اخبار و اعلانات
آمار
| تعداد نشریات | 20 |
| تعداد شماره‌ها | 518 |
| تعداد مقالات | 4,516 |
| تعداد مشاهده مقاله | 9,597,467 |
| تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله | 5,369,107 |
مطالعه تطبیقی «دادگاه صلح» در نظام حقوقی ایران و انگلستان؛ تشکیلات، صلاحیت و آیین دادرسی | ||
| پژوهشنامه حقوق اسلامی | ||
| مقالات آماده انتشار، پذیرفته شده، انتشار آنلاین از تاریخ 14 اسفند 1403 اصل مقاله (750.58 K) | ||
| نوع مقاله: مقاله پژوهشی | ||
| شناسه دیجیتال (DOI): 10.30497/law.2025.247287.3655 | ||
| نویسندگان | ||
| نسرین مهرا1؛ هادی رضوان* 2 | ||
| 1استاد، گروه حقوق جزا و جرم‌شناسی، دانشکده حقوق، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران. | ||
| 2دانشجوی دکتری حقوق جزا و جرم‌شناسی، دانشکده حقوق، دانشگاه شهید بهشتی، تهران، ایران. | ||
| چکیده | ||
| افزایش روزافزون شمار پرونده‌های حقوقی در معنای عام، که به افزایش اطاله دادرسی و هزینه‌های نظام‌های قضایی انجامیده است، منجر به ایجاد ضرورت تأمل و ارائه راهکارهایی برای جلوگیری از آفات این دو امر شده است، و در نتیجه نظام‌های قضایی مختلف به سمت استفاده از راهکارهای نظام‌های دیگر و بعضاً راهکارهای بدیع در جهت حل این معضلات حرکت کرده‌اند. نظام قضایی ایران نیز از این امر مستثنا نبوده و در این راستا گام برداشته است، که از جمله آخرین تحولات این حوزه، ایجاد دادگاه‌های صلح در «قانون شوراهای حل اختلاف» مصوب 1402 است. با تأسیس این نهاد در تشکیلات قضایی کشور این سوال ایجاد شده است که آیا این دادگاه می‌تواند در راستای تحقق اهداف فوق، مؤثر باشد؟ لذا در راستای پاسخ به این سوال، در نوشتار حاضر تلاش شده است تا با روش توصیفی تحلیلی، به مطالعه تطبیقی دادگاه صلح در کشور انگلستان به‌عنوان یکی از پرسابقه‌ترین نظام حقوقی در استفاده از این نهاد، به سوال فوق پاسخ داده شود و راهکارهای اصلاح و بهبود عملکرد این نهاد در نظام حقوقی ایران ارائه گردد. حسب نتیجه جستار، به‌نظر می‌رسد که دادگاه صلح در ایران در تحقق اهداف خود دچار چالش خواهد بود و جهت برون‌رفت از این مسأله، نیازمند اصلاح در تشکیلات و آیین دادرسی است. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها | ||
| دادگاه صلح؛ دادرسی اختصاری؛ اصول دادرسی عادلانه؛ قاضی غیرحرفه‌ای | ||
| عنوان مقاله [English] | ||
| A Comparative Study of the Magistrates' Court in the Legal Systems of Iran and England: Structure, Jurisdiction, and Procedure | ||
| نویسندگان [English] | ||
| Nasrin Mehra1؛ Hadi Rezvan2 | ||
| 1Professor, Department of Criminal Law and Criminology, Faculty of Law, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran. | ||
| 2PhD Student in Criminal Law and Criminology, Faculty of Law, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran. | ||
| چکیده [English] | ||
| ∴ Introduction ∴ The establishment and operation of Magistrates’ Courts occupy a pivotal role in the administration of justice, reflecting broader efforts to address mounting caseloads, streamline procedures, and reduce costs. In many jurisdictions, these courts handle both criminal and civil matters of relatively lower severity, operating under expedited and less formal processes compared to higher courts. Historically, the Magistrates’ Court model has deep roots in England, with recorded origins dating back to the 11th century and official legislative recognition in the 14th century. By contrast, in Iran, the existence of Magistrates’ Courts has been marked by discontinuities, introduced formally in 1911 but then abolished and later reinstated at various intervals. A renewed interest in the Magistrates’ Court in Iran has emerged with the 2023 Law on “Dispute Resolution Councils,” which reintroduces this judicial body as a critical mechanism for alleviating the caseload burden on other courts, speeding up legal proceedings, and reducing litigation costs. Despite its potential benefits, questions persist regarding the efficacy of this institution in its current form and whether it aligns with international best practices. This study, therefore, explores the comparative experiences of Iran and England to ascertain the organizational, jurisdictional, and procedural attributes that can best serve the objectives of a modern judicial system. ∴ Research Question ∴ This research addresses the core question of whether the reintroduced Magistrates’ Courts in Iran, as legislated under the new “Dispute Resolution Councils Law,” can effectively meet the twin goals of expediting judicial processes and reducing both administrative and public costs without compromising the quality of justice. Put differently, do these courts—when evaluated through the lens of England’s longstanding experience—contain the structural, jurisdictional, and procedural elements necessary to fulfill their intended mandate? Furthermore, the study queries what legal, institutional, or procedural reforms might be necessary for the Iranian model to maximize efficiency and preserve fair trial standards. ∴ Research Hypothesis ∴ The central hypothesis posits that the current iteration of Magistrates’ Courts in Iran, while significant in theory, is still in need of substantial reform to fully achieve its mandate. Specifically, the authors hypothesize that certain procedural mechanisms and jurisdictional definitions are either underdeveloped or insufficiently aligned with well-tested comparative frameworks, thereby limiting the courts’ capacity for expedient yet fair adjudication. By drawing on the established operations of England’s Magistrates’ Courts, this study anticipates that targeted legislative and procedural modifications will be essential for ensuring these courts deliver on their promises of efficiency and cost-effectiveness. ∴ Methodology & Framework, if Applicable ∴ To investigate these questions and test the hypothesis, the study employs a doctrinal and comparative research design. Primary and secondary legal sources—statutes, regulations, judicial decisions, and academic commentaries—are analyzed through library-based research methods. The comparative framework involves a structured examination of three core dimensions: (a) organization and administrative structure, (b) substantive and procedural jurisdiction, and (c) procedural processes and safeguards. England’s experience serves as the comparative benchmark, given its deep historical tradition of Magistrates’ Courts and their well-documented evolution. By systematically evaluating these dimensions in both jurisdictions, the study aims to identify specific areas for reform and improvement. ∴ Results & Discussion ∴ The comparative examination of Magistrates’ Courts in Iran and England reveals several noteworthy findings regarding their organizational structure, jurisdiction, and procedural frameworks. First, both legal systems share a similar objective in establishing Magistrates’ Courts: to expedite judicial processes, reduce the burden on higher courts, and minimize legal costs for both the state and the parties involved. This alignment stems from a recognition that swift and efficient resolution of relatively minor legal matters is essential to a well-functioning judiciary. However, the historical contexts in which these courts have evolved, and the ways in which their mandates have been defined, vary considerably between the two countries. From a structural viewpoint, one of the most significant differences lies in the background and qualifications of the magistrates or judges. England’s long-established tradition employs lay magistrates—individuals without formal legal education—in the majority of its Magistrates’ Courts, supported as needed by legal advisers. This approach capitalizes on community involvement and local knowledge, while simultaneously relieving the higher courts and professionally trained judges. Iran’s model, on the other hand, involves legally trained judges who are official members of the judiciary. Given the Iranian legal culture and the emphasis on formal legal qualifications, professional judges are seen as enhancing procedural rigor and public confidence, even though such an arrangement might reduce some of the cost savings and local integration that characterize the English system. Jurisdictional scope also differs markedly. While England entrusts its Magistrates’ Courts with over 90% of criminal cases—primarily lower-level offenses—thus making them critical to the functioning of the entire criminal justice system, Iran’s Magistrates’ Courts play a more constrained role. In Iran, only minor offenses and smaller civil disputes fall within their remit, reflecting a more cautious approach to delegating judicial authority. This limited jurisdiction could be linked to Iran’s intermittent historical experience with Magistrates’ Courts and the absence of a deeply rooted social acceptance or cultural familiarity with them. Procedurally, England’s Magistrates’ Courts have developed a series of well-tested mechanisms to accelerate proceedings and reduce expenses, such as simplified evidence rules and plea-based resolutions. Iran, while aiming to adopt similarly streamlined processes, has occasionally introduced measures—like restricting appeal rights for certain cases or bypassing formal indictments—that risk undermining fair trial principles if not carefully calibrated. The discussion thus centers on identifying reforms that preserve the benefits of quick resolutions while safeguarding defendants’ and victims’ rights, particularly the right to impartial adjudication and the right to appeal. This balance is crucial for ensuring the long-term legitimacy and effectiveness of Magistrates’ Courts in Iran. ∴ Conclusion ∴ In terms of function and objectives—at least in theory and legislative intent—the Magistrates’ Courts in Iran and England align. Both systems aim to expedite judicial proceedings and reduce the financial burdens of litigation. However, clear structural differences exist. In England, Magistrates’ Courts predominantly consist of lay judges without formal legal training, a model that reflects a centuries-long tradition of community-driven justice. In contrast, Iran’s Magistrates’ Courts feature judges who are formally educated legal professionals, appointed as official members of the judiciary. Given Iran’s distinct legal and cultural environment, its reliance on professional judges appears both practical and beneficial, as it capitalizes on existing legal expertise and helps foster public trust. Where jurisdiction is concerned, England’s Magistrates’ Courts hold a far more expansive remit—particularly in criminal matters, where they handle the bulk of lesser offenses. Iran’s Magistrates’ Courts, by contrast, exercise relatively narrow authority, limited to select minor offenses and certain civil or administrative matters. This difference underscores a fundamental divergence in the institutional role of Magistrates’ Courts: whereas in England they function as the backbone of the lower criminal justice process, in Iran they serve more as a specialized mechanism to relieve the workload of higher courts. Historically, England’s uninterrupted use of Magistrates’ Courts has also led to robust cultural acceptance. Citizens are generally accustomed to the idea of having lay community members adjudicate low-level cases, which enhances compliance and reduces the rate of appeals. Iran, however, lacks such a longstanding tradition. The institutional history of Magistrates’ Courts in Iran has been sporadic, resulting in less public familiarity and potentially lower confidence in the final judgments. Hence, a broad delegation of authority to a newly reintroduced court system can trigger skepticism, especially if it lacks a strong cultural foundation. Another issue arises from the staffing of these courts by relatively inexperienced judges in Iran. While relying on professional judges enhances legal rigor, younger or less experienced adjudicators may face challenges handling complex issues that occasionally arise in even minor cases. Limiting the scope of criminal jurisdiction and aligning sentencing powers with those of similarly situated courts in other jurisdictions could mitigate these concerns. Moreover, procedural reforms—such as the careful retention of appeal rights, the separation of prosecution and adjudication, and the use of streamlined but still robust evidentiary processes—are critical for guaranteeing fairness. Overall, the reintroduction of Magistrates’ Courts in Iran holds promise for expedited case resolution and cost reduction, but it must be accompanied by carefully calibrated reforms. Specialized branches for distinct case categories, constrained sentencing authority for inexperienced judges, and the preservation of core procedural safeguards would bolster the legitimacy and effectiveness of these courts, thereby enabling them to fulfill their legislatively mandated objectives. | ||
| کلیدواژه‌ها [English] | ||
| Magistrates' Court, Summary Proceedings, Principles of Fair Trial, Lay Judge | ||
| مراجع | ||
|
| ||
|
آمار تعداد مشاهده مقاله: 275 تعداد دریافت فایل اصل مقاله: 133 |
||