Analytical methods used by Iranian prominent lawyers versus justice-oriented legal analysis based on principles

There have been ups and downs in the modern legal system of Iran over the hundred years. As an ever-existing dilemma, Iranian Lawyers have always been asking that whether Iran’s Law should rely on the jurisprudence as its main reference or should make its policies based on the European Law, which encompasses the modern rules. The lawyers are now analyzing legal cases using various methods. Sometimes, the highly adhere to jurisprudence just describing and interpreting the jurisprudential texts. Nevertheless, sometimes ignore the jurisprudential antecedents and only rely on European texts and references. The current methods try to keep balance using both Imamiyeh jurisprudence and written law as the reference for Iran’s Law. How legal foundations should be analyzed? To what extent the justice and interests are determinant as the legal ideals? Are legal texts and references respected enough? The above-mentioned questions have had different answers. Some juristic such as Professor Jafari Langarudi have used both references (jurisprudence and objective law) for legal analysis of rules and laws such as civil code. They not only followed interpretive principles but also considered justice. This paper aimed at reviewing this process to introduce the procedures and methods used by lawyers to contemplate the legal rules.