Insufficiencies in reasoning and Its Impact on the Validity of the Civil Judicial Ruling

A Comparative Analytical Study

Abstract

The flaw of insufficiencies is one of the most common disadvantages that plague the reasoning process while the judge is constructing the judicial ruling, and he exercises his function during his judicial career, because it is rare today, in practice, to issue rulings without including their reasons, but what happens is that the rulings contain reasons, but that these reasons lack justifications that lead to the conclusion reached by the trial court in its ruling. Therefore, the courts of appeal are unable to carry out the tasks of extending monitoring over how the judge builds his belief through the contested ruling, so it firstly leads to the ignorance of the concerned people of the reason behind the issuance of the provisions. In fact, this study showed the definition of the flaws of shortcoming in reasoning, and the statement of what distinguishes it from other flaws that may overlap with it in some qualities, while it separates from it in a number of qualities. The present study sheds light on the views of comparative jurisprudence as well. Regarding the insufficiencies in reasoning, this study showed the effect of the flaws on the judicial ruling, and the consequences if the judgment marred the flaw of shortcomings in realistic and legal reasoning as well. In addition, the study showed the position of the comparative laws (Iraqi, Egyptian, French) regarding the extent to which the flaw of insufficiency of reasoning is considered one of the grounds for appeal as discrimination.