نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
نویسندگان
1 دانشجوی دکتری حقوق عمومی، دانشکدة حقوق، دانشگاه قم، قم.
2 دانشیار گروه حقوق عمومی، دانشکدة حقوق، دانشگاه قم، قم.
چکیده
کلیدواژهها
موضوعات
عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسندگان [English]
Introduction
The republic stands as the central concept of modern public law, serving as the primary indicator for assessing the proportionality between legal-political systems and contemporary constitutional principles. This study employs an analytical methodology and library research to examine the conceptualization of republicanism in the Iranian Constitution vis-à-vis the foundations of modern public law, particularly the right to self-determination framed within social contract theory. While the notion of republic has roots in pre-modern Western political thought, its contemporary understanding emerged through developments that shaped modern public law. This evolution has produced diverse approaches to conceptualizing republicanism among Western thinkers, with contemporary jurists and political philosophers emphasizing its interconnection with related concepts such as non-domination (Viroli), the common good (Zoller), l'intérêt commun (Odier), general will (Rousseau), and representation (Montesquieu). These conceptual linkages have become increasingly prominent in modern legal and political discourse, necessitating their consideration in any comprehensive analysis of republicanism. When examining the Iranian Constitution as an integrated system of principles, one finds meaningful engagement with various dimensions of republican thought. Notably, despite the constitution's grounding in Sharia principles, it incorporates concepts that resonate with contemporary republican theory. This creates potential for an interactive compatibility between the constitution's framework and modern public law, even if complete conceptual alignment is absent.
Methodological Approach
This research adopts a comparative analytical framework that examines Western philosophical developments of republican thought, identifies core elements and dimensions of modern republicanism and systematically analyzes constitutional principles and their interpretive possibilities and maps points of conceptual convergence and divergence
Key Findings
The results reveal that:-
The relationship between the Iranian Constitution's conception of republic and modern public law principles is neither contradictory nor fundamentally divergent-
While significant differences exist in their foundational premises, the constitution maintains space for constructive engagement with modern republicanism-
Republican elements in the constitution are structurally embedded to exercise normative influence in legislation and governance-
The text demonstrates capacity to articulate republican concepts in their modern sense, despite theological differences.
Conclusion
The study demonstrates that while the Iranian Constitution's conception of republic differs substantially from modern Western models, it maintains sufficient conceptual flexibility to permit meaningful engagement with contemporary public law principles. This interactive compatibility suggests that the constitution's republican provisions can function as normative foundations within Iran's legal-political system while remaining open to dialogue with modern constitutional thought. The findings highlight the importance of contextual interpretation in assessing constitutional republicanism across different legal traditions.
کلیدواژهها [English]
)