perUniversity of Judicial Sciences and Administrative Services - Academic Association of University of Judicial Sciences and Administrative Servicesفصلنامه علمی قضانامه2025-1212214articleMohammad Javad Khadem al-Shari'ahmjkhadem@gmail.com1Pourya DehghaniPdehghani@gmail.com2Department of Law and Judicial Studies, Faculty of Law and Judicial Sciences, Judicial Sciences University, Tehran, IranDepartment of Law and Judicial Studies, Faculty of Law and Judicial Sciences, Judicial Sciences University, Tehran, Iran<p>Although judicial case law is not formally recognized as an official source of law in the Iranian legal system, it plays a fundamental role in practice by resolving ambiguities, filling legislative gaps, and enhancing the predictability of judicial decisions. Adopting a comparative approach, this study examines the status and function of judicial precedent in Iran alongside two prominent legal systems: France, representing the civil-law tradition, and England, representing the common-law tradition. In France, judicial decisions, despite lacking an explicit legislative function, contribute substantially to the development of legal rules through creative and abstract interpretation. In contrast, in England, the common-law system is built upon the doctrine of precedent, and judicial decisions constitute the primary foundation upon which legal rules are formed&mdash;a feature that ensures a high degree of predictability. The findings indicate that Iran, in order to improve the effectiveness of its legal system, must strengthen the institution of judicial opinion critique, increase transparency in the publication of decisions, and acknowledge the practical role of case law in statutory interpretation. The comparative analysis further suggests that systematic engagement with case law can enhance legal coherence, improve the quality of judicial rulings, and foster greater public trust.</p>http://aujsas.ir/Article/52331Judicial case law Iranian law French law English common law Comparative studyperUniversity of Judicial Sciences and Administrative Services - Academic Association of University of Judicial Sciences and Administrative Servicesفصلنامه علمی قضانامه2025-12121530articleAmir Hossein Bamati ToosiAHbamtiToosi@gmail.com1Department of Economics, Faculty of Economics, Allameh Tabataba’i University, Tehran, Iran<p>Over recent decades, development plans in Iran have served as one of the principal instruments of medium-term public policymaking. However, assessments of their performance indicate that despite the substantial resources devoted to their formulation, achieving development objectives has been hindered by persistent structural challenges. Adopting an analytical and legal approach, this article examines the Draft Seventh Development Plan and demonstrates that a significant portion of its provisions lack conceptual coherence, clear implementation mechanisms, and a well-defined legal status. The content analysis reveals overlaps between programmatic provisions and permanent laws, ambiguity in the designation of responsible institutions, an absence of measurable indicators, and weak oversight mechanisms. Moreover, the misalignment between the political and programmatic timelines, insufficient institutional capacity, and the limited preparedness of Iran&rsquo;s fiscal structure for medium-term budgeting further undermine the feasibility of implementing the plan&rsquo;s provisions. The findings emphasize that enhancing the effectiveness of Iran&rsquo;s development planning system requires legal reforms, strengthened institutional capacity, and the establishment of continuous evaluation mechanisms. Without such reforms, the risk of repeating the persistent cycle of underperformance observed in previous development plans remains high.</p>http://aujsas.ir/Article/52332Seventh Development Plan fiscal governance legal assessment Iran’s planning system institutional reformsperUniversity of Judicial Sciences and Administrative Services - Academic Association of University of Judicial Sciences and Administrative Servicesفصلنامه علمی قضانامه2025-12123141articleAfsaneh Hajilooafsanehhajiloo@gmail.com1Department of International Law, Faculty of Law, Islamic Azad University, Science and Research Branch, Tehran, Iran<p>This article adopts an interdisciplinary approach to argue that the Crescent case, beyond being a purely legal dispute, has transformed into a critical test of communicative competence and the legitimacy of energy governance in Iran. Drawing on documentary analysis of arbitral awards, international reports (including GAR and Fitch), domestic media outputs (IRNA, ISNA, Fars), and Persian-language social media data, the study demonstrates that the divergence between the legal narrative and the media narrative surrounding Crescent has generated semantic ambiguity, eroded institutional trust, and increased political risk within Iran&rsquo;s energy sector. The findings indicate that a substantial portion of media representations of the case contain legal inaccuracies, leading the public&mdash;who generally lack access to the arbitral texts&mdash;to perceive the case primarily as a &ldquo;symbol of corruption.&rdquo; Moreover, fear of repeating the Crescent experience has produced a form of administrative paralysis among senior oil officials, who increasingly hesitate to sign new contracts. Inspired by the experiences of Norway, Malaysia, and the UAE, the article proposes the establishment of a &ldquo;National Energy Narrative System&rdquo; (NREN), the mandatory public registration of international energy disputes, and the creation of a joint Media&ndash;Energy Law Committee as prerequisites for transitioning from reactive to communicative governance.</p>http://aujsas.ir/Article/52333Crescent narrative governance international energy arbitration institutional legitimacy legal transparencyperUniversity of Judicial Sciences and Administrative Services - Academic Association of University of Judicial Sciences and Administrative Servicesفصلنامه علمی قضانامه2025-12124272articleMojtaba Yavarimojtabayavariyazdi@gmail.com1سطوح خارج و عالیه، حوزه علمیه قم، قم، ایران<p>This study aims to examine and compare the principles, objectives, and structural foundations of mediation within the legal systems of Iran and Germany. The central question of the research concerns the similarities and differences in the conceptualization and application of mediation in the two jurisdictions. As an alternative dispute resolution mechanism, mediation has gained increasing attention in recent years due to its capacity to reduce judicial formalities, preserve confidentiality, and promote restorative justice. Employing a descriptive&ndash;analytical methodology, this research investigates the legal foundations and existing documents in both countries and analyzes the principles and goals that guide mediation. The findings demonstrate that both legal systems emphasize core principles such as voluntariness, confidentiality, and neutrality; however, they differ in their legislative frameworks and in the institutional mechanisms through which mediation is implemented. By providing a deeper understanding of this legal institution, the present study may contribute to improving and expanding the use of mediation as an effective means of dispute resolution.</p>http://aujsas.ir/Article/52334Mediation Iran Germany Criminal Law Comparative LawperUniversity of Judicial Sciences and Administrative Services - Academic Association of University of Judicial Sciences and Administrative Servicesفصلنامه علمی قضانامه2025-121273120articleSeyyed Samsameddin Qavamisa.choupanpisheh@gmail.com1Sayyed Nima Norouzin.nima1376@gmail.com2Director of the Islamic Management Jurisprudence Foundation and External Lecturer, Qom Seminary, Qom, IranDepartment of Jurisprudence and Private Law, Faculty of Sciences and Knowledge, Al-Mustafa International University, Qom Seminary, Qom, Iran<p>This research aims to elucidate the juridical foundations of judicial governance and align them with twenty-five tactics for managing the judicial system. In this study, a descriptive-analytical approach was used, utilizing Qur'anic sources, Hadith literature, and Shia jurisprudential works to extract twelve general principles of governance. These principles include transparency, independence, meritocracy, accountability, coordinated participation, institutional cohesion, focus on tactics, financial independence, and the discourse of justice. Comparative analysis showed that all twenty-five strategies across four domains&mdash;governance, adjudication, budgeting and financial provisioning&mdash;are rooted in these juridical principles and, in fact, the global experience of judicial governance is structurally reflective of Shia jurisprudential teachings. Based on this, the realization of sustainable justice in an Islamic system requires policy-making based on these strategies to facilitate efficient system-building and legislation. The findings of the study indicate that Shia jurisprudence has both the theoretical and practical capacity to offer a comprehensive model of "Islamic Judicial Governance," a model that, while maintaining religious authenticity, also meets modern managerial and structural requirements and transforms justice into a sustainable, transparent, and people-oriented system.</p>http://aujsas.ir/Article/52335Imāmī jurisprudence judicial governance justice judicial policymaking Islamic system-buildingperUniversity of Judicial Sciences and Administrative Services - Academic Association of University of Judicial Sciences and Administrative Servicesفصلنامه علمی قضانامه2025-1212121161articleSeyyed Samsameddin Qavamisa.choupanpisheh@gmail.com1Sayyed Nima Norouzin.nima1376@gmail.com2Director of the Islamic Management Jurisprudence Foundation and External Lecturer, Qom Seminary, Qom, IranDepartment of Jurisprudence and Private Law, Faculty of Sciences and Knowledge, Al-Mustafa International University, Qom Seminary, Qom, Iran<p>This research aims to elucidate the juridical foundations of judicial governance in Islam and extract its tactics based on Shia jurisprudence. In this regard, seven tactics have been analyzed, including: structural transparency, meritocracy in the selection of judicial leaders, focus on macro-level policymaking and delegation of executive matters, control and management of resources, institutional cohesion, equitable distribution of resources and human capital, and the training of competent human resources as the pillars of sustainable justice. The findings of the study show that each of these principles is rooted in recognized jurisprudential rules such as <em>Hifz al-Nizam</em> (Preserving the system), <em>Adā' al-Amānāt</em> (Fulfilling trusts), <em>Nafy Sabeel</em> (Denial of domination), <em>Lā ḍarar</em> (No harm), and <em>Ma Lā Yatimm al-Wājib Illā Bihi Fahuwa Wājib</em> (What is necessary for the completion of a duty is itself a duty), and are considered as secondary laws in Sharia. The analysis of Qur'anic verses and Hadiths indicates that the realization of judicial justice is impossible without institutionalizing these tactics. Shia jurisprudence, with reliance on <em>Wilayah</em> (leadership), justice, and order, has the capacity to provide a comprehensive model of Islamic judicial governance that is both rooted in religious legitimacy and responsive to contemporary managerial requirements.</p>http://aujsas.ir/Article/52336Imamiyyah jurisprudence judicial governance Islamic justice judicial policymaking Islamic judicial system