A Study on the two Evidentiary Approaches in Civil Adjudication of Iran and the United States: The Fact-Based Approach and the Narrative-based Approach

Articles in Press

Document Type : Research Article

Authors

1 University of Tehran,، Kish Campus

2 University of Tehran

3 Associate prof. of the University of Tehran، kish Campus

10.22059/jolt.2024.365110.1007228

Abstract

Justice and order have remained fundamental principles within various legal systems throughout history. In certain systems, these ideals are believed to be realized through the strict enforcement of laws, while in others, consensus around societal norms is deemed essential for achieving justice and order.

In the pursuit of justice and order, two distinct methods have emerged: the objective analysis of evidence and the ascription of enduring meaning to evidence that transcends the bounds of litigation, and the narrative approach, wherein rationale aligns with the parties' narratives and derives contextual meaning from them. This exposition is rooted in the belief that prevailing legal scholarship in Iranian law emphasizes the significance of objective evidence, while the narrative approach holds greater sway in American law.

However, through a comparison of these two methodologies, it becomes apparent that elements of the narrative approach are also present in Iranian civil litigation. It could even be contended that evidence fundamentally cannot be applied to a dispute without considering the underlying narrative. Consequently, legal scholars should acquaint themselves with this narrative approach and its principles, enabling them to possess a heightened self-awareness that contributes to broader objectives within civil litigation.

Keywords

Main Subjects

Private Law

Articles in Press, Accepted Manuscript
Available Online from 24 April 2024

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics