Abstract:
دادرسی و تشریفات از گذشته‌های دور قرین یکدیگر بوده‌اند و امروز هم تشریفاتی بودن از اصول دادرسی محسوب می‌شود. شناخت مفهوم تشریفات، هم از حیث نظری و هم به لحاظ عملی، حائز اهمیت است. معیارهایی برای تمییز و تفکیک تشریفات از سایر قواعد و به‌ویژه از اصول دادرسی، ارائه شده است که هیچ‌یک به‌تنهایی نمی‌تواند منعکس‌کنندة تمام ویژگی‌های مفهومی تشریفات باشد. کارکردگرایان، تمام نهادهای اجتماعی را دارای کارکرد می‌دانند. نوشتار حاضر نهاد دادرسی و قواعد آن را با همین رویکرد ارزیابی کرده است. نتیجة تحقیق حکایت از آن دارد که با دستیابی به کارکردِ قواعد می‌توان تفکیک درستی از تشریفات و سایر قواعد دادرسی به دست داد؛ آنچه در تأمین کارکرد و غایت نهادهای دادرسی مؤثر نیست، تشریفات محسوب می‌شود و آثار و احکام این دسته از قواعد را باید بر آنها مترتب دانست.
Abstract Laws of procedure are full of templates and forms through which the will necessarily emerges. "Formalities" are considered as one of the most important forms. Sometimes, the proceedings must be carried out with special arrangements and rituals that the legislator has determined, and these special arrangements have turned "formalities" into one of the important principles and characteristics of proceedings. The stubbornness of the ritual rules and their subjectivity have made it difficult to understand the nature of the formalities. With such a bad reputation, these formalities lose their attraction to be used and studied. For this reason nowadays, judicial systems tend to reduce formalities and specify a minimum of them for proceedings. However, the present article tries to examine the formalities and understand their meaning through functional analysis. The most prominent and important theory in contemporary sociology is "functionalism" or the attitude of authenticity of function. This analysis focuses on efficiency and function. One of the important principles raised in the interpretation of formal rules is the interpretation of these rules based on efficiency as well as goal-oriented interpretation. Paying attention to function and purpose has been accepted as a basis in the legislation and implementation of formal rules. At least in the civil code, there are cases where the legislator specified the function and purpose of the regulations. Article 155 of the Civil Code for example, has mentioned the function and purpose of providing evidence as follows: "Providing evidence is to preserve it...". The functions and purposes of other judicial institutions are not authorized and should be analyzed with inferential tools. In ascertaining and inferring the functions and goals, it should be noted that a rule may have several functions and goals. Although the function of communication is to inform the audience, some contents in the judicial document have a separate goal, which cannot be achieved by simply informing the audience. For this reason, by achieving a function of a rule, the work cannot be considered finished, and perhaps this is why a group believes that the search for the function and purpose of the rules should be done individually in each case and situation. what is the function of formalities? What purpose and function the legislator expect from this institution by determining them? The study hypothesizes that formalities cannot affect the main functions of an institution. A rule, the absence of which disrupts or makes incomplete the function of the relevant institution, is not a formality.
(
, 
, 
)
