Comparative Study of Judicial Resignation in Authoritarian Regimes

Habibzadeh, Mohammad Jafar; Samaei, Mahdi

doi:10.22034/jclc.2024.718667

Comparative Study of Judicial Resignation in Authoritarian Regimes

Document Type : Original Article

Authors

Mohammad Jafar Habibzadeh ¹

Mahdi Samaei ²

¹ Professor of Criminal Law and Criminology, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran

² PhD in Criminal Law and Criminology, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran

10.22034/jclc.2024.718667

Abstract

In the field of judicial ethics, a critical question arises: what should an ethical judge do in an authoritarian regime? Penal judges have various means to resist authoritarian laws, decrees, and procedures. One ethical approach for a judge, to avoid participating in legal repression, is to resign.
By resigning, a judge can refuse to partake in or assist with unjust actions. Some theorists unequivocally advocate for the resignation of officials in autocratic regimes. Conversely, others perceive the issue as more complex and consider judicial activity within an authoritarian regime morally justifiable under stringent conditions.
Nevertheless, the decision to adjudicate in an authoritarian regime, even with noble intentions, presents significant ethical dilemmas that should not be underestimated.

Keywords

Resignation

Authoritarian Regime

Lesser Evil Argument

Cooperation with Evil

Judicial Ethics

Subjects