The Principle of Non-Discrimination in Public Services and the Realization of Educational Justice: A Comparative Study of the Legal Systems of Iran, the United States, France, Türkiye, and Japan

Abstract

The central question of this study is what structural, legislative, and executive deficiencies exist in the Iranian legal system, compared with successful international systems, in the pursuit of educational justice, and what operational models may be adopted to remedy them. Using a descriptive-analytical method and a comparative approach, this study examines the legal systems of Iran, the United States, France, Türkiye, and Japan across four dimensions: legal foundations, resource-allocation policies, protection of vulnerable groups, and the institutional structure of supervisory bodies. The findings indicate that, although all the legal systems examined have formally recognized the principle of equality, their success depends on the existence of independent oversight mechanisms, precise operational definitions of justice, transparent and targeted budget allocation—such as the Title I program in the United States and Priority Education Zones in France—quality standardization measures—such as the national curriculum and teacher-rotation system in Japan—and concrete support policies for linguistic and cultural minorities. By contrast, Iran’s education system faces deficiencies including the absence of an independent supra-branch supervisory institution, a lack of transparency in the criteria governing the distribution of per capita educational funding, excessive centralization, incomplete implementation of Article 15 of the Constitution concerning the teaching of local languages, and the absence of a well-developed body of judicial precedent on discrimination in public services. The study concludes that the realization of genuine educational justice in Iran requires three interconnected categories of reform: legislative reform, through operational definitions and clear enforcement guarantees; institutional reform, through the establishment of an independent authority to supervise implementation of the Fundamental Reform Document; and executive reform, through the reconsideration of resource-allocation methods and the empowerment of marginalized groups. The experiences of the four countries examined may provide useful guidance for designing and implementing these reforms.