Position of the Principle of Proportionality in Judicial Review: A Comparative Study of Iranian and U.S. Administrative Law

This essay comparatively examines the systems of judicial review over the principle of proportionality in administrative law to identify how different countries balance governmental efficiency with citizens' rights. Using a descriptive-analytical approach, this article seeks to answer the fundamental question of how differences in legal and constitutional traditions affect judicial review and the application of the principle of proportionality, and what impact these differences have on the relationship between the state and its citizens.The research findings indicate that the principle of proportionality in European systems allows for more active judicial oversight through a structured test (suitability, necessity, balancing), whereas the United States, by emphasizing reasonableness and doctrines like Chevron deference, grants greater discretionary latitude to administrative bodies. Iran has a distinct approach that combines religious values with administrative efficiency. Developments such as Kenya’s move toward the proportionality test demonstrate a trend toward more structured oversight. The concept of the margin of appreciation, particularly in human rights law, combines national decision-making power with judicial review to ensure compliance with democratic principles.The results show that despite the diversity in approaches, the shared objective of legal systems is to ensure reasoned and balanced decision-making, which strengthens the rule of law and protects citizens' rights through judicial review.

کلیدواژه ها:

principle of proportionality ، Rule of law ، Judicial Review ، U.S. Administrative Law ، Administrative Justice Court