Legal realism is a major movement in contemporary legal theory that emerged as a critique of legal formalism and the notion that judicial decisions can be derived mechanically from legal rules. It argues that legal rules are often indeterminate and that judicial decisions are influenced by social, economic, political, and psychological factors, thereby highlighting the distinction between “law in the books” and “law in action.” The movement developed in two main branches: American legal realism, which concentrates on judicial behavior and the practical operation of courts, and Scandinavian legal realism, which adopts an empiricist and anti-metaphysical approach to legal concepts.
Using a descriptive-analytical methodology, this study examines the principal tenets of legal realism and evaluates their relevance to the Iranian legal system. It analyzes Articles 167 and 20 of the Constitution, Article 3 of the Civil Procedure Code, and Clause 9 of the General Policies of Legislation from a realist perspective. The findings suggest that, despite the formal reliance of Iranian law on legislation and Islamic legal sources, features such as judicial interpretation, reliance on custom, consideration of social needs, and recourse to authoritative Islamic sources in cases of legislative silence demonstrate affinities with legal realism. A balanced application of realist insights may therefore strengthen judicial effectiveness while preserving the rule of law.