Public Law
kazem Ahmadi; Seyed Naser Soltani
Abstract
Schmitt was strongly opposed to the liberal approach to safeguarding the constitution, which he viewed as devoid of real political content and overly dependent on abstract legal principles. Instead, he advocated for a more decisive and politically charged role for the head of state, arguing that only ...
Read More
Schmitt was strongly opposed to the liberal approach to safeguarding the constitution, which he viewed as devoid of real political content and overly dependent on abstract legal principles. Instead, he advocated for a more decisive and politically charged role for the head of state, arguing that only such an individual could effectively protect the constitution in times of crisis. Schmitt challenged the liberal concept of a neutral and objective state, claiming that such a state is inherently incapable of making crucial political decisions necessary for safeguarding the constitution. He also criticized liberal democracy, arguing that it leads to a fragmented and indecisive political landscape, rendering it ineffective in maintaining the unity and cohesion of the state. Schmitt contended that the constitution, as the embodiment of the state's identity, cannot be protected solely through legal mechanisms but requires a strong and decisive political will—one that can act in the face of uncertainty and crisis. This article takes a descriptive-analytical approach to Karl Schmitt's critiques, a prominent German legal theorist, on liberalism, democracy, and parliamentarism, and examines their implications for the protection of the constitution.
Public Law
Morvarid Ahouri; Mohammad Hashemi; Maghsood Ranjbar
Abstract
The approach of liberal and Marxist thinkers, as the two dominant ideas in the twentieth century on freedom, shows their worldview on the issue of freedom and fundamental rights of individuals. The question is, which theories liberals and Marxists hold on the concept of freedom which was gained based ...
Read More
The approach of liberal and Marxist thinkers, as the two dominant ideas in the twentieth century on freedom, shows their worldview on the issue of freedom and fundamental rights of individuals. The question is, which theories liberals and Marxists hold on the concept of freedom which was gained based on historical experience over the past century? Also, to what extent, are their views towards individual rights and freedoms of their citizens and recognition of these rights and freedoms in practice different from each other?! In Berlin's view, Liberals conception of freedom is negative as opposed to Marxists which is a positive conception. Having considered the historical experiences and Marxists and liberals’ views in the last century, it seems that what guarantees the free will and constitutional liberties of individuals is the negative conception of freedom while the positive conception of freedom could lead to denial of free will and ultimately tyranny. Therefore, the main purpose of this article is to study, compare and determine the status of freedom (especially the common interpretation such as negative freedom and positive freedom) in comparison with the principles and rules governing the two political ideas of liberalism and Marxism.