التناقض والفساد في الاستدلال بصفتهما من أوجه القصور في تسبيب الأحكام القضائية
Loading...
Date
2024-03-10
Authors
رهف مهدي مدحت فارس
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
Abstract
Abstract
Reasoning for a judicial ruling is considered one of the most difficult tasks that falls on the judge, as he strives to convince the opponents of what he has reached in his ruling through his study of the dispute, his conclusion of its facts, and the answer to the opponents’ pleas and defenses. However, the judge may cause his ruling with inconsistent and falling reasons that are swept away, after which nothing remains that can Carrying judgment on him. He may make mistakes in his understanding of the realistic elements of the dispute and infer evidence that is not valid to be convinced by, and thus his reasoning is unjustified and does not lead to the conclusion he reached in his ruling, which makes him fall into the defect of corruption in reasoning or the defect of contradiction in the reasoning for the judicial ruling, both of which are shortcomings in Causation, which in turn leads to invalidation of the judicial ruling.
This study aims to address the contradiction and corruption in reasoning as deficiencies in the cause of the judicial ruling through an analytical description of the relevant Palestinian law and judicial jurisprudence and a comparison of that for the purposes of enriching the study of the Civil and Commercial Procedures Law No. (13) of 1968 (Egypt) and the Civil Code of Procedure No. (24) of 1988 (Jordan).
The Palestinian legislator has made the Code of Civil and Commercial Procedure the main basis for the conduct of procedures for issuing a judicial ruling and its justification. However, it did not discuss in its provisions the shortcomings in the justification of judicial rulings, which usually occurs in the form of contradiction in reasoning and corruption in reasoning, and it did not differentiate between corruption in reasoning and contradiction in reasoning. Causation. Which raised the question about the difference between them and what is the impact of achieving each of them? Therefore, in this study, the researcher addressed contradiction and corruption in reasoning as among the shortcomings in the causation of judicial rulings.
This study clarifies the concept of contradiction in causing judicial rulings according to several meanings, and the conditions that must be met in contradiction that corrupts the ruling. In this study, the researcher also discussed the forms of contradiction that corrupt the ruling and those that do not corrupt the ruling.
The researcher explained the concept of corruption in reasoning as one of the shortcomings in the causation of judicial rulings, and distinguished it from other defects in causation, such as the defect of lack of reasons and insufficiency of reasons. The researcher also discussed forms of corruption in reasoning. In particular, he spoke about the requirements of sound inference, which require the presence of two things: soundness of evidence and logic of the result. He addressed the concept of evidence and its conditions, as well as the logic of the result, by elaborating on the concept of judicial and legal logic and how to perform causation in a logical manner.
At the conclusion of this study, the researcher explained the most important results that he concluded after his study of contradiction and corruption in reasoning, as they are among the shortcomings in causing judicial rulings. He also pointed to a set of recommendations related to the subject of the study.
Keywords: Contradiction, Corruption in reasoning, shortcoming in reasoning, judicial rulings.