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

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" approac...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Abdolazim khoroushi
Format: Article
Language:fas
Published: University of Qom 2023-12-01
Series:پژوهش تطبیقی حقوق اسلام و غرب
Subjects:
Online Access:https://csiw.qom.ac.ir/article_2630_b9131510dc30ed10f1f585e00643f9a1.pdf
_version_ 1797233027388014592
author Abdolazim khoroushi
author_facet Abdolazim khoroushi
author_sort Abdolazim khoroushi
collection DOAJ
description 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.
first_indexed 2024-04-24T16:09:38Z
format Article
id doaj.art-214b1cba8cb149f4b6512de6c5042846
institution Directory Open Access Journal
issn 2476-4213
2476-4221
language fas
last_indexed 2024-04-24T16:09:38Z
publishDate 2023-12-01
publisher University of Qom
record_format Article
series پژوهش تطبیقی حقوق اسلام و غرب
spelling doaj.art-214b1cba8cb149f4b6512de6c50428462024-03-31T19:12:58ZfasUniversity of Qomپژوهش تطبیقی حقوق اسلام و غرب2476-42132476-42212023-12-011037510010.22091/csiw.2023.9139.23942630A Comparative Study on the Approaches to Law Interpretation in Common Law, Islamic Jurisprudence, and Iranian Judicial PrecedentAbdolazim khoroushi0Assistant Professor, Department of Private Law, Hakim Sabzevari University.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.https://csiw.qom.ac.ir/article_2630_b9131510dc30ed10f1f585e00643f9a1.pdfpurposive interpretationpurposive jurisprudencemischief rule of interpretationgolden rule of interpretation
spellingShingle Abdolazim khoroushi
A Comparative Study on the Approaches to Law Interpretation in Common Law, Islamic Jurisprudence, and Iranian Judicial Precedent
پژوهش تطبیقی حقوق اسلام و غرب
purposive interpretation
purposive jurisprudence
mischief rule of interpretation
golden rule of interpretation
title A Comparative Study on the Approaches to Law Interpretation in Common Law, Islamic Jurisprudence, and Iranian Judicial Precedent
title_full A Comparative Study on the Approaches to Law Interpretation in Common Law, Islamic Jurisprudence, and Iranian Judicial Precedent
title_fullStr A Comparative Study on the Approaches to Law Interpretation in Common Law, Islamic Jurisprudence, and Iranian Judicial Precedent
title_full_unstemmed A Comparative Study on the Approaches to Law Interpretation in Common Law, Islamic Jurisprudence, and Iranian Judicial Precedent
title_short A Comparative Study on the Approaches to Law Interpretation in Common Law, Islamic Jurisprudence, and Iranian Judicial Precedent
title_sort comparative study on the approaches to law interpretation in common law islamic jurisprudence and iranian judicial precedent
topic purposive interpretation
purposive jurisprudence
mischief rule of interpretation
golden rule of interpretation
url https://csiw.qom.ac.ir/article_2630_b9131510dc30ed10f1f585e00643f9a1.pdf
work_keys_str_mv AT abdolazimkhoroushi acomparativestudyontheapproachestolawinterpretationincommonlawislamicjurisprudenceandiranianjudicialprecedent
AT abdolazimkhoroushi comparativestudyontheapproachestolawinterpretationincommonlawislamicjurisprudenceandiranianjudicialprecedent