The principle of judicial neutrality between Iraqi law and Egyptian law

Abstract

The research deals with the fact that the Iraqi and Egyptian legislators have given the judge sufficient freedom to consider the case presented to him or not. Here, the judge has achieved his neutrality towards the opponents, and this freedom achieves the principles of justice and fairness and is consistent with all legal considerations that call for this principle. Therefore, the research concluded that in order for a judge to be neutral, he must be objective, because neutrality and objectivity in the judge are two essential matters in fair judgment, as an important part of the judge's objectivity is to monitor and record everything that takes place in the court session, and not to select from the opponents' interventions and leave some of them, and this is a very important and influential matter, as everything that takes place has a great influence on the statements and issuing the ruling, and the judge may not find some interventions meaningful, but another judge in the appeal, for example, may look at them from another angle and they are influential, so neutrality is a legal position in which the judge is far from bias towards one party or opponent at the expense of another, and if the judge's independence from external influences and pressures is one of the most important guarantees of litigation that instills reassurance in the souls of litigants, then the justice of the ruling requires that the judge not be affected by his social status and intellectual beliefs while performing his judicial work, and the judge is supposed to rise above his personal emotions to resolve the dispute in light of objective considerations and nothing else.