A Comparative Study on the Approaches to Law Interpretation in Common Law, Islamic Jurisprudence, and Iranian Judicial Precedent

Khoroushi, Abdolazim

doi:10.22091/csiw.2023.9139.2394

Document Type : Academicm and Research

Author

Abdolazim khoroushi

Assistant Professor, Department of Private Law, Hakim Sabzevari University.

https://doi.org/10.22091/csiw.2023.9139.2394

Abstract

Legal interpretation is an essential aspect in every legal system, consistently playing a significant role in the application of the law and its impact on the rights of individuals. In the common law system, two significant approaches, namely the "literal" and "purposive" approaches, exist in opposition to each other, each with its own proponents. This article, while tracing the trajectory of interpretive approaches in the common law system towards the purposive approach and elucidating its important principles such as the "mischief rule" and the "golden rule" of interpretation, seeks to analyze descriptively and analytically whether the purposive approach and to determine the extent to which the principles and rules of the purposive approach are acceptable and applicable in Islamic jurisprudence and the Iranian legal system. The research findings indicate that Islamic jurisprudence places special emphasis on the "text" of the law. However, discussions on topics such as the "Purposes of the Sharia" or similar concepts can be observed in the discourse and opinions of jurists, warranting further investigation. A comparable approach can be observed in Iranian laws and Islamic jurisprudence, indicating a movement towards the purposive approach despite legal pluralism.

Keywords

Main Subjects

Legal (Comparative Islamic and Western Law)

References

Bailey, S. H., & Gunn, M. (1996). Smith and Bailey on The Modern English Legal System
(3rd ed.).

Barnett, R. E. (2011). Interpretation and construction. Harv. JL & Pub. Pol'y, 34, 65.

Canons about how Statutes are to be Construed. (n.d.). Vanderbilt Law Review, 3.

Catherine, M. (2007). Interpretation of Contracts. London, England: Routledge Cavendish.

Connolly, M. (2018). The Judiciary, Discrimination Law and Statutory Interpretation: Easy Cases Making Bad Law. Routledge.

Corbin, A. (1960). Corbin on Contract (Vol. 3, 2nd ed.). West publication.

Cross, R. (1995). Cross Statutory Interpretation (3rd ed.). London, England: Butterworth.

Easton, C. (2012). The English Legal System (1st ed.). London, England: Routledge.

Elliott, C., & Quinn, F. (2016). English Legal System 2016/2017. London, England: Pearson Education.

Eyer, K. (2022). Disentangling Textualism and Originalism. Con Law Now, Rutgers Law School Research Paper, No 13: 115.

Farrar, A. A. (1982). Judicial approaches to meaning in the interpretation of statutes. University Canterbury.

Gary Slapper, & David Kelly. (2010-2011). The English Legal System (11^th ed.). Routledge. Retrieved from http://cw.routledge.com/textbooks/9780415566957/legislation.asp

Huxley-Binns, R., & Martin, J. (2014). Unlocking the English legal system. London, England: Routledge.

Kelly, D., & Slapper, G. (2010). The English Legal System: 2010-2011. London, England: Routledge.

Law Commission. (1969). The Interpretation of Statutes, No 21. London, England: His Majesty's Stationery Office.

Llewellyn, K. N. (1950). Remarks on the Theory of Appellate Decision and the Rules or Canons about How Statutes Are to Be Construed. Vanderbilt Law Review, 3(4), 395.

Lonnquist, T. (2003). The trend towards purposive statutory interpretation: human rights at stake. Revenue Law Journal, 13.

Martin, J. (2014). Key Cases: The English Legal System. New York, NY: Routledge.

Rao, S. (2014). Mischief Rule of Statutory Interpretation. Retrieved from: www.lawctopus.com/academike/mischief-rule-statutory-interpretation/

Solum, L. B. (2010). The interpretation-construction distinction. Const. Comment., 27, 95.

Stawecki, T. (2012). Argument against absurdity of legal reasoning, fundamental, subsidiary or rhetoric? Argumentation 2012, Masaryk University.

Thombre, S. (2019). General principles of statutory interpretation with special reference to golden rule & mischief rule. International Journal of Law, 5(6).

Willmott, L., & Christensen, S. (2013). Contract law (4^th ed.). London, England: Oxford University Press.

Persian Sources

Afshar, S. (2018). Authoritative Approach in Interpreting the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Journal of Public Law Knowledge, (20).

Ansari, S. M. (1416 AH). Fawaid al-Usul, Part Two. Qom: Dar al-I'tesam li-l-Tiba'ah
wa-l-Nashr.

Baharani Al-Ta'an, A. B. S. (1419 AH). Al-Rasa'il al-Ahmadiah. Qom: Dar al-Mustafa li-Ihya' al-Turath, 3.

Branch 22, Supreme Court of Iran. (Unified Procedure Report No. 22.372.75)

Branch 23, Court of Appeals of Khuzestan Province. (Decision No. 9909976301001184, 25/08/1399)

Branch 39, Court of Appeals of Tehran Province. (Decision No. 9309970223900718, 08/06/1393). Available at: https://ara.jri.ac.ir/Judge/Text/8250

Branch 48, Court of Appeals of Tehran Province. (Decision No. 9309982136400388, 13/02/1395). Available at: https://ara.jri.ac.ir/Judge/Text/29117

Ghazali, A. H. M. b. M. b. M. (Al-Mustasfa min 'Ilm al-Usul). Beirut: Dar al-Turath al-Arabi.

Jafari Tabar, H. (2004). Philosophical Foundations of Legal Interpretation (Vol. 1). Tehran: Sahami Enteshar Publishing.

Javid, M. J., & Afshar, S. (2018). The Textualist Approach in Legal Interpretation, with Emphasis on the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Journal of Public Law Research, (61).

Katouzian, N. (2006). Philosophy of Law (Vol. 3). Tehran: Sahami Enteshar Publishing.

Khomeini, S. R. (1421 AH). Kitab al-Bay'. Tehran: Institute for the Publication of Imam Khomeini’s Works, 5.

Kulayni, A. J. M. b. Y. (1365 SH). Al-Usul min al-Kafi. (A. A. Ghaffari, Trans. & Expl.). Tehran: Dar al-Matab al-Islamiyyah, 8.

Majlisi, M. B. b. M. T. (1410 AH). Bihar al-Anwar. Beirut: Mo'asseseh al-Taba'ah wa al-Nashr, 89.

Manbari, S. (2013). The Objectives of Sharia from the Perspective of Imam Ghazali (Master's thesis). Faculty of Humanities, University of Kurdistan.

Omidi, J. (1997). Law Interpretation in English Law. Journal of Law and Political Science, University of Tehran, 38(0).

Rouhani, S. M. S. (2013). Estefat'at Qaza'i. Qom: Kolbe Shorouq.

Sharif, M. M. (2014). Manateq al-Huqooq: A Study on the Logic Governing Legal Interpretation and Reasoning. Tehran: Sahami Enteshar Publishing.

Sharif, M. M. (2017). Pluralism of Legal Reasoning in Light of Conflicting Interpretations. Journal of Comparative Law, 4(1).

Simayi Saraf, H. (2011). Reason and Methods of Discovering in Analogical Reasoning, a Comparative Study in Islamic and Common Law Jurisprudence. Comparative Law Research, 15(2).

Simayi Saraf, H. (2016). The Objective and Source of the Interpretive Approach of Islamic Jurisprudence in Comparison with the Functional Interpretation. Journal of Comparative Islam-West Research, (2).

Taghizadeh, J., & Banchi, H. (2015). The Limits of the Competence of the Islamic Consultative Assembly in the Role of Law Interpretation from the Perspective of the Guardian Council. Journal of Public Law Knowledge, (12).

Name *

Email Address *

Affiliation *

Comments *

Security Code *

Comparative Studies on Islamic and Western Law

A Comparative Study on the Approaches to Law Interpretation in Common Law, Islamic Jurisprudence, and Iranian Judicial Precedent

References

References

Send comment about this article

Volume 10, Issue 3 - Serial Number 37
September 2023
Pages 75-100

A Comparative Study on the Approaches to Law Interpretation in Common Law, Islamic Jurisprudence, and Iranian Judicial Precedent

References

References

Send comment about this article

Volume 10, Issue 3 - Serial Number 37September 2023Pages 75-100

Volume 10, Issue 3 - Serial Number 37
September 2023
Pages 75-100