Reasoned Decision as a New Horizon of Good Administration in Iraq

Abstract

The reasoned decision principle is a modern addition to the principles of natural justice. It gives individuals the right to know why particular decisions have been made against them. Generally, administrative authorities have no obligation in Iraq to issue reasoned decisions unless expressly required by legislation. The purpose of writing this article is to examine the implications of the broad discretionary powers exercised by Iraq’s administrative authorities, to what extent the reasoned decision principle can serve as a mechanism for controlling such powers and the role of Iraq’s administrative judiciary in this regard. This article uses a qualitative, analytic research method that engages with material from primary and secondary sources. The study results indicate that the expansive discretionary powers enjoyed by Iraq’s administrative authorities lead to abuses of individual rights and freedoms. Moreover, the embryonic state of Iraq’s administrative judiciary and the absence of appropriate legislation impedes effective judicial control over administrative arbitrariness. This study argues for legal transformations to limit the scope for discretion and abuses by requiring Iraq’s administrative authorities to provide reasoned decisions and to strengthen the administrative judiciary in curtailing their excesses. The novelty offered by the authors in this article is that it articulates the value of the reasoned decision principle as a tool for checking the arbitrary exercise of discretionary powers and enables the determination of the right balance between individual and public interests in Iraq.