نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
نویسندگان
1 دانشجوی دکتری حقوق خصوصی، واحد آیت ا... آملی، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، آمل، ایران
2 دانشیار گروه حقوق خصوصی، دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران
3 استادیار گروه حقوق خصوصی، واحد تهران غرب، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، تهران، ایران
چکیده
کلیدواژه‌ها
موضوعات
عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسندگان [English]
Introduction
Social phenomena are constantly evolving, creating unforeseen conditions that cannot always be predicted. In certain cases, circumstances involve such intricate details that establishing specific laws for every possible scenario becomes impractical. Moreover, applying a rigid legal framework to diverse situations may sometimes result in rulings that deviate from the principles of justice, leading to what is known as "denial of justice." The expectation that a judge should function like an automated system—merely processing input data and producing verdicts strictly based on codified laws—undermines the very essence of judicial work.
On the other hand, individuals who turn to the judicial system for redress, whether to assert their rights or defend against unjust claims, expect this institution to deliver fair and discerning judgments. They view judges as figures of wisdom, capable of distinguishing truth from falsehood, and anticipate that their grievances will be addressed in a manner that upholds justice and prevents oppression. It is challenging for society to accept that a judge’s ability to discern right from wrong is constrained by legal statutes,
and that rulings must adhere strictly to predefined legal criteria. People yearn to witness the genuine execution of justice, one that resonates with their innate sense of fairness.
Methods
This article employs a library-based research method to gather primary data, followed by a practical analysis of the issue. It proposes innovative and specialized approaches to legal interpretation as a means to avert and counteract instances of "denial of justice."
Results and Discussion
"Denial of justice" refers to a scenario where justice is not merely compromised but entirely disregarded—a form of severe injustice that undermines the very foundation of legal proceedings. It creates such a profound sense of inequity that observers unanimously condemn it, leading to disillusionment with the judicial system and a departure from its core purpose. This, in turn, fosters widespread discontent. Even the most meticulously crafted laws, developed after years of deliberation and research, cannot anticipate every conceivable case. When a judge encounters a situation where applying the law as written would result in "denial of justice," how should they proceed? How can judges prevent such outcomes while remaining faithful to legal principles and avoiding deliberate defiance of statutory regulations? This article explores solutions through novel interpretive techniques, emphasizing the necessity of legal interpretation from the "denial of justice" perspective. It proposes three primary methods:
Referring to the legislator’s intent – A text-centered approach.
Deconstructing the law – An author-centered approach.
Interpreting according to the spirit of the law – An interpreter-centered approach.
These methods should be applied sequentially. If the first method resolves the issue, the subsequent ones need not be invoked. This structured approach ensures that judicial interpretation remains both principled and flexible.
Conclusions
In domestic law, the doctrine of "denial of justice" can be applied through legal interpretation. However, in the case of formal (procedural) laws—which are typically mandatory—legislative intervention is necessary to grant judges discretionary authority to prevent "denial of justice." Simply interpreting such laws may not suffice, particularly since procedural rules are particularly susceptible to injustices. In today’s global movement toward accessible justice, Iran, as an independent and historically justice-oriented nation, should leverage these interpretive methods to issue equitable and progressive rulings, setting an example for other legal systems. Recognizing judicial interpretive authority is not merely an option but a necessity—one that every legal system must embrace to ensure justice prevails.
کلیدواژه‌ها [English]
)