نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
نویسنده
استادیار گروه حقوق، واحد مشهد، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، مشهد، ایران
چکیده
کلیدواژهها
عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسنده [English]
Introduction
The growing complexity of social, economic, and industrial relations in recent decades has presented judicial systems with multiple challenges in finding the truth and issuing a fair decision. One of the most important mechanisms in this regard is the institution of the Friend of the Court or Amicus Curiae, which originated in Roman law and later developed in common law and other legal systems. This institution enables courts to adopt more comprehensive and reality-based decisions by benefiting from the expert or social perspectives of third parties. In Iran, although the institution has not been explicitly provided for in legislation, certain provisions—particularly Article 50 of the Compulsory Insurance Act of 2016—indicate its implicit acceptance. Since the insurance industry plays a crucial role in managing damages and preventing frivolous claims, the key question arises: can insurers, in certain circumstances, be regarded as a Friend of the Court? The present study aims to examine this possibility and evaluate the conditions under which insurers may perform such a role.
Methods
This study adopts a descriptive–analytical approach, relying mainly on library sources, national legislation, and both domestic and comparative legal practices. First, the concept and historical development of the Amicus Curiae in Roman law, common law, and international law are analyzed, and its features in both traditional and modern senses are clarified. Subsequently, the role of insurers in Iranian litigation is examined, with a particular focus on Article 50 of the Compulsory Insurance Act of 2016, to assess the degree of compatibility between their supervisory function and the characteristics of the Amicus Curiae.
Findings
The findings reveal that insurers may occupy two distinct positions in litigation. First, as formal parties to the dispute, they have direct interests and the capacity for substantive defense, thereby losing the neutrality necessary for the role of a Friend of the Court. Second, as litigation observers and controllers of the proceedings, as permitted by Article 50 of the Compulsory Insurance Act, they can monitor the process, access case documents, and present technical opinions to the court without officially becoming parties to the dispute. This level of intervention, although driven by financial motives, has positive effects in terms of truth discovery, preventing frivolous claims, reducing insurance fraud, and improving the quality of judicial decisions.
Comparative study demonstrates that in various legal systems, the concept of Friend of the Court has evolved from a purely advisory role into a broader institution, whereby even stakeholders may assist the court in the pursuit of justice. Within this framework, there are significant similarities between the supervisory role of insurers in Iranian litigation and the modern conception of the Amicus Curiae. Among the most notable similarities are assisting in the discovery of truth, reducing the judicial caseload, and indirectly influencing the outcome of cases. Nonetheless, challenges remain, including the insurer’s economic interests, the risk of shifting from observer to formal party, and the statutory limitations that restrict their role mainly to traffic accident cases.
Conclusion
The study demonstrates that insurers cannot be equated with the traditional Friend of the Court, since the inherent neutrality of the institution conflicts with insurers’ private interests. However, in the broader and modern sense, insurers may be regarded as Friends of the Court, provided that their role remains limited to supervision and expert consultation and does not extend to formal participation in disputes. Such a role can promote judicial fairness, prevent contradictory judgments, and reduce unfounded claims. Accordingly, reforms in legislation and judicial practice are necessary to define the exact scope of insurers’ authority and to formalize their supervisory role, thereby enabling the insurance industry to contribute effectively to Iranian litigation.
Overall, attention to this potential not only enhances consistency with international experiences but also strengthens public trust in the judiciary and improves its efficiency in dispute resolution.
کلیدواژهها [English]
)