted to the Parliament. This idea is not addressed by the Constitution of the Republic of Iraq in 2005 or by the Rules of Procedure of the House of Representatives in 2007. But it has been addressed briefly by the House of Representatives Act No. 13 in 2018, and this caused absence of action in the House of Representatives. Since the idea is new, this issue has created some controversies among constitutional jurists on the one hand and members of the Chamber of Deputies on the other. At a time when the first tendency is to support idea of interrogation in absentia, others deny this idea at all. However, these controversies have not discouraged the House of Parliament from pursuing this idea. The risk of interrogation in absentia lies in the fact that Parliament tends to trigger political responsibility against the absentees and then to vote of no- confidence against him, though he is not heard or defended against charges he is accused of. The Federal Supreme Court played a prominent role in emphasizing the constitutionality of the interrogation in absentia, since it hindered the absent interrogated member to take the opportunity not to attend his interrogation session without any excuse. This is an effective aspect in the history of the Court, since it strengthens Parliament's control over the actions of the Government and makes the interrogation more effective. Its decisions and judgments served to illuminate the legislators when writing a text, especially that the decisions and judgments of the Federal Supreme Court are obeyed directly by all.

طلب نسخة من الملف

الملفات غير منشورة على الموقع. اترك بياناتك وسيتواصل معك موظفو قسم الشؤون الثقافية والفنون لإرسال النسخة مجاناً.

الاسم

رقم الهاتف

البريد الإلكتروني

الغرض من الطلب (اختياري)

إرسال الطلب