Judgment

Judgment

Investigating the Causes of Liquidation and Change of Judges in the Term of Authorithies of Ali Akbar Davar and the Term of Authorithies of Mohammad Mosaddegh in the Pahlavi Era

Document Type : Scientific

Authors
1 PhD in The History of Iran in Period of Islam, at Payame Noor University
2 MA in International Law at Damghan branch of Islamic Azad University
3 MA Student in Criminal Law and Criminology at Arak branch of Islamic Azad University
Abstract
After the establishment of the constitutional system, justice has always had many shortcomings and defects in three dimensions of structure, laws and manpower, and this legacy has been transferred to the Pahlavi period. Ali Akbar Davar, in the early days of Reza Shah's reign, dissolved and reorganized the judiciary based on the authority he received from parliament, and one of the dimensions of his actions was the purge and extensive change of judges. About 25 years later, Mohammad Mossadegh reformed and innovated on the basis of the extensive authorities he received, in the face of corruption and inefficiency in the judiciary, and part of the scale of his actions was to purge and change the judges of the judiciary. The findings of this study represent that the main reasons for the formation of a large and rapid process of dismissal and change of judges were related to the obvious corruption and inefficiency in the judiciary, and the main goals of the judge and Mossadegh were to eliminate incompetent judges and replace competent persons.
Keywords

1- افشار یزدی محمود سیاست های اروپا در ایران
2- امین حسن تاریخ حقوق ایران
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 21 February 2019
  • Revise Date 16 April 2019
  • Accept Date 17 June 2019