Conflict of Interest Management: A Critical Inquiry into Theoretical Foundations

Articles in Press

Type : Research Article

Authors

1 PhD Student in Public Law, Faculty of Islamic Studies and Law, Imam Sadiq University, Tehran, Iran.

2 Associate Professor, Department of Political Thought, Faculty of Islamic Studies and Political Science, Imam Sadiq University, Tehran, Iran.

3 Assistant Professor, Department of Public and International Law, Faculty of Islamic Studies and Law, Imam Sadiq University, Tehran, Iran.

Abstract

Context & Objective: The concept of ‘conflict of interest management’ has emerged as a significant achievement in professional ethics within the realm of social philosophy arising primarily from liberal and neoliberal frameworks. While international organizations have standardized definitions and nations such as Iran have recently pursued similar legal frameworks through legislative initiatives the uncritical adoption of these foreign models poses significant theoretical and practical challenges. This research aims to explore the underlying philosophical foundations of conflict of interest management to facilitate its necessary localization based on domestic values and social realities. The central research question seeks to identify the core theoretical components of this thought within the sphere of public administration and examine the fundamental criticisms directed at its liberal origins.
Method & Approach: This study utilizes a descriptive-analytical method combined with a doctrinal approach to investigate the subject matter. The analysis specifically focuses on three primary pillars of liberal social philosophy that define the modern understanding of conflict of interest management: proceduralism, neutrality, and utilitarianism. By examining these specific components, the article evaluates the theoretical consistency of the current framework and identifies the inherent limitations of applying these concepts within different cultural and legal contexts.
Findings: The research identifies that conflict of interest management acts as a manifestation of proceduralism by reducing complex moral judgments into technical checklists and institutional protocols which may inadvertently weaken internal moral reasoning and prioritize formal compliance over substantive ethics. Regarding neutrality the study finds that the liberal ideal of the state remaining indifferent to specific conceptions of the "good life" is practically unattainable as every policy choice inherently reflects a preference and often masks the influence of dominant power groups. Furthermore, the theory is deeply rooted in utilitarianism viewing humans as self-interested actors whose behavior must be managed to maximize aggregate social utility through a "greatest happiness" logic. This perspective leads to a mechanical view of administration where public officials are treated as untrustworthy subjects requiring constant monitoring through transparent glass-like structures. These findings suggest that the current global framework prioritizes procedural goals and formal rules over the inherent value of the actions themselves.
Conclusion: The paper concludes that the conventional model of conflict of interest management is fundamentally a response to the self-interested behavior promoted by neoliberal economic thought. Because its foundations in proceduralism and liberal neutrality contain inherent contradictions and practical limitations they cannot be effectively integrated into the legal system of the Islamic Republic of Iran without significant modification. The study highlights that a successful domestic framework requires redesigning and reformulating the philosophical foundations of this thought to ensure it aligns with indigenous social and religious values. Consequently, future research must focus on the specific nature of these required revisions and the practical steps for their implementation.

Keywords

Main Subjects

Journal of Islamic Law Research

Articles in Press, Accepted
Available Online from 18 February 2026

‌ Files

‌ Timeline

  • Received: 14 December 2025
  • Accepted: 14 February 2026

‌ Share

‌ How to Cite

‌ Article Metrics