درخت حوزه‌های تخصصی

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.

Despite UNCLOS serving as the primary legal framework governing maritime conduct, challenges remain in effectively embedding human rights principles, ethical governance and inclusivity within its implementation, especially in geopolitically sensitive regions such as Malay Indo Archipelago. This raises the question of how fundamental legal traditions, such as those found in 15 th century Undang-Undang Melaka, a customary maritime code emphasizing human dignity, ethical conducts, and inclusive community governance- can highly inform and enrich contemporary international maritime law. The problem lies in the apparent disconnect between modern state centered ethical governance regimes and the human centered ethical governance principles that underpin long lasting peace. This study critically examines how the human right norms embedded in the Undang- Undang Melaka align with or differ from those in UNCLOS, arguing that the incorporation of these ethical and inclusive governance principle is crucial for fostering maritime cooperation, trust, and ultimately geopolitical peace. By exploring these normative intersections through a qualitative legal analysis, the research aims to demonstrate that the revitalization of customary law’s humanistic maritime governance, promoting more equitable and peaceful relations among maritime states.