Conceptual Exploration of ‘Revival of Public Rights' through a Comparative Study of Public Interest Lawsuits in Iran

‌ ∴ Introduction ∴ ‌
The notion of the "Revival of Public Rights", anchored in Article 156 of the Iranian Constitution, has consistently been a subject of controversy within legal doctrines and judicial practice. This divergence fundamentally stems from the ambiguities surrounding the definition and instances of public rights, coupled with the conceptual nature of 'revival' itself. The necessity to judicially address emerging social challenges, such as environmental violations, capital market misconduct, and issues related to the quality of goods and services, has intensified discussions regarding the appropriate judicial methods for guaranteeing the public benefit. While robust discussions concerning judicial guarantees of public interest (Public Interest Law) have been extensively elaborated in legal systems of other countries, they remain less enriched within the Iranian legal framework. This transformation highlights the need to remove definitional and practical ambiguities concerning the core concepts.

‌ ∴ Research Question ∴ ‌
The core research question investigates how the dependency of adjudication on the "Revival of Public Rights" is affected by a process-oriented view of judicial resolution. The study aims to remove the ambiguities associated with the concept of public rights and its revival through comparative data analysis, with a focus on common law systems, specifically public interest law and associated lawsuits. The research specifically seeks to clarify the conceptual scope of public rights and determine the precise functional nature of the revival mechanism within the Iranian legal structure.

‌ ∴ Research Hypothesis ∴ ‌
The article hypothesizes that a strict, restrictive interpretation of public rights is necessary to maintain the integrity of the judicial system's mandate. It posits that public rights must be interpreted as rights without any limited beneficiaries (transpersonal rights), thereby excluding claims that have a direct, specific beneficiary. Furthermore, the hypothesis holds that the "retrieval," or "revival," function—concerning its nature—signifies the concept of supervision. Consequently, this function is anticipated to be equivalent to the non-criminal authorities of prosecutors (such as issuing warnings and notices) rather than direct judicial execution.

‌ ∴ Methodology & Framework, if Applicable ∴ ‌
The research employed a descriptive-analytical method, utilizing systematic library data collection. A critical component of the methodology involved primary data gathering through interviews with most provincial prosecutors and an examination of their operational practices concerning the revival of public rights. The primary framework is comparative data analysis, emphasizing legal systems where Public Interest Law is established (specifically common law systems). This comparative approach enabled the assessment of related concepts such as transpersonal rights and the condition of Locus Standi (standing to sue) to clarify the scope of Revival of Public Rights.

‌ ∴ Results & Discussion ∴ ‌
The results confirm that the defining characteristic of public rights, in the context of revival, is their non-assignability to specific, confined beneficiaries. Public rights are those where the benefit or harm affects the general public or a "social collective". Therefore, the pursuit of damages for single individuals or small, specific groups, even in high-profile cases, falls outside the definition of public rights. The analysis of prosecutors' actions (instructions and notices) reveals that the nature of the revival function is primarily supervisory and executive, not judicial. This is supported by the fact that the prosecutor’s directives, such as warnings and notices, often lack specific, direct judicial enforcement guarantees, emphasizing their role in overseeing the execution of laws by administrative agencies. This approach prevents the judiciary's supervisory role from conflating with other legal functions, such as criminal prosecution or civil damages claims.

‌ ∴ Conclusion ∴ ‌
The article concludes that the inherent ambiguities surrounding the concept of the "Revival of Public Rights" are best addressed by conceptual precision derived from comparative analysis. Public rights must be precisely understood as transpersonal rights that lack specific beneficiaries, based on a "general need" of the community. Consequently, the role of the prosecutor in the 'revival' of these rights is confirmed to be equivalent to a supervisory function, focused on the non-criminal authorities vested in them. This finding underscores the necessity of distinguishing this constitutional mandate from conventional private or criminal proceedings.