Judgment

Judgment

Ensuring Uniformity of Judicial Precedent: Exploring Fundamental Issues

Document Type : Scientific

Author
Mohammadreza Rafiei
PhD in Public Law of Tehran University
Abstract
Article 161 of the Constitution defines the "ensuring uniformity of judicial precedent" as one of the tasks of the Supreme Court and, as such, is one of the aims of the judicial system. To achieve this goal, of course, requires a thorough and comprehensive understanding of it. Accordingly, this paper seeks to address these three key questions: What is the uniformity of judicial precedent? Why look for it? And how can it be created? What about, what kind of litigation should be done in order to talk about the uniformity of judicial precedent? In response to why, the reasons for and against the ensuring uniformity of judicial precedent are explained and evaluated. On how, we examine how various legislative, judicial, and administrative tools are used to uniformity of judicial precedent and their advantages and disadvantages. These questions will be answered with descriptive-analytic method and based on comparative and theoretical studies, and will ultimately lead us to the point that, first, any attempt to uniformity of judicial precedent requires a clear answer to fundamental questions. Secondly, it is difficult to get a clear answer on some issues.
Keywords
Adjudication
Precedent
Uniformity of judicial precedent
Ensuring uniformity of judicial precedent
Bankowski, Zenon and et al, “Rationales for Precedent”, in
Interpreting Precedents: A Comparative Study, edited by MacCormick
N., and et, al, Ashgate, 1997.
19. Bruno, Anna Silvia, “Bringing Uniformity to Brazilian Court
Decisions: Looking at the American Precedent and at Italian Living
Law" Electronic Journal of Comparative Law 11 (4), 2007.
20. Fon, Vincy and Parisi, Francesco, “Judicial Precedents in Civil Law
Systems: A Dynamic Analysis”, International Review of Law &
Economics 26, 2006.
21. Goodhart, Arthur Lehman, “Precedent in English and Continental
Law”, 50 Law Quarterly Review, 1934.
22. Haazen, Olav, “Precedent in the Netherlands”, Electronic Journal of
Comparative Law, vol. 11.1, May 2007, (available at:
https://www.ejcl.org/111/art111-12.pdf).
23. Luppi, Barbara and Parisi, Francesco, “Judicial Creativity and Judicial
Errors: An Organizational Perspective”, 2010, (available at:
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1344399).
24. Oakes, Richardson Anne and Davies, Haydn, “Justice must be seen to be
done: A contextual reappraisal”, Adelaide Law Review vol. 37, 2016.
25. Peczenik, Aleksander, “The Binding Force of Precedent”, in
Interpreting Precedents: A Comparative Study, edited by MacCormick
N., and et, al, Ashgate, 1997.
26. Tamanaha, Brian Z., On the Rule of Law: History, Politics, Theory,
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004.
27. Troper, Michel & Grzegorczyk, Christophe, “Precedent in France”, in
Interpreting Precedents: A Comparative Study, edited by MacCormick
N., and et, al, Ashgate, 1997.
28. Vong, David, “Binding precedent and English judicial law-making”,
Jura Falconis, Lovaina, v. 21, n. 3, 1985.
29. Waldron, Jeremy, “Lucky in Your Judge”, Theoretical Inquiries in
Law 9, 2007.

  • Receive Date 10 February 2019
  • Revise Date 12 March 2019
  • Accept Date 03 June 2019