Document Type : Research Article
Authors
1
Assistant Professor, Department of Law, Faculty of Theology and Islamic Studies, Meybod University, Meybod, Iran.
2
Associate Professor, Department of Law, Faculty of Theology and Islamic Studies, Meybod University, Meybod, Iran.
Abstract
∴ Introduction ∴
The proliferation of e-government initiatives, driven by technological advancements and population growth, has fundamentally transformed public administration and governance. Integrating modern communication tools into government operations aims to enhance service delivery, reduce inefficiencies, and improve citizen satisfaction. Central to this transformation is e-government, which emphasizes using information technology to facilitate access to personal information, provide social and financial services, and enable direct interaction between citizens and governments. A cornerstone of this digital governance model is the adoption of unique identity identifiers, such as national ID numbers, which ensure streamlined access to services and efficient enforcement of legal obligations.
In many countries, national ID numbers serve as a key mechanism for identifying individuals, facilitating the execution of judgments, and enforcing financial and criminal sentences. This digital approach enables authorities to track and seize assets, ensuring that judicial penalties are effectively implemented. However, using national ID numbers as a tool for enforcing judgments raises critical legal and ethical questions, particularly when such measures involve blocking access to essential services and civil rights. The central issue explored in this paper is whether the deprivation of fundamental rights through blocking national ID numbers constitutes a legitimate legal measure or an overreach that amounts to civil death.
∴ Research Question ∴
This paper addresses a fundamental question at the intersection of law, technology, and human rights: Is blocking national ID numbers to enforce financial and criminal sentences a legitimate legal measure, or does it constitute a form of civil death by depriving individuals of their fundamental rights? This question encapsulates the tension between effective law enforcement and the protection of individual rights, particularly in the context of digital governance. It further probes whether accelerating the enforcement process through such coercive measures can be justified, given the potential infringement on non-derogable rights related to personal identity and personhood.
∴ Research Hypothesis ∴
The hypothesis presented in this paper is that blocking an individual's national ID number, thereby depriving them of essential rights and services, is neither a justifiable nor effective method for enforcing financial and criminal sentences. This belief is grounded in the view that such measures fundamentally contradict the principles of justice, as they disproportionately affect an individual's ability to participate in society and maintain their personhood. The hypothesis suggests that the deprivation of rights through blocking national ID numbers exceeds legitimate legal enforcement boundaries and encroaches upon the inviolable rights inherent to human dignity and identity.
∴ Methodology & Framework, if Applicable ∴
To explore the research question and test the hypothesis, this paper adopts a doctrinal and critical comparative methodology. The doctrinal approach involves analyzing existing legal frameworks, statutory provisions, and case law related to enforcing financial and criminal sentences using national ID numbers. This analysis is contextualized within human rights law, emphasizing proportionality, necessity, and non-derogable rights.
The comparative aspect examines various legal systems that have implemented or considered using national ID numbers for enforcement. By comparing the legal, social, and ethical implications of these practices across jurisdictions, the paper highlights the advantages and challenges associated with this enforcement mechanism. Additionally, a critical examination of Islamic jurisprudential perspectives is included, given the intersection of legal and religious principles in identity and rights.
The paper begins with a comprehensive overview of the legal foundations of national ID numbers and their role in e-government initiatives. This is followed by an in-depth analysis of the legal and ethical considerations surrounding the blocking of national ID numbers, drawing on comparative legal experiences and Islamic jurisprudence. The methodology aims to critically assess the balance between effective enforcement and the protection of fundamental rights, ultimately evaluating whether using national ID numbers in this context is lawful and ethical.
By systematically analyzing the legal, ethical, and jurisprudential dimensions of this issue, the paper aims to provide a nuanced understanding of the implications of blocking national ID numbers for enforcing financial and criminal sentences. This approach ensures that the discussion is grounded in both legal doctrine and practical considerations, offering a comprehensive evaluation of the legitimacy and effectiveness of this enforcement measure.
∴ Results & Discussion ∴
The exploration of national ID numbers as a tool for enforcing financial and criminal sentences reveals significant insights into the legal, ethical, and practical implications of such measures. Findings indicate a complex interplay between the need for effective enforcement mechanisms and the protection of fundamental human rights. While national ID numbers offer undeniable advantages in efficiency and locating individuals for executing sentences, their use as a means to exert pressure through rights deprivation raises profound concerns.
One key finding is the effectiveness of national ID numbers in identifying and tracking assets, crucial for enforcing financial judgments. In many legal systems, identifying a debtor's assets is essential for successful enforcement. National ID numbers streamline this process by linking all assets and financial transactions to a unique identifier, facilitating judgment execution and reducing the potential for fraud.
However, significant ethical and legal challenges arise from using national ID numbers for enforcement. Blocking an individual's national ID number as a punitive measure is particularly contentious, stripping individuals of their ability to participate in civil life, including access to financial services, healthcare, and social benefits. This deprivation can be likened to a modern form of civil death, effectively nullifying an individual's legal and social existence.
From an Islamic jurisprudential perspective, this approach is problematic. Islamic law emphasizes protecting individual dignity and rights, even in punishment. The complete deprivation of rights through blocking a national ID number is seen as disproportionate and contrary to the principles of justice and fairness in Islamic legal traditions. Moreover, such measures may violate non-derogable rights related to identity and dignity, safeguarded under both international human rights law and Islamic jurisprudence.
The discussion suggests that while blocking national ID numbers may achieve enforcement goals, it infringes on fundamental human rights. The disproportionate nature of this measure, coupled with the potential for abuse, renders it legally and ethically questionable. Findings underscore the need for a balanced approach that achieves enforcement objectives without compromising individual rights.
In light of these findings, alternative mechanisms are proposed to balance effective enforcement with protecting fundamental rights. Instead of completely blocking a national ID number, a more nuanced approach could restrict access to specific services directly related to enforcing financial judgments, such as limitations on opening new bank accounts or transferring property. Such targeted restrictions would apply sufficient pressure on convicted individuals to comply with legal obligations while avoiding the broader consequences of civil death.
Additionally, reviving Islamic regulations, such as insolvency / indigence [iflas], offers a culturally and legally appropriate alternative aligned with Islamic principles, providing a structured process for dealing with debtors. Under these regulations, genuinely insolvent debtors would face specific restrictions reflecting their financial status rather than the sweeping punitive measure of blocking their national ID number. This approach respects debtor rights while upholding the integrity of the enforcement process.
∴ Conclusion ∴
Using national ID numbers to enforce financial and criminal sentences presents a double-edged sword: while it offers significant advantages in efficiency and traceability, it also poses serious risks to individual rights and freedoms. This paper strongly suggests that completely blocking national ID numbers as an enforcement method is excessive and unjustifiable, equating to civil death. This approach is incompatible with both international human rights standards and Islamic legal principles, which prioritize individual dignity and proportionality in punishment.
The discussion concludes that while national ID numbers can be beneficial in certain enforcement aspects, such as asset identification, their application must be carefully limited to avoid infringing on fundamental rights. Proposing targeted restrictions on specific services, rather than blanket deprivation, offers a more balanced and legally sound alternative. Furthermore, reviving insolvency [iflas] regulations provides a culturally appropriate framework for addressing debt enforcement challenges, ensuring respect for the rights of both creditors and debtors.
Ultimately, this paper calls for a reevaluation of legislative and judicial practices surrounding national ID numbers in enforcement. Legislators and policymakers in Islamic states and beyond are urged to consider the ethical and legal ramifications of such measures and to seek solutions that uphold justice, fairness, and respect for human dignity. Blocking national ID numbers should be reserved for the most serious offenses where rights deprivation is justified by the crime's gravity, and even then, it should be implemented cautiously, respecting individuals' fundamental rights.
Keywords
Main Subjects
)