The Theory of the Choice of Fatwa for Legislation

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

1 Doctoral student of jurisprudence and judicial law, Al-Mustafa International University, Qom, Iran

2 Assistant Professor, Faculty of Judicial rights, University of Judicial Sciences and Administrative Services, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

The adherence to transparency is one of the important issues in governance. The institutions for constitutional review are also not exempted from the obligation to exercise their powers. However, the degree of adherence by these authorities, especially in the deliberation stage, like some other institutions, needs some points to be considered. This paper, using a descriptive-analytical method, seeks to determine the scope of transparency in the deliberations of the members or judges of the Constitutional review bodies. .The deliberation stage is important since the performance of these bodies is crystallized in these deliberations more than anything else. As a result, despite the almost universal acceptance of the principle of confidentiality of deliberations in these authorities, there are the structured ways to make them transparent at different levels. Classically, the transparency has higher levels in common law systems and less in civil law systems. However, many constitutional courts/councils of recent systems have moved towards more transparency in theory and practices.

Keywords

References

Bingham, T. (2008). A Personal Perspective. In Global Constitutionalism. Yale Law School, I31-I32.
Brennan Jr., William J. (2008). In Defense of Dissents. In Global Constitutionalism. Yale Law School, I-46-I-51.
Bricker, B. (2017). Breaking the Principle of Secrecy: An Examination of Judicial Dissent in the European Constitutional Courts. Law & Policy, 39, 170-191.
Commission Européenne pour la Démocratie par le Droit (2018). Rapport sur les Opinions Séparées dans les Cours Constitutionnelles. Strasbourg (Avis n° 932/2018 CDL-AD(2018)030rev).
Elster, J. (2015). Introduction. In Jon Elster (Ed.): Secrecy and publicity in votes and debates. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 1–14.
Fraisse, R. (2005). «Intervention du responsable du service juridique du Conseil constitutionnel français». In La contribution des services juridiques à la prise de décision des cours constitutionnelles. Conférence des secrétaires généraux des cours constitutionnelles européennes tenue à Bled. Slovénie.
Freixes, T. (2000). La pratique des opinions dissidentes en Espagne. Cahiers du Conseil Constitutionnel, N°8.
Garlicki, L. (2008). Note on Dissent in the European Court of Human Rights. In Global Constitutionalism. Yale Law School, I-8-I-10.
Giménez, F. (2017). Changing the Channel: Broadcasting Deliberations in the Mexican Supreme Court. In R. Davis & D. Taras (Eds.). Justices and Journalists: The Global Perspective (209-234). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ginsburg, R. (2010). The Role of Dissenting Opinions. Minnesota Law Review, 95, 1-8.
Ginsburg, T., & Garoupa, N. (2011). Building Reputation in Constitutional Courts: Political and Judicial Audiences. Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law, 539-568.
Gorlani, M. (2008). The Dissenting Opinion in the Jurisprudence of the U.S. Supreme Court: A Model Importable to Italy? Global Constitutionalism, Yale Law School. I-27-I-30.
Grimm, D. (2008). Some Remarks on the Use of Dissenting Opinions in Continental Europe (Based on My German Experience). In Global Constitutionalism. Yale Law School, I-I-I-5.
Human Rights Committee (2011). General Comment No.34. Article 19: Freedoms of Opinion and Expression. CCPR/C/GC/34.
Kelemen, K. (2013). Dissenting Opinions in Constitutional Courts. Ger. law j. 14(8), 1345–1371.
Kirby, M. D. (2008). Judicial Dissent—Common Law and Civil Law Tradition. In Global Constitutionalism. Yale Law School, I-32-I-I-36.
Laffranque, J. (2003). Dissenting Opinion and Judicial Independence. JI, VIII, 162–172.
Lasser, M. (2004). Judicial deliberations. A comparative analysis of transparency and legitimacy, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Lécuyer, Y. (2004). Le secret du délibéré, les opinions séparées et la transparence. RevTrimDrH, 57, 197-223.
L'Heureux-Dubé, C. (2000{a}). The Dissenting Opinion: Voice of the Future. Osgoode Hall L. J., 38, 495-517.
L'Heureux-Dubé. C. (2000{b}). La pratique des opinions dissidentes au Canada- L'opinion dissidente: voix de l'avenir?. Cahiers du Conseil Constitutionnel, N°8.
Luchaire, F. (2000). La transposition des opinions dissidentes en France est-elle souhaitable? «Contre»: Le point de vue de deux anciens membres du Conseil constitutionnel. Cahiers du Conseil Constitutionnel, N°8.
Macfarlane, E. (2010). Consensus and Unanimity at the Supreme Court of Canada, 52 Supreme Court Law Review, (2d), 379-410.
Mels, P. (2008). Disclosure of Separate Opinions and Voting Results. Translated by Tollund. In Global Constitutionalism. Yale Law School, I-13-I-17.
Miller, A, & Sastri, D. (1973). Secrecy and the Supreme Court: On the Need for Piercing the Red Velour Curtain. Buffalo Law Review, 22(3), 799-823.
O'Connor, S. D. (2003). William Howard Taft and the Importance of Unanimity. J Supreme Court History, 28(2), 157–164.
Pasquino, P. (2015). E pluribus unum: Disclosed and Undisclosed Votes in Constitutional/Supreme Courts. In Jon Elster (Ed.): Secrecy and publicity in votes and debates. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 196–208.
Post, R. (2008). The Supreme Court Opinion as Institutional Practice: Dissent. Legal Scholarship and Decision-making in the Taft Court. In Global Constitutionalism. Yale Law School, I-54-I-51.
Pound, R. (2008). Cacoethes Dissentiendi: The Heated Judicial Dissent. In Global Constitutionalism. Yale Law School, I-51-I-54.
Raffaelli, R. (2012). Dissenting Opinions in the Supreme Courts of the Member States, European Parliament.
Roellecke, G. (2008). Sondervotum [Separate Opinions], Translated by Tollund, Inc. In Global Constitutionalism. Yale Law School, I-17-I-26.
Rousseau, D. (2000). La transposition des opinions dissidentes en France est-elle souhaitable? «Pour»: Une opinion dissidente en faveur des opinions dissidents. Cahiers du Conseil Constitutionnel, N°8.
Rousseau, D., & Gahdoun, P., & Bonnet, J. (2016): Droit du contentieux constitutionnel. Paris: LGDJ-Lextenso éditions (Domat droit public).
Scalia, A. (2008). The Dissenting Opinion. In Global Constitutionalism. Yale Law School, I-42-I-46.
Schermers, H. G., & Waelbroeck, D. F. (2008). Dissenting Opinions. In Global Constitutionalism. Yale Law School, I.5-I.7.
Slotnick, E. E. (1999). Judicial Politics: Readings from Judicature. United States: American Judicature Society.
Swiss Federal Supreme Court, General Secretariat (2017). The Swiss Federal Supreme Court, The Third Power within the Federal State.
Trocsanyi, L., & Horvath, A. (2000). La pratique des opinions dissidentes en Hongrie- Les opinions individuelles en Hongrie: une institution. Cahiers du Conseil Constitutionnel, N°8.
Vedel, G. (2000). La transposition des opinions dissidentes en France est-elle souhaitable? «Contre»: Le point de vue de deux anciens membres du Conseil constitutionnel. Cahiers du Conseil Constitutionnel, N°8.
Walter, C. (2000). La pratique des opinions dissidentes en Allemagne. Cahiers du Conseil Constitutionnel, N°8.
Wittig, C. (2016). The Occurrence of Separate Opinions at the Federal Constitutional Court. An Analysis with a Novel Database. Berlin: Logos Verlag Berlin.
Zagrebelsky, G. (2000). La pratique des opinions dissidentes en Italie. Cahiers du Conseil Constitutionnel, N°8.

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 22 February 2022
  • Revise Date: 29 April 2022
  • Accept Date: 08 October 2022

Share

How to cite

Statistics