Arbitration and Its Social Effects in Iranian Criminal Law from the Perspective of Shiite Jurisprudence

Abstract

In jurisprudential studies, the topic of arbitration (hukmiyyat) has primarily been examined in a secondary and peripheral context concerning judicial matters. This research aims to investigate the role and social effects of arbitration in Iranian criminal law from the perspective of Shiite jurisprudence. The significance of this study stems, on the one hand, from the strategic necessities of the judiciary in crime prevention and the rehabilitation of offenders, and on the other hand, from the potential of arbitration to enhance the role of both the victim and the offender in the process of judicial elimination, which can have broad social repercussions. This study is descriptive-analytical and developmental in approach, with data analysis conducted through an inductive method. The findings indicate that arbitration in criminal law from the perspective of Shiite jurisprudence has significant social effects. These include the possibility of concluding arbitration agreements with non-Muslims and safe-conducts, the expansion of concepts related to the laws of war and the rights in war, and providing jurisprudential justification for the payment of blood money (diyyah) from the public treasury. Consequently, arbitration, as one of the overlooked capacities in Iranian criminal law from the perspective of Shiite jurisprudence, can lead to the social development of some fundamental rules such as the principle "The blood of a Muslim person cannot be invalidated" and the principle "Islam prevails and nothing supersedes it."