Judge's relationship with the ideology of the political system

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

Associate professor

Abstract

Research on judicial independence will subconsciously lead us to the question of how a judge, as the agent of the political system, can remain independent of this system. To what extent does the interest between the judge and the political system require the judge to follow the decisions of the political system? In this article, while expressing the authority of the judge and the judge's employment relationship with the judiciary as one of the three pillars of the nation-state as the reasons for the judge's dependence on the political system, the law and legal rules are mentioned as two-edged razor blades. It is reminiscent of the judge's dependence and the means of declaring her independence from the political system. By stating the specific nature of judicial action and distinguishing it from other actions of system agents, as well as distinguishing the behavior of agents of the political system with its whole, the way to balance for judges in protecting their independence is stated. Finally, the use of interpretive jurisdiction as well as the rule of law is the best way to balance the judge's relationship with the political system.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1. منابع:

     

    English sources:

    Books:

    1. Barak, A, The Judge in a Democracy, Princeton, Princeton University Press, 2006.
    2. Bell, J, Judiciaries Within Europe: A Comparative Review, New York, Cambridge University Press, 2006.
    3. Booth, James and Freyens, Ben, Ideology and Judicial Decision Making in Australian Labour Courts, Centre of Law & Economics, Australia, Australian National University, 2017.
      1. Cardozo, Benjamin N, The Nature of Judicial Process, London, Yale University Press, 1946.
      2. Segal, Jeffrey, and Harold Spaeth, The Supreme Court and the Attitudinal Model Revisited. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002.

    6.      Toth, Mike and others, The Art of Advertising: CEOs from Mullen Advertising, Marc USA, Euro RSCG & More on Generating Creative Campaigns & Building Successful Brands (Inside the Minds Series), Aspatorc Inc, United states, 2003.

     

     

    Articles:

    1. Ball, Carolyn, “What is Transparency?”, Public Integrity, 11, 2009, 293-307.
    2. BRINKS, D, “Judicial Reform and Independence in Brazil and Argentina: The Beginning of a New Millennium?” TEXAS INTERNATIONAL LAW JOURNAL,40, 2005, 595-622.
      1. Chemerinsky, E, “Ideology and the Selection of Federal Judges”, University of California, 36, 2003, 619-632.
      2. Curry, Brett and Miller, Banks, “Judicial Specialization and Ideological Decision Making in the US Courts of Appeals”, Law & Social Inquiry, 2, 1, 2015, 29-50.
        1. Ferejohn, John A and Kramer, Larry D, “INDEPENDENT JUDGES, DEPENDENT JUDICIARY: INSTITUTIONALIZING JUDICIAL RESTRAINT”, NEW YORK UNIVERSITY LAW REVIEW, 77, 2002, 962-1039.
        2. Hanna, J, “The Role of Precedent in Judicial Decision”, Villanova Law Review, 2, 1957, 367-384.
        3. Helmke, Gretchen and Rosenblutch, Frances, “Regimes and the Rule of Law: Judicial Independence in Comparative Perspective”, Annual Review Of Political Science, 12, 2009, 345-366.
        4. Keong, Chan S, “Securing and Maintaining the Independence of the Court in Judicial Proceedings”, Singapore Academy of Law Journal,.22, 2010, 229- 251.
        5. Keong, CHAN Sek, “SECURING AND MAINTAINING THE INDEPENDENCE OF THE COURT IN JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS”, Singapore Academy of Law Journal, 22, 2010, 229-251.
          1. Levin, Joel, “The Concept of Judicial Decision”, CASE WESTERN RESERVE LAW REVIEW, 33, 1983, 208-239.
          2. Penny J White, “Judging Judges: Securing Judicial Independence by Use of Judicial Performance Evaluations” Fordham Law Journal, 29, 2009,1053-1063.
            1. Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, 536 U.S. 765 (2002)
            2. Scherer, Nancy, “Testing the Court: Decision Making Under the Microscope”, Tulsa Law Review, 50, 2015, 659-668.
              1. Shahin, Kl, “Impartiality of the Judiciary”, Ankara bar review, 1, 2008, 15-18.
              2. Wardle, B, The Four Axes of Legal Ideology, Australia, Griffith University, 2016.
              3. Y, Peter and H, Gregory,“Is Anyone Listening? The Politicization of the Judiciary and the Loss of Authority: An Initial Assessment”, Journal of Political Sciences & Public Affairs, 4, 2016, 8-21.

    14.  Herron, Erik S and Randazzo, Kirk A, “The Relationship Between Independence and Judicial Review in Post-Communist Courts”, The Journal of Politics,.65, 2003, 422-438.

     

    Interent sources:

    1. Salmond, John W. Jurisprudence, Forth Edition, 1913. Available at:https://archive.org/stream/jurisprudence00salm#page/n3/mode/2up. last Access: 7/10/2018.
    2. Saunders, Justice Jamie W. S, Judicial Independence and Impartiality, 2003, Available at:www.courts.ns.ca/From.../From_The_Bench-JUDICIAL_INDEPENDENCE.pdf. P 1. last Access: 7/7/2017.
    3. Sharman, Jeffrey M, Judicial Ethics: Independence, Impartiality, and Integrity, Inter-American Development Bank, 1996. Available at:www.iosrjournals.org/iosr-jhss/papers/Vol.%2022%20Issue5/...2/F2205023744.pdf. P 11. last access: 7/11/2018.
      1. Laliena Piedrafita, Ana Libertad and others, Judicial Impartiality Between Law and Ethics, 1982, Available at www.ejtn.eu/.../Written%20paper_Spain_Magistrates_Ethics_and_Deontology.pdf. last Access: 3/4/2018.
      2. Garoupa, Nuno and Ginsburg, Tom, Hybrid Judicial Career Structures: Reputation v. Legal Tradition, John M. Olin Program in Law and Economics Working Paper, No. 567, 2011. Available at:http://www.law.uchicago.edu/Lawecon/index.html.  Last Access: 3/9/2018.
        1. Glukam, Max, Judicial Process, available online:http://www.encyclopedia.com/social-sciences/applied-and-social-sciences-magazines/judicial-process#C. last Access: 7/1/2017.

     

    Law Case:

    1. Republican Party of Minnesota v. White, 536 U.S. 765 (2002)

     

     

     

     

    منابع فارسی:

    کتاب:

    31. جعفری تبار، حسن، دیو در شیشه: در فلسفۀ رویۀ قضایی، تهران: نشر حق گزاران، 1395.

    32. جعفری لنگرودی، محمدجعفر، مقدمه عمومی علم حقوق، تهران: کتابخانۀ گنج دانش، 1387.

    33. رحمت‌اللهی، حسین، تحول قدرت، تهران: میزان ، 1388.

    34. کاتوزیان، ناصر، مقدمۀ علم حقوق، تهران: شرکت سهامی انتشار، 1375.

    35. هابز، توماس، لویاتان، ترجمۀ حسین بشیریه، تهران، نشر نی، 1389.

    36. وینسنت، اندرو، نظریه­های دولت، ترجمۀ حسین بشیریه، تهران: نشر نی، 1387.

    37. لاگلین، مارتین، مبانی حقوق عمومی، ترجمۀ محمد راسخ، تهران: نشر نی، 1388.

     

    مقاله:

    38. زارعی محمدحسین، حاکمیت قانون در اندیشه­های سیاسی و حقوقی، نامۀ مفید، ش 26، 1380.

    39. زارعی محمدحسین، حاکمیت قانون و دموکراسی؛ سازگاری یا تعارض، تحقیقات حقوقی، ش 49، 1388.

    40. زارعی، محمدحسین، امنیت قضایی به مثابه حق، مجلس و پژوهش، تابستان 1386، ش 56 11-45.

    41. طباطبایی، سیدمحمد، نظریۀ تفکیک قوا و سازمان‌دهی قدرت سیاسی نزد دولت، دولت­پژوهی، ش 12، 1396، 1-35.

    42. کانت، ایمانوئل، در پاسخ یک پرسش روشنگری چیست؟ برگردان همایون فولادپور، کلک دی، شماره 22، سال 1370، صص 48-57.

    43. لارکینز، کریستوفر، استقلال قضایی و فرایند مردمی شدن، برگردان محمدحسین زارعی، آفتاب، اردیبهشت 1381، ش 15، صص 42-47.

    44. مرادخانی، فردین، پیدایش مفهوم تفکیک قوا در انقلاب مشروطیت ایران، مجله حقوقی دادگستری، ش92، 1394، 175-199.

    45. مشهدی، علی، توجیه و نقد کنترل­پذیری صلاحیت­های تخییری قوۀ مجریه، فصلنامۀ اطلاع رسانی حقوق، شماره­های 21-22، سال 6، 1389، صص 61-75.

     

    قوانین

    46. قانون اساسی جمهوری اسلامی ایران، 1358-1368.

    47. قانون آیین دادرسی دادگاه­های عمومی و انقلاب در امور مدنی، 1379.

    48. قانون مدیریت خدمات کشوری، 1389.

     

     

Legal Research Quarterly
Volume 23, Issue 91 - Serial Number 91
December 2020
Pages 109-134

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 22 May 2020
  • Revise Date: 30 June 2020
  • Accept Date: 04 July 2020

Share

How to cite

Statistics