kimia danaei

Judges, in their position of dispute resolution and justice-enforcement, constantly depart the legislators’ intention, through interpretation, towards the valuable goal of justice and righteousness. However, they might walk dissimilar pathes in their journey which, in turn, might end up being seen as a threat to the valuable rule of law. However, we might be right in thinking that the judges’ interpretations cohere into a unity, plurality within unity, not merely through the legislation, or even legislator’s interference to create unification, but also, and even more importantly, through the power and coherence resulting from the common sense, which frames their understanding of law and fact. Commons sense, that is, the direct and self-evident understanding of common people from the existences, including the legal system, creates a coherent and powerful whole drawn upon the history and presence of man’s knowledge and contemplation. Such framework will, on the one hand, provide Judgement with coherence and attribution to social realism. On the other hand, though, will encumber the other function acclaimed by judgement, that is, justice and emancipation. Commons sense, thus, highlights the tension between the regulatory and emancipatory causes for the judicial theory.