Analysis of the Ratio between the Concept of Republic in the Constitution of I.R.Iran and Modern Public Law

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 PhD Student in Public Law, Department of Public Law, Qom University,Qom, Iran.

2 Associate Professor, Department of Public Law, Qom University, Qom, Iran.

10.22059/jpq.2025.385830.1008254

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

References
Althusser, L. (1985). Montesquieu, la politique et l’histoire (6th ed.). Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
Arendt, H. (1963). On revolution. New York: Viking Press.
Audier, S. (2015). Les théories de la république. La Découverte. Retrieved from https://www.futurouest.com/les-theories-de-la-republique/
Bezemek, C., & Dumbrovsky, T. (2020). The concept of public interest (Graz Law Working Paper No. 01-2020). Charles University in Prague, Faculty of Law. https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3701204
Brooks, T. (2007). Locke and law. England: Ashgate Publishing Company.
Fontana, B. (2021). The invention of the modern republic (M. A. Mousavi Fereidani, Trans.). Tehran: Shirazeh Publishing. [In Persian]
Foroughi, M. A. (1965). The course of philosophy in Europe (Vol. 2). Tehran: Zavvar. [In Persian]
Ghazi Shariatpanahi, A. (1994). Constitutional law and political institutions (Vol. 1). Tehran: University of Tehran. [In Persian]
Gradpre Molière, J. J. (1972). La théorie de la constitution anglaise chez Montesquieu. Leyde, Netherlands: Presses Universitaires de Leyde.
Haghighat, S. S. (2012). Methodology of political science. Qom: Mofid University. [In Persian]
Hobbes, T. (2013). Leviathan (H. Bashirieh, Trans.; C. B. Macpherson, Ed., 8th ed.). Tehran: Ney. [In Persian]
Kant, I. (2016). Critique of practical reason (E. Rahmati, Trans., 5th ed.). Tehran: Sophia. [In Persian]
Laughlin, M. (2010). Foundations of public law. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Locke, J. (1988). Two treatises of government (P. Laslett, Ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
MacIver, R. (1975). Society and government (E. Ali-Kani, Trans.). Tehran: Institute for Translation and Publishing of Books. [In Persian]
Mahmoudi, S. A. (2016). Kant’s political philosophy (3rd ed.). Tehran: Contemporary Vision. [In Persian]
McDonald, V. (1973). A guide to the interpretation of Locke the political theorist. Canadian Journal of Political Science, 6(4), 38. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0008423900040464.
MirMousavi, S. A. (2013). Islam, tradition, modern state. Tehran: Ney. [In Persian]
Montesquieu, Baron de. (2001). The spirit of laws (T. Nugent, Trans.). Canada: Batoche Books.
Mosallanejad, A. (2019). Republicanism in Iran. Tehran: Akhtaran. [In Persian]
Ostovarsangari, K. (2019). The legal state. Tehran: Mizan. [In Persian]
Pettit, P. (1997). Republicanism: A theory of freedom and government. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Pettit, P. (1999). Republican freedom and contestatory democratization. In I. Shapiro & C. Hacker-Cordon (Eds.), Democracy’s value (p. 165). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pouladi, K. (2015). History of political thought in the West (Vol. 3, 8th ed.). Tehran: Markaz. [In Persian]
Rauscher, F. (2015). Kant’s social and political philosophy (D. Mirzaei, Trans.). Tehran: Qoqnoos. [In Persian]
Rousseau, J.-J. (2001). The social contract (Text and context) (M. Kalantarian, Trans.; G. Chaumette, A. Sénik, C. Morali, & J. Medina, Eds.). Tehran: Agah. [In Persian]
Rousseau, J.-J. (2007). Discourse on inequality (H. Raghfar & H. Javdani, Trans.). Tehran: Institute for Management and Planning Studies. [In Persian]
Sanei Darreh Beidi, M. (2015). The place of man in Kantian thought (2nd ed.). Tehran: Qoqnoos. [In Persian]
Tully, J. (1988). Meaning and context: Quentin Skinner and his critics. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Viroli, M. (2002). Republicanism (A. Shugaar, Trans.). New York: Hill and Wang.
Viroli, M. (2015). Republicanism (H. Afshar, Trans.). Tehran: Markaz. [In Persian]
Waldron, J. (2004). Judicial review and republican government. In C. Wolfe (Ed.), That eminent tribunal: Judicial supremacy and the Constitution. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Wen, Y. (2024). Public interest vs. special interest: The strategic framing tactics of technologies in the political arena. Research Policy, 53(8), Article 105071. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2024.105071
Wiener, P. P. (2013). Dictionary of political thought: Extracted from the dictionary of the history of ideas (K. Dehimi, Trans., 5th ed.). Tehran: Ney. [In Persian]
Zoller, E. (2008a). Introduction to public law: A comparative study. Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
Zoller, E. (2008b). Public law as the law of the res publica. Suffolk Transnational Law Review, 32, 93–101.
Zoller, E. (2017). An introduction to public law (S. M. Vaezi, Trans.). Tehran: Javardaneh Publishing. [In Persian]
 
 

Files

History

  • Receive Date: 27 November 2024
  • Revise Date: 15 January 2025
  • Accept Date: 04 May 2025

Share

How to cite

Statistics