Legal Duality and Judicial Uncertainty in Iran’s Drug Offense Framework

This article theoretically explores the legal duality and judicial ambiguity observed within Iran's drug offense system, particularly at the intersection of ḥadd (fixed, divinely ordained punishments) and taʿzīr (discretionary punishments). The study elaborates on how this dual classification results in structural ambiguity in interpreting and applying drug-related legislation, influencing judicial uniformity and legal certainty. By drawing on a conceptual-analytical framework rooted in legal pluralism and norm conflict theory, the research critically engages with legal texts and interpretive traditions to unveil conflicts between the frameworks. The study shows how the concomitance of discretionary and fixed punishment arrangements gives rise to judicial decision-making inconsistencies and dismantles essential principles of law. It provides an additional theoretical framework outlining how plural legal jurisdictions interfere with judicial discretion and stresses system consequences of judicial uncertainty in multilateral legal structures. The implications offer direction for comparative legal study and policy discussion, suggesting that interdisciplinary attention is required to address legal ambiguity in contexts where religious and secular legal norms are in interaction. Subsequent research is necessary to test for empirical support and cross-context comparison to further advance the theory and examine larger implications for justice and legal reform.

کلیدواژه ها:

Legal Duality ، Judicial Uncertainty ، Ḥadd and Taʿzīr ، Drug Offense Framework ، Legal Pluralism ، Norm Conflict ، Judicial Discretion