The modern legal system in Iran has always been influenced by the textualism movement and legal formalism. The interactive resultant of these two currents has led to a kind of legal positivism in the Iranian judicial system, according which judges must present their judgment with formal judicial logic and within the framework of legal textualism. These assumptions lead us to the main question of this article, which is the nature of legal textualism and legal formalism and how they affect the rule of legal positivism in the Iranian judiciary System. In this article, we will first use a descriptive method to discuss the concept of legal textualism and legal formalism and legal positivism in order to be able to analyze the rule of paradigm based on these concepts on the Iranian judicial system and its consequences. The findings of this study will reveal that the rigid approach to law and the method of judicial inference is not always in line with legal ideals and justice. The other findings of this study will reveal interactive resultant of the textualism movement and legal formalism in the Iranian judicial system is the rule of kind legal positivism, which has confused the ontological, epistemological and anthropological foundations of legal systems based on the principles of modernity with the Islamic legal system in several principles of the constitution and ordinary laws.

Background and Aim: The legal obligations include legal relations between the individuals and, in case of the existence of obligation; they are realized as commitments to be fulfilled and, in case of their being annulled, they are termed the aborted commitments. From this perspective, legal obligations are found different in various schools of law and the present study seeks investigating the legal formalism approach in the area of the commitments' abortion. Materials and Methods: The study makes use of a descriptive-analytical method based on research in books, articles and legal perspectives. Thus, documentary and library research is the information gathering method of choice herein. Findings: Article 264 of the civil law has investigated the commitments' abortion in various ways that incorporate fulfillment of the promise, rescission and relinquishment of claim, transformation of commitment, barter and regaining of the promised thing. Keeping of the promise is the most ordinary method for the abortion of commitment; rescission, as well, is the very revocation or the dissolving of the transaction by reaching an agreement; relinquishment of the claim includes the obligee's withdrawal of his or her rights without receiving anything in exchange; commitment transformation is the replacement of a prior commitment by a new one; barter, as well, is the parties' becoming of equally committed to one another; regaining of the promised thing, as well, is taking possession of what an individual has been committed to its procurement. Conclusion: In the light of the legal formalism approach and the fuzzy logic governing the relations between the individuals obeying the laws and most primarily, the legal norms, the means of the commitments' abortion as well as the article 264 of the civil law have been designed and approved within the format of a whole featuring logical order.

The use of Ta'zeer in Iran's legal system and the lack of specific rules in determining its process indicate that the lack of proper planning in its use has limitations and negative reactions towards doctors in order to improve the health of the society and their morale. Therefore, reading the law's lack of support from the medical community carefully and considering how the doctor's actions are improperly presented and determining the level of conflict with the law will determine the inconsistent reaction of punishment in response to the doctors' activities and the inappropriate performance of the legal system. Therefore, presenting a modern model centered on providing a thoughtful interpretation of ta'zeer and revising doctor's ta'zeer in certain cases causes support and patronage of doctors and non-attribution verification of some criminals. In addition to this, the possibility of legal regulation and formalism of doctor's punishment by measuring the effects of possible risk and creating a differential criminal policy for doctors' punishment and changing the legislator's attitude in possessions without permission and examples of protection, regulation and legal formalism of doctor's punishment in Klonin, euthanasia, etc. Improving the context of the health of the society and in addition, it reduces the indifference of doctors to treatment and the problem of indifference and indifference of doctors to treatment by not using tazeer.

IntroductionThe International Court of Justice is the main international institution dealing with disputes between States, and its main purpose is to resolve the disputes in contentious cases and answer questions from competent institutions via Advisory Opinions. The development of international law is one of the consequences of the Court's judicial work, as supported by the Court's opinions. In this process, the Court uses the two procedures of legal formalism and realism, but the adoption of each of these procedures has consequences for the process of dealing with claims and field of international law. This research attempts to examine the consequences of the Court's tendency towards each of these procedures, especially legal formalism and its effects and results. The results show that the refusal to confirm jurisdiction increasingly weakens the legitimacy and effectiveness of the Court as the best judicial institution in the world because it deprives itself of the opportunities available in the field of international legal development as it is influenced by political realities. Therefore, in order to overcome political considerations, it is necessary for the Court to be effective in the development of international law by referring to the Mavrommatis Principle and adopting a realist approach.  Research issueThe primary focus of this research is to examine the implications of formalism in the judicial process. In this regard, it is pertinent to inquire as to the extent to which the Court's shift towards formalism has resulted in the relinquishment of certain responsibilities, with the advancement of international law being a particularly salient example. From this perspective, the present study can be seen as an analysis of the Court's procedural shortcomings when viewed in comparison to alternative approaches, such as realism, the Mavrommatis Principle, and other conservative and formalistic methods.   MethodologyThis article employs a qualitative research methodology. The research method is descriptive-analytical and employs the use of library tools. The researchers have collated and examined relevant materials from documentary and legal sources, employing a scientific process to evaluate them.   Key FindingFindings of the research indicate that the refusal to confirm the competence of the Court is eroding its legitimacy and effectiveness as a leading judicial institution. This is due to a lack of opportunities for international law development and a lack of effectiveness and strength in light of the prevailing political circumstances, the slow pace of legal formalism has resulted in a lack of progress, rigidity, excessive formalism and the adoption of a cautious and politicised approach across different courts, a trend that gathered momentum particularly in the 1990s. It is therefore evident that the Court's capacity to transcend considerations and political interests in matters pertaining to jurisdiction may be enhanced through the adoption of a realism approach and a return to the Mavrommatis Principle. This, in turn, will facilitate the advancement of international law and the resolution of cases and disputes. An efficacious methodology that eschews selective intervention is thus required.   Participation In order to contribute to the knowledge of the law, or to add to the scientific and legal debates, it should be said that the research at hand presents the following results: the refusal to qualify increasingly undermines the legitimacy and effectiveness of the Court as the best judicial institution in the world, by depriving it of the opportunities existing in the field of the development of international law, as well as weakening its effectiveness and weakness in relation to political realities. Legal formalism has led to immobility, inflexibility, excessive formalism and the adoption of a cautious and politicised approach from court to court, which gained momentum especially in the 1990s. Therefore, the ability of the Court to overcome considerations and political interests in matters of jurisdiction may be possible by adopting a realist approach and returning to the Mavrommatis Principle, which in turn will be effective in the development of international law. Therefore, while criticising the formalist approach that governs the Court, we should also focus on the political work of the Court, the caution and consideration in some cases, the influence of the United Nations Security Council and inaction of the UN General Assembly. The current solution is to return to the principle of Mavrommatis, and pay attention to the realities of contemporary society and avoid consideration in the relations between States and institutions, such as the United Nations Security Council. In this way, the international credibility of the Court will be justified in the eyes of States, and the development of international law between States in their disputes and cases will be realised in a more favorable way. This research can also contribute to a better understanding of international law with regard to the role of the Court,in order to reduce this unacceptable ambiguity, the Court should decisively and comprehensively adopt a unique jurisprudential paradigm. The procedural merits of the realist approach, together with the need for the Court to play a central role in the development of international law, dictate that it explicitly abandons the doctrine of formalism and instead apply the principle of Mavrommatis wherever possible.   ConclusionFrom one perspective, the current research has focused on the pathology of the International Court of Justice in terms of its tendency towards legal formalism on the one hand, and the recommendation to return to the principle of Mavrommatis, or realism in the field of international law on the other. In short, these principles represent conservative and dynamic approaches, respectively, in the field of international law. The present study has shown that what can be considered as the roadmap of the Court as an institution for the defense of international law, its development and the peaceful and fair settlement of international disputes is the return of the Court to the principle of Mavrommatis and lack of attention to political considerations and the influence of world powersFor examples, the recent decisions, as well as the 2011 decision in Georgia against the Russian Federation represents a clear turning point in the approach of the International Court of Justice in determining the date of the dispute in assessing jurisdiction. In the Georgia decision, the Court denied jurisdiction by adopting a formalistic approach that assessed jurisdiction solely by reference to the date of the filing of the application. This approach culminated in the Marshall decision. From the point of view of international law, it seems that the recent adherence of the Court to the formalistic approach in assessing the occurrence of a dispute is worthy of reflection and comment from two aspects: First, it deprives the Court of forthcoming opportunities to fulfil one of its secondary duties, namely the development of international law, and secondly, it degrades the position of the Court as an institution that uses the formalistic mechanism on a case-by-case basis only for political reasons. Therefore, the recommendation of the current research that the Court should explicitly abandon the doctrine of formalism and apply the Mauromatis Principle wherever possible, so that it can defend the development of international law and resolve cases in an impartial manner.

Formalism, as an approach in literary criticism, was introduced in the early twentieth century under the influence of Italian futurism and the contribution of young Russian linguists. Later on, it was spread in Europe and America and gradually found advocates in almost all countries of the world. Iranian literary critics and scholars also embraced this new literary school and incorporated a formalistic approach in their literary criticism.Among modern Iranian literary critics, Shafe’ee Kadkani was the strongest advocate of this new critical trend and adopted a formalistic approach as well as a linguistic approach in his writings. He has tried to discover the secret of literariness of a work of art and illustrate aspects of defamiliarization of discourse from people’s everyday language in the literary works of the earlier and modern scholars. He believes, in line with formalists, that “poetry is an event that occurs only in language” and asserts that linguistics tries to find out “the miracle of words” and show the underlying reasons and causes of the beauty of literary discourse. In his view, literature is a type of language use which departs from everyday language through deviations from the “practical language” and deconstructing language norms. The effects of formalism on Shafe’ee’s works could bediscerned in his poems to a great extent.

This research article examines legal discrimination against children born out of wedlock in Iran. Despite laws promoting equality, societal attitudes influenced by beliefs continue to result in discrimination. The study explores the reconciliation of religious beliefs with legal frameworks and the changes made to the Iranian legal system in response to positive human rights developments. The Article seeks to bridge the research gaps by comparing the experiences of Iranian children with those in other countries affected by Islamic law. The study employs library sources and descriptive and historical research methods to examine the legal status of children born outside of marriage, both nationally and internationally, and the discrimination they face. The Article is structured into four distinct sections: an analysis of Islamic Law, a review of the Iranian legal system, an assessment of Iran's compliance with international conventions, and a discourse on the necessity of substantial positive change. The Article ultimately recommends the eradication of discrimination through heightened awareness and the advancement of inclusivity for all children, irrespective of their lineage. In summary, this research Article aims to shed light on legal challenges faced by children born outside of marriage in Iran, with the goal of promoting positive changes in their treatment.

In accordance with classical understanding of the principle of separation of powers, the task of a judge is merely to discover the intention of legislator and to apply it to the facts of cases. The motives behind the achieving judicial security and the existence of factors such as syllogistically form of judicial reasoning and the necessity of deduction of all the results from law has led to the traditional tendency among jurists to present judicial syllogism within the context of formal syllogism.Formal syllogism or deductive reasoning based on formal logic, reasoning possesses a necessary process and there would be no true outcome but one, and there would remain no room for doubt. A precise look at the minor and major judicial syllogism demonstrates that the notion of change of judicial syllogism to that of formal, definitive, and objective is nothing but a naive fiction far from achievement. The impossibility of making the legal concept clear and the existence of defects in and of law, as well as conflict of laws, on the one hand, and impossibility of reaching definitiveness and certainty at verification of factual stage of a case, on the other hand, do not allow formalism and change of judicial reasoning into formal and necessary reasoning.Due to the fact that judicial reasoning is unnecessary, these reasoning, unlike reasoning that are subject to formal logic are not free from the intervention of human factors.The type and quality of that intervention and the usage of this flexibility and broadness by a judge are determined by the characteristic features of each legal system and the foundations concerned.

The historical foundations of CLS were founded as a result of the failure of the mainstream legal scholarship at the end of the Victorian era’s optimism which was simultaneous to the beginning of the First World War. One of the characteristics of CLS, which to some extent was created as a result of the development of legal realism in the USA, is to open legal jurisprudence to other disciplines and to reject the thought that CLS is merely a philosophical discussion of the concept of law. CLS, firstly, throws a shadow of doubt on the attitude of the mainstream legal scholarship premised upon the belief that law is perfect, autonomous, and logical. In ultimately rejecting this belief, CLS shows that the so-called triumphs of the conventional legal mainstream are ambiguous. By acknowledging the risk of scepticism and by advancing its ideals according to this, CLS has provided conditions, and therefore means, for the social world to continuously reconsider itself.