An Economic Analysis of Iran’s 2017 Judicial System Reforms: Ways with Long-term Effects to Improve Judicial System’s Litigation Delay
Zahra Sohrabi Abad
University of OttawaAbstract
Litigation delay is a serious concern for judicial systems. In 2017, Iran enacted regulations for digitizing the judicial system in order to address this problem. This article shows whether this new policy has been an efficient move and shows solutions with more long-term results for overcoming the litigation delay. To analyze the recent reforms' efficiency, I review Iran's dispute resolution performance using secondary data from Doing Business research and the Research Center of the Iranian parliament reports in measuring the doing business environmentfrom 2016, before adopting those regulations, and then until 2019. Finally, it is concluded that Law & Economics methodology is a suitable methodology for analyzing the efficiency of 2017 Iran’s policy, which also provides ways to achieve more sustainable results to overcome the litigation delay. The main finding of this study is that according to the Kaldor-Hicks efficiency, Iran's recent reforms related to digitizing the judicial system have been an efficient move; however, due to the nature of these reforms, this efficiency does not last permanently.
References
Regulations on the Use of Computer or Telecommunication Systems (entered into force in 2017) available at < https://dgla.ut.ac.ir/fa/page/ -هناماس-زا-هدافتسا-هوحن-همان-نییآ/ 2945<یتارباخم-ای-یا-هنایار-یاه
Google Scholar
Law of Sixth Five-Year Plan for Economic, Social and Cultural Development of Iran (entered into force in 2017) available at < https://www.rrk.ir/Files/Laws/ هلاسجنپ 20 %همانرب 20 %نوناق % هعسوت 20 %مشش 20 .pdf>
Google Scholar
The Executive Regulations for the Establishment of Electronic Judicial Services Offices and Their Center (entered into force in 2017) available at < https://shenasname.ir/ qaza/4566-dafater-ghazaee>
Google Scholar
Abhari, Hamid., and Morad Talaie. 2016. Legal and Jurisprudential Nature of Esar. Comparative Law 1: 9-33.
Google Scholar
Allah Yari Nik, Ahmad., and Mehdi Shabannia Mansour. 2020. The Effect of E-Judicial Offices on Reducing Delays in Proceedings: Case Study in The Metropolis of Tehran. Journal of Legal Excellence 8: 70-111.
Google Scholar
Amini, Alireza, and Somayeh Norouzi. 2017. A Look at Global Experiences in Improving the Business Environment through Reforming the Judicial System, Emphasizing the Component of Enforcement Contracts. Financial and Economic Policies 15: 71-88.
Google Scholar
Babaie, Iraj. 2007. Overview of Efficiency Developments in The Economic Literature. Journal of Research in Law and Politics 23: 1-20.
Google Scholar
Babaie, Iraj. 2007. Theoretical Foundations of The Legal Economic Analysis Approach. Journal of Law and Policy Research 23(9): 13-60.
Google Scholar
Baker, Tom, and Albert H. Yoon. 2006. Offer-of-Judgment Rules and Civil Litigation: An
Google Scholar
Empirical Study of Automobile Insurance Litigation in the East. Vanderbilt Law Review 1(59): 155-196.
Google Scholar
Baqeri, Mehdi, and Abdolreza Barzegar. 2021. Studying the Importance of Electronic Judicial Services Offices in Reducing Litigation Delay. Sixth National Law Conference: Challenges of Judicial Management in the Judiciary, 1-9.
Google Scholar
Barondes, Royce de R. 2004. Rejecting the Marie Antoinette Paradigm of Prejudgment Interest. The University of Missouri School of Law Scholarship Repository 1-27.
Google Scholar
Besley, Timothy. 2015. Law, Regulation, and the Business Climate: The Nature and Influence of the World Bank Doing Business Project. The Journal of Economic Perspectives 29(3): 99-120. www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/law-regulation-business-climate-nature
Google Scholar
influence/docview/1753561065/se-2, doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1257/jep.29.3.99.
Google Scholar
Christensen, Robert K., and John Szmer. 2012. Examining the efficiency of the U.S. courts of appeals: Pathologies and prescriptions. International Review of Law and Economics. 1-8.
Google Scholar
Coase, Ronald. 1960. The Problem of Social Cost. Journal of Law & Economics 3: 1-44.
Google Scholar
Cooter, Robert, and Thomas Ulen. 2016. Law & Economics, Berkeley Law Books. http://www.econ.jku.at/t3/staff/winterebmer/teaching/law_economics/ss19/6th_edition.pdf
Google Scholar
Dadgar, Yadollah. 2017. An Overview of Efficiency Developments in The Economic Literature. Journal of Law and Policy Research 9(23): 100-128: 109.
Google Scholar
Dadgarnia, Abdulrahim. 2013. Specialized Courts: Ways to Reduce Litigation Delay. Kanon 1-13.
Google Scholar
Darabi, Iman, and Seyed Hesamoddin Rafieei Tabatabaeei. 2020. Investigating the Factors Affecting the Elimination of Judicial Delay and Judicial Development with a Case Study on Kermanshah Court in 2018. Legal Civilization 2(5): 46-65.
Google Scholar
Darvishi, Yoosef. 2005. Alternative Methods of Dispute Resolution. Journal of Judgment 32: 34-39.
Google Scholar
Ebrahimi, Zeynolabedin. 2000. Studying the Causes of Litigation Delay in Iran’s Public Courts. The Judiciary’s Law Journal 64(32): 168-173.
Google Scholar
Eftekhar Jahromi, Goudarz, and SeyedAli Khorasani. 2018. Studying the Principles and Rules of Commercial Litigation and Evaluating Its Efficiency from The Perspective of Economic Analysis of Law. Comparative Law Studies 8(1): 45-65.
Google Scholar
Farahvashi, Fahimeh. 2019. Alternative Methods for Dispute Settlement. Judicial Reforms 3: 1-15.
Google Scholar
Fenn, Paul, and Niel Rickman. 1999. Delay and Settlement in Litigation. The Economic Journal 109 (57): 476-491. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0297.00458.
Google Scholar
Gertner, Robert, and Geoffrey Miller. 1995. Settlement Escrows. The Journal of Legal Studies 1(24): 87-122.
Google Scholar
Ippoliti, Roberto, and G. Tria. 2020. Efficiency of Judicial Systems: Model Definition and Output Estimation. Journal of Applied Economics 23(1): 385-408.
Google Scholar
Jorjandi Moqadam, Reza. 2021. Pathology of Weak and Inefficient Judicial Management in the Prolongation of Proceedings, Under the Document of Judicial Transformation. The sixth conference on the challenges of judicial management and proceedings in the judiciary.
Google Scholar
Kaldor, Nicholas. 1939. Welfare Propositions of Economics and Interpersonal Comparisons of Utility. The Economic Journal 49(195): 549–52. https://doi.org/10.2307/2224835.
Google Scholar
McCormack, Gerard. 2018. Why ‘Doing Business’ with the World Bank May Be Bad for You. European Business Organization Law Review 19: 649–676.
Google Scholar
Miller, Geoffrey. 1986. The Legal-Economic Analysis of Comparative Civil Procedure. The American Journal of Comparative Law 45 (4): 905-918.
Google Scholar
Mokhtarifard, Hossein. 2016. Legal Responsibilities of Judges and their Roles in Litigation Delay. Pathology and Solutions. Jamia Al-Mustafa Al-Alamiya University – Faculty of Law and Islamic Studies 1-50.
Google Scholar
Nosrat Abadi, Arab. 2016. Designing an Interpretative-Structural Model to Improve Iran’s Business Environment with a Focus on the Legal Environment. Organizational Resource Management Studies 3: 125-146.
Google Scholar
Pacces, Alessio, and Louis Visscher. 2011. Methodology of Law and Economics. Law and Method. Interdisciplinary Research into Law 85-107. https://ssrn.com/abstract=2259058.
Google Scholar
Palmer, Dustin, 2002. Should Prejudgment Interest Be a Matter of Procedural or Substantive Law in Choice of Law Disputes? The University of Chicago Law Review 2(69): 705-728.
Google Scholar
Parisi, Francesco. 2004. Positive, Normative, and Functional Schools in Law and Economics. European Journal of Law and Economics 18: 259-272.
Google Scholar
Posner, Richard. 1983. Will the federal courts of appeals survive until 1984? An essay on delegation and specialization of the judicial function. Southern California Law Review 56: 761–791.
Google Scholar
Posner, Richard. 1996. The Federal Courts: Challenge and Reform, Harvard University Press. Priest, George, and Benjamin Klein. 1984. The Selection of Disputes for Litigation. Journal of Legal Studies 1(13): 1-55.
Google Scholar
Priest, George. 1989. Private Litigants and the Court Congestion Problem. Boston University Law Review 69(3): 527-559.
Google Scholar
Qamami, Mohammad Mehdi, and Omid Abdollahian. 2019. Transformation of the Judicial System with Emphasis on the Efficiency of the Proceedings. Quarterly Journal of Judicial Law Perspectives 24(85): 29-54.
Google Scholar
Rafiei Tabatabaei, Seyed Hesamoddin. 2021. Reviewing the Actions of the Judiciary in Order to Improve the Proceedings and Its Effect on Reducing the Length of Proceedings. Journal of Economic Jurisprudence 1: 30-46.
Google Scholar
Razi, Aasad, and Abouzar Zahedi. 2018. Alternative or Non-Judicial Dispute Resolution Methods. National Conference on Future Research Management 1-22.
Google Scholar
Richman, William M., and William Reynolds. 1988. Appellate justice bureaucracy and scholarship. University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform 21(4): 623-646.
Google Scholar
Rosales-López, Virginia. 2008. Economics of court performance: an empirical analysis. European Journal of Law and Economics 25: 231-251.
Google Scholar
Roshan, Mohammad, and Hossein Dehghani Firoozabadi. 2015. Liability of Government in Litigation Delay. Administrative Law 3: 71-111.
Google Scholar
Safaie, Hossein. 2013. Litigation Delay in Civil Cases and Ways to Deal with It. Farhangestan- e-olum 1-3.
Google Scholar
Sarat, Austin. 1978. Understanding Trial: A Critique of Social Science Approaches. Judicature 61(7): 318-326.
Google Scholar
Sipes, Larry, 1985. Reducing Delay in State Courts – a March Against Folly. Rutgers Law Review 37(2): 299-318.
Google Scholar
Tayebi, Q. 2017. Analyzing the factors of litigation delay in the Iranian judicial system. National Conference on Criminal Responsibility Developments in Iran’s Legal System. Challenges and Solutions 1-8.
Google Scholar
Theis, David. 16 September 2021. World Bank Group to Discontinue Doing Business Report), The World Bank www.worldbank.org/en/news/statement/2021/09/16/world-bank-groupto-discontinue-doing-business-report.
Google Scholar
Trebilcock, Michael. 1997. An Introduction to Law and Economics. Monash University Law
Google Scholar
Review 23(1): 123-124.
Google Scholar
Vaezi, Naser, Seyed Pedram Khandani, and Javad Khaleqian. 2020. Comparative Study of the Effect of Electronic Civil Proceedings on the Speed of Proceedings in Iranian and American Law. Iranian Political Sociology Quarterly 363-372.
Google Scholar
Varano, Vincenzo. 1997. Civil Procedure Reform in Italy. The American Journal of Comparative Law 45(4): 657-674. https://doi.org/10.2307/841010.
Google Scholar
World Bank Group 2016. 2016. Doing Business 2016: Measuring Regulatory Quality and Efficiency 1-338. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/22771 License: CC BY 3.0 IGO.
Google Scholar
World Bank Group 2018. 2018. Doing Business 2018 Reforming to Create Jobs Comparing Business Regulation for Domestic Firms In 190 Economies. 1-303. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/28608 License: CC BY 3.0 IGO.
Google Scholar
World Bank Group 2019, 2019. Training for Reforms 1-302. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/handle/10986/30438 License: CC BY 3.0 IGO.
Google Scholar
World Bank Group, 2020. Doing Business 2020: Comparing Business Regulation in 190 Economies. International Bank for Reconstruction and Development 1-135. https://openknowledge.worldbank.org/bitstream/handle/10986/32436/9781464814402.pdf.
Google Scholar
Zadeh Hosein Oliyayi, Zahra, and Ahmad Ahmadi. 2018. Electronic Proceedings in Iranian Law: Objectives, Basics, and Characteristics. Private and Criminal Law Research 117-136.
Google Scholar
Zywicki, Todd. 2008. Posner, Hayek & The Economic Analysis of Law. Iowa Law Review 93(2): 559-603. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=957177.
Google Scholar
Authors
Zahra Sohrabi AbadStatistics
Downloads
License
Copyright (c) 2023 The Opole Studies in Administration and Law
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Author’s economic rights to published works are held by Opole University (collective works) and individual Authors (individual parts of the collective work, ones that form a separate entity).
The journal Opole Studies in Administration and Law accepts for publication only works which have not been in circulation before.
On the basis of the Regulation (2016/679) of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (referred to as General Data Protection Regulation or RODO) Opole University, based at 11a Plac Kopernika, 45-040 Opole, is the personal data controller for all the authors publishing their works in the Opole Studies in Administration and Law.
The articles published in Opole Studies in Administration and Law are available under a licence Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0).
For aricles till 2017 your use is permitted by an applicable exception or limitation – see:
Ustawa z dnia 4 lutego 1994 r. o prawie autorskim i prawach pokrewnych
Read more about the license CC BY-NC-ND 4.0:
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/
View Legal Code:
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/legalcode
Most read articles by the same author(s)
- Amin Jaffari, Zahra Sohrabi Abad, Zahra Ghazinezhad, Structural and functional differences between state-owned and private banks in Iran , The Opole Studies in Administration and Law: Vol. 18 No. 2 (2020)
