Document Type : Original Article

Authors

• ehsan ahangari ¹
• masood jahandoost ²

¹ استادیار گروه فقه و مبانی حقوق اسلامی، دانشکده الهیات معارف اسلامی و ارشاد، دانشگاه امام صادق علیه السلام، تهران، ایران

² دانش آموخته دکتری رشته فقه و مبانی حقوق اسلامی، دانشکده الهیات و معارف اسلامی، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران و همکار علمی گروه فقه و مبانی حقوق اسلامی، دانشکده الهیات معارف اسلامی و ارشاد، دانشگاه امام صادق علیه السلام، تهران، ایران

Abstract

Judicial security constitutes a fundamental pillar for the realization of justice and serves as a key criterion for evaluating the integrity of the judiciary within legal systems. Given that the Iranian legal system is grounded in Imāmīa (Twelver Shīʿī) jurisprudence, and in light of the claim that a coherent judicial framework exists within this jurisprudential tradition, a central question arises: to what extent do the components of judicial security overlap between these two systems, and where do they diverge?

The objective of this study is to identify the components of judicial security in Imāmīa jurisprudence and to assess the degree to which they are reflected in the Iranian legal system. It further examines how much the components which are recognized in Iranian law but not explicitly articulated in the juristic sources can be justified by the general principles of Imāmīa jurisprudence.
Findings of this descriptive–analytical research, based on library sources, indicate that a substantial portion of the components of judicial security are shared by both systems, and that the primary challenges lie more in the sphere of implementation than in legislation. Nevertheless, certain jurisprudential components—such as the obligation to suspend judgment in cases of doubt or the right to select one’s judge—are largely neglected in the Iranian legal framework. Conversely, components such as the right to appeal, access to judicial information, and the right to legal counsel are not explicitly stated in Imāmīa jurisprudence; however, this absence of explicit textual grounding does not signify any contradiction with its general principles and is largely attributable to historical contexts and the gradual evolution of modern judicial institutions.

Keywords

• Judicial Security
• Comparative Analysis
• Iranian Law
• Judicial Justice
• Imāmīa Jurisprudence