THE ROLE OF ADMINISTRATIVE GRIEVANCE IN REALIZING JUSTICE UNDER IRAQI ADMINISTRATIVE LAW

Abstract

Administrative oversight is one of the core features of modern legal states, wherein public administration is subject to legal and procedural constraints that prevent arbitrariness and ensure the protection of individual rights. Given that administrative decisions are often unilateral acts issued without the consent of the affected party, this inherently creates an imbalance between the two sides of the administrative relationship: the authority of the administration and the legal interest of the individual.

In order to restore this balance, several mechanisms have been established to review administrative decisions, most notably administrative grievance (Tazallum), which is a non-judicial method allowing individuals to request a review of a decision that they believe to be unlawful or prejudicial, by either the issuing authority or its hierarchical superior.

Administrative grievance holds particular significance in Iraq due to the complexity of its administrative structure, the multiplicity of authorities, and the limitations of administrative judiciary in terms of capacity and accessibility. As recourse to the judiciary often entails financial and procedural burdens, grievance becomes a practical and sometimes necessary pathway to restore one’s rights without immediate judicial involvement.

Despite this theoretical importance, the practical application of grievance in Iraq raises questions regarding its effectiveness, the extent of its legal regulation, the responsiveness of administrative bodies, and the presence (or lack thereof) of safeguards that ensure its credibility and impact.