Judgment

Judgment

Investigating the Principles and Legal Nature of Civil Dispute Resolution Bodies

Document Type : Scientific

Authors
1 PhD in Criminal Law and Criminology of Qeshm Branch of Islamic Azad University
2 MA in Private Law of Zanjan Branch of Islamic Azad University
Abstract
Resolution of disputes by popular institutions is as old as history and as long as human life. In the background this started in subject law in 1306 and was completed after the reforms with the establishment of fair houses in 1344 and the arbitration councils in 1345. After the revolution, the aforementioned institutions were dissolved and its laws abandoned. There were brief references to post-revolutionary legislation that the legislator eventually adopted in the wake of Article 189 of the Third Economic, Social, and Cultural Development Planning Code, the Conflict Resolution Council, and subsequently passed the Conflict Resolution Council Act in 1994. The main goals of forming such councils can be as much as preventing the entry of cases into the judiciary and consolidating the work of the courts, peace and reconciliation, entrusting people's affairs to the people themselves, and contributing to the recognition that the religion of Islam also emphasizes reforming the essence of Islam and resolving it. There is a difference between Muslims.
Keywords

1-آخوندی، ایین دادرسی کیفری 1373 
2- پورابراهیم احمد روش های جایگزین حل اختلاف
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 31 December 2018
  • Revise Date 30 January 2019
  • Accept Date 09 June 2019