Abstract
IntroductionProtecting women’s rights has been a perennial concern of human rights advocates over the past two centuries. Their dedicated efforts have resulted in the recognition of gender equality in key human rights documents such as the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration ...
Read More
IntroductionProtecting women’s rights has been a perennial concern of human rights advocates over the past two centuries. Their dedicated efforts have resulted in the recognition of gender equality in key human rights documents such as the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. However, these documents alone have fallen short of achieving the anticipated goals in promoting gender equality. This gap prompted the drafting of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) to address gender discrimination in the member states. However, reports from the Committee on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women reveal that many member states have not fully complied with the provisions of CEDAW. This failure has raised doubts about the effectiveness of CEDAW in safeguarding women’s rights. On one hand, some states have entered reservations to specific provisions of the Convention; on the other hand, there appears to be a lack of binding mechanisms to hold them accountable for violating their obligations. It is thus crucial to re-evaluate the fundamental concepts of gender discrimination and the provisions of CEDAW in order to examine their feasibility in societies with different norms. CEDAW consists of 30 succinct articles aimed at eliminating all forms of discrimination against women in all societies, regardless of cultural, religious, or ethnic differences. However, it does not explicitly address specific religious or cultural norms, presenting only a universal solution that may not align with diverse contextual complexities. Consequently, several member states, including secular and Islamic ones (e.g., India, Pakistan, and Indonesia), encounter challenges in implementing the provisions. The challenges apparently stem from CEDAW’s emphasis on individualism, which overlooks communal concerns and requirements. Predictably, this approach, coupled with affirmative action favoring women, has sparked backlash against the status of women, even in the U.S. and Europe. In this respect, the present study tried to address the following research questions: What approach does CEDAW take towards the norms governing different societies? And what legal model does Islamic Sharia require to be applied in the domestic legal system, particularly within the framework of CEDAW? The research is based on the hypothesis that the effectiveness of CEDAW can be criticized in terms of normative frameworks and legal guarantees for enforcement. Materials and MethodsAs a qualitative inquiry, the present study used a descriptive–analytical method as well as library resources to examine the contemporary approaches of states toward gender equality. To achieve the objective, the study analyzed about 40 primary and secondary documents and sources, including books, journal articles, reports, etc. Results and DiscussionThe study focused on the needs and interests of involved entities, namely the member states, individual members of societies, and particularly women. The examination of the foundational concepts concerning gender equality and the provisions of CEDAW helped gain insight into the overall approach of the document towards cultural and religious norms governing different societies. CEDAW advocates for women’s rights by promoting equality between men and women in society, regardless of their distinctive roles and status within the family and broader community. Consequently, it does not explicitly address equality of rights in terms of equity or in a just or fair manner. Rather, its focus is on placing men and women in the same, equivalent positions. Furthermore, CEDAW does not explicitly refer to norms. Instead, it calls upon the member states to “modify the social and cultural patterns of conduct of men and women.” This approach can be characterized as somewhat abstract and vague, resembling radical individualism or even libertinism. However, many secular and Islamic states possess diverse social and cultural norms, customs, and taboos regarding the individual and social rights of women. Moreover, the teachings of religious leaders and traditional attitudes are heavily influenced by communitarianism. A notable example can be found in the teachings of Imam Ali, who approves or condemns personal behaviors based on their potential impact on society as a whole. Indeed, he strongly advocates for cultural reforms without any prejudice, recognizing the necessity for change when it serves the greater good.It is worth noting that some countries, such as the Islamic republic of Iran which is not even a member party of CEDAW, have reformed their national laws to eliminate discrimination against women, thus aligning more closely with CEDAW’s requirements. However, there are still concerns regarding the scope and the applicability of these social and legal reforms. Recent social backlash against affirmative action favoring women’s rights, freedom of homosexuality, and same-sex marriage in Western societies highlight the challenges in this regard. International legal documents should not underestimate the significance of social and cultural norms of societies, as radical individualism or libertinism can lead to serious issues such as civil disobedience and increased crime rates. There is thus a need for reforms in the provisions of CEDAW in order to meet the diverse needs and requirements of the global community. ConclusionHaving provided a brief overview of fundamental concepts related to gender equality, the present inquiry tested the hypothesis and examined the main shortcomings of CEDAW by delving into their nature and underlying causes. The analysis focused on the points of contention between the provisions of CEDAW and the positive laws in Iran, particularly in light of Islamic teachings. The analysis is crucial because the perspective of Shia leaders (esp. Imam Ali) on gender equality, which is significantly influenced by their communal concerns, has often been overlooked. Concerning the effectiveness of CEDAW, it is essential that interpreters or drafters of any alternative document consider different norms prevailing in the social context of member states, with particular attention to Sharia-based norms. Such an approach enhances the comprehensiveness of the document, enabling it to address different facets of gender discrimination in the member states
Abstract
Introduction
The admission of evidence and the burden of proving a claim are crucial elements in asserting rights in any legal proceeding, including the administrative proceeding. Judicial supervision serves specific objectives that the administrative proceeding must align with. Given the disparity ...
Read More
Introduction
The admission of evidence and the burden of proving a claim are crucial elements in asserting rights in any legal proceeding, including the administrative proceeding. Judicial supervision serves specific objectives that the administrative proceeding must align with. Given the disparity in power between citizens and administrative bodies, the admission of evidence in administrative proceedings should be facilitated in favor of citizens. Moreover, that the burden of proof rests with the claimant is a principle that should be adjusted in favor of citizens, and the court should accurately identify the true claimant party. Furthermore, the court’s decisions should be supported by evidence-based reasoning. During proceedings, both parties present their evidence, and the judge should actively seek additional evidence when required. Merely reflecting the conclusion of reasoning in the court’s decision falls short of characterizing the decision as evidence-based. In this respect, the present study aimed to examine a number of decisions by the Administrative Court of Justice concerning the distribution of the burden of proof, the judge’s active approach in seeking evidence, and the incorporation of reasoning process in the decisions. The study tried to address the following research questions: How is the burden of proof distributed between the parties during court proceedings? And to what extent are the issued decisions based on evidence?
Literature Review
A review of the related literature revealed a Persian-language article titled “Critical Analysis of Consideration of Evidence in the Administrative Court of Justice” (Mohsenzadeh, 2018), which investigated the issue of evidence in the Administrative Court of Justice.
Materials and Methods
Using a library research method, the present study analyzed the textual content of decisions issued by various branches of the Administrative Court of Justice.
Results and Discussion
Not every citizen who files a complaint in the Administrative Court of Justice is necessarily the claimant; they may have initially been accused of a violation by the administration. In such instances, the administration is the actual claimant, despite the citizen initiating the legal complaint. Moreover, when the administration fails to fulfill its legal obligations, the plaintiff citizen is burdened with proving the nullity in the lawsuit. Therefore, imposing the burden of proof on the citizen is not commensurate with the objectives of administrative proceedings.
In instances where the administration accuses a citizen of a violation and issues a decision or some kind of punishment based on that accusation, the administration should provide clear and compelling evidence—as imposing punishment necessitates incontrovertible proof. Put differently, by assessing evidence presented by both parties with a margin of 51% favoring the administration and 49% favoring the citizen, one cannot subject the citizen to penalties such as fines, building demolitions, or the revocation of business licenses. In cases where there is no punishment for the citizen, the administration must be held accountable, providing a rationale for its actions and decisions. Consequently, the burden of proof cannot be placed on the citizen making the claim as practiced in civil lawsuits, but rather it is necessary that the judge get actively involved in seeking evidence.
In administrative proceedings, most documents are under the control of the administration, leaving citizens without access to them. It is thus becomes incumbent upon the judge to request those documents from the administration and thoroughly examine them. In administrative proceedings, the judge must not adopt a passive stance, merely accepting the evidence presented by the involved parties. Instead, they should take an active role in seeking out evidence pertinent to different aspects of the case. Furthermore, if necessary, the judge should delegate the investigation to judicial officers or refer the matter to an expert.
Act on Organizations and Procedures of the Administrative Court of Justice addresses this need in Article (7) by considering the referral of matters to experts, as well as in Article (41), which predicts any investigation and the use of judicial officers for such purposes. Additionally, Article (44) grants judges the authority to demand documents from the administration. These articles underscore the imperative for judges to get actively involved in seeking evidence and to leverage these capabilities to uncover the truth and establish certainty in administrative proceedings. These legal provisions are designed to create balance and empower citizens, who often find themselves in a disadvantaged position against administrative bodies wielding public power. Therefore, it is of paramount importance to use such legal provisions in administrative proceedings to safeguard the rights of citizens.
Additionally, the court’s decision must be accompanied by evidence-based reasoning. A reasoned judgment includes the evidence presented by both parties. Moreover, the judge shall be tasked with determining what evidence is the most powerful and persuasive and why. The judge should clearly state both the premises of reasoning and the conclusion in the final verdict. Merely using phrases such as according to the contents of the case and the arguments expressed, followed by the conclusion, does not meet the criteria of evidence-based, valid judgment. Judges must not merely rely on the reasoning process as it goes on in their minds, nor is it sufficient to simply state the conclusion. Instead, they must incorporate the premises, the reasoning, and the conclusion in the final decision.
Conclusion
The findings indicate that the burden of proving the claim weighs heavily on the citizen. The judge, however, rarely exhibited the requisite level of diligence in seeking evidence and leveraging the provisions outlined in Articles (7), (41), and (44) of Act on Organizations and Procedures of the Administrative Court of Justice. It was also found that the reasoning process underlying the court’s decisions was not clearly articulated in the decisions.
Abstract
IntroductionArticle 38(1)(c) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice refers to “the general principles of law recognized by civilized nations” as one of the sources of international law. A widely held view is that these general principles serve as a complementary source of international ...
Read More
IntroductionArticle 38(1)(c) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice refers to “the general principles of law recognized by civilized nations” as one of the sources of international law. A widely held view is that these general principles serve as a complementary source of international law, filling gaps in treaty and customary law to ensure that there is no absence of applicable legal rules. However, some legal scholars argue that even when no legal gap exists, general principles of law play an important role in the interpretation and application of existing rules. Therefore, while treaties and customary international law are considered the primary sources of international law, the general principles of law function as independent sources. They aid in interpreting and complementing other sources where necessary. Accordingly, the general principles play a prominent role in the interpretation of treaties. Moreover, treaties are considered one of the most important sources for regulating relations in international law and hold a special place in international law due to their stability, clarity, and accuracy in establishing obligations. However, in most cases, the implementation of treaties is not possible without interpretation. Treaty interpretation is therefore a necessary and rational process aimed at understanding the treaty’s provisions, clarifying its concept, and determining its scope. In other words, the interpretation of a treaty serves to eliminate ambiguity and uncover its precise content. The interpretation of treaties holds particular significance within the realm of treaty law. In the interpretative process, beyond the text and context of the treaty itself, relevant rules of international law—including the general principles of law—can play a crucial role. A treaty is a product of the international legal system, and its interpretation and application must be carried out within the framework of that system. The present study aimed to address the following research question: What is the role of general principles of law in treaty interpretation? Literature ReviewThe general principles of law can be regarded both as a source of international law and as a tool for interpreting treaties. While there is extensive research on their role as a source of international law, their function as a tool for interpreting treaties has received far less attention. As a result, there is a noticeable gap in the literature regarding the specific focus of the present study. In this respect, this research aimed to address that gap by drawing on all relevant sources—including international jurisprudence and the work of the International Law Commission—to examine the role of general principles of law in treaty interpretation. Materials and MethodsUsing a descriptive–analytical method, the current study relied on library sources, international documents, international judicial decisions, and arbitration awards to examine the role of general principles of law in treaty interpretation. Results and DiscussionThe general rule of interpretation, set out in Article 31 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, consists of several elements that must be considered by the interpreter in the process of interpretation. In principle, a treaty is interpreted according to the ordinary meaning of its terms. In this regard, Article 31(1) of the Vienna Convention states: “A treaty shall be interpreted in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning to be given to the terms of the treaty in their context and in the light of its object and purpose” (Vienna Convention, 1969) However, in some cases, the text and context of a treaty may not be sufficient to interpret its terms. In such situations, the interpreter must refer to other rules outside the treaty itself to carry out the interpretation appropriately. According to Article 31(3)(c) of the Convention, in addition to the context, “any relevant rules of international law applicable in the relations between the parties” (Vienna Convention, 1969) must also be taken into account in treaty interpretation. ConclusionThis study concluded that the application of general principles of law as a means of interpreting treaties is grounded in Article 31(3)(c) of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties. This view is supported by the majority of legal scholars, the International Law Commission, and international jurisprudence. International jurisprudence provides numerous examples of the use of general principles of law in treaty interpretation, many of which were analyzed in this research. Moreover, the use of general principles of law in treaty interpretation appears to contribute to reducing the potential fragmentation of international law, while promoting coherence and interaction among its various sources.
Abstract
Introduction“Competence” is one of the few words on which the history of modern administrative law can be said to be based. Despite the importance of this concept, little attention has been paid to its principles and different aspects, and the main discussions have focused on the dual concepts ...
Read More
Introduction“Competence” is one of the few words on which the history of modern administrative law can be said to be based. Despite the importance of this concept, little attention has been paid to its principles and different aspects, and the main discussions have focused on the dual concepts of “ministerial power and discretionary power”. Given the place of foreign law in the field of administrative law, analyzing the origins and aspects of words can help prevent mere adaptation with no attempt at conformity. Examining the concept of competence and its types distinguishes public law, in particular administrative law, from civil law, and consequently makes it easier to identify the appropriate legal rules. The division of competence is not limited to the two types of ministerial and discretionary power. These divisions Affect the manner of judicial control, the type of civil liability regime, and the quality of the principle of legality. Contrary to popular belief, it has also been shown that the principle of "assumption of no authority" does not apply equally to all areas of administrative law. Competence also has its own reflections in the field of administrative contracts, unilateral actions, management of internal affairs of the administrative organization, public order, and public service, which, of course, should be examined on a broader basis.Regarding discretionary power, valuable books have been written, which are mostly focused on the two types of discretionary and ministerial power, such as the book " Discretionary Power" by Dr. Ali Mashhadi in 2013 and the book "Discretionary Power in the context of Modern Public Law" " published in 2014 by Dr. Reza Fanazad.Despite the importance of the two concepts above, it seems that diving deep into analyzing and clarifying the main concept of competence is still necessary and can help to provide appropriate legislation and more accurate judicial decisions in this area. Method and PurposeThis article, through a comparative-analytical method, discusses the different types and functions of competence in the field of administrative law, after dealing with the concept and similar concepts. Also, with a library research method of data collection, we seek to provide as much precision as possible to the key legal concepts in the field of administrative competence, to further explain the nature of administrative functions and facilitate judicial supervision over them. Main Text Competence in the judicial sense, simply, is the lawsuits and complaints that a judicial authority can, and must, deal with.With the provided definition, it should be possible to distinguish the concept of "competence" from "authority". The authority of a judicial authority can be considered as a set of legal facilities that a judge possesses and uses to discover the truth and verify the validity of the parties’ claims, in his capacity of adjudicating and after establishing his jurisdiction. Despite such a distinction in the field of judicial law, in the specific topics of administrative law, the concept of competence includes both the authority and scope of action of the agent. Therefore, it can be said that in Article 170 of the Constitution, in the phrase " or lie outside the authority of the executive power " authority means the field of action of executive authorities.Administrative competence in its strict sense, i.e., inherent or special competence, regarding its content and raison d’etre, has three basic characteristics:1- Undertaking affairs of others: The authority is basically a set of powers and duties that are provided to the administrative officer to perform a public mission or serve the public interest. Therefore, administrative competence is actually the power to administrate the citizens' affairs, or in the words of civil law, administration of another’s affairs.2- Exclusive tenure of a mission: competence is the exclusive responsibility of a public matter which is determined by thematic, temporal, or geographical criteria.3- Possessing legal powers and privileges: the mission of securing the public interest, in principle, requires the possession of a special privilege of authority.- Categories of administrative competence:1- Discretionary competence vs. ministerial competence: The most common and familiar division of administrative competence is ministerial and discretionary. ministerial competence in the shortest definition is where only one option is available to the administrative officer, and on the other hand, discretionary competence is where more than one option is available to the administrative officer based on which he has to decide and act.2- Instituting competence (constitutional) vs. diagnostic competence (declarative): when discussing diagnostic competence, it is noteworthy to check its resemblance with the discretionary competence of the administration. There is a fine line between these two types of competence. The diagnostic competence oversees the identification and diagnosis of the subject and has similarities with the judicial function, in the sense that the relevant authority checks whether the subject of investigation is in accordance with the legislative decree or not. For example, the interview board for PhD selection or employment interview committees identify people who possess the scientific and moral capabilities required by the law. In other words, diagnostic competence is basically declarative in nature and therefore has a quasi-judicial function. Also, to prevent errors and personal conflicts as much as possible, diagnostic authority is usually assigned to a council of experts. The said council is speciallyfounded based on this type of competence, and it has no other functions, so it can be said that the mentioned competence is the reason d’etre of these bodies of authority. On the other hand, instituting authority is where the administrative officer takes an initiative decision and creates a right or obligation or a new legal situation and so, it can be said to be a completely administrative measure. Also, the holder of instituting authority can be an individual officer or a council consisting of people. In addition, the range of functions of an officer with instituting authority is not limited to one or more cases, and to fulfill his multiple missions, he may have ministerial authority in some cases and discretionary authority in other cases.3- General competence vs. special (inherent) competence: administrative competence in its common sense is special or intrinsic competence. The authority of the administration in the legal actions it takes can be divided into two main types according to the nature of its function and goals: general authority and specific or inherent authority of the administration.General authority is the total authority that the administrative body has like any other legal entity. As a legal entity, the administration is considered to have a legal personality and should have the powers that every legal person needs to carry out its affairs. Competences such as concluding contracts and the capability to possess property rights to meet specific needs are among these common competencies.specific or inherent competence of the administration are the powers that the administration has as an official for public service. Not only do private legal entities not have this type of authority, but in many cases, it is specific and exclusive to a certain public person, and for this reason, they are called the special authority of the administration. For example, supervising the standards of urban buildings is the responsibility of the municipality, and in this regard, it can change them if necessary where deemed necessary.In the following, we have discussed the concept and basis of the principle of assumption of no authority in administrative law and we show that the said principle has different functions in different areas of administrative contracts, unilateral actions, internal affairs of the organization, public order, and public services.finally, we have discussed the consequences of different types of competence and their relationship with the scope of judicial control, the regime of civil responsibility, and the principle of legality. ConclusionAdministrative authority, due to belonging to the field of public law and conducting public affairs, has two important characteristics of exclusiveness and authoritativeness. In addition, other classifications of competence which have a practical impact in determining the applicable legal regime should also be recognized. Classification of competence into two types of instituting and diagnostic, on one hand, and into two types of general and special competence on the other, as well as identifying the characteristics of the principle of “assumption of no authority” in terms of its basis and function, require more reflection.It is needed to separate the scope of the implementation of the mentioned principle in the two areas of public order and public services and consider the different circumstances. The public law nature of the concept of competence makes the role of the administration important in administrative contracts, unilateral actions, management of internal affairs of the organization, and the fields of public order and public services, so much so that one cannot expect acceptable function from administrative bodies if this concept is not accurately defined in the field of public law.
Abstract
Introduction
Universalism stands as a cornerstone in the realm of human rights, representing both a fundamental and contentious principle. Its significance lies in being foundational, shaping the minimal framework of international human rights law and influencing various international documents and ...
Read More
Introduction
Universalism stands as a cornerstone in the realm of human rights, representing both a fundamental and contentious principle. Its significance lies in being foundational, shaping the minimal framework of international human rights law and influencing various international documents and declarations. However, it also sparks controversy due to the fact that human rights often reflect a specific perspective, rooted in the modern, liberal, democratic, and secular traditions of the West. It can be argued that constitutionalism, the prevailing paradigm in contemporary legal systems, is an accomplishment resulting from the historical evolution of the conceptof right, human experiences during the Age of Enlightenment, and, notably, the technological advancements spurred by the Industrial Revolution in the West.
Nonetheless, constitutionalism confronts substantial challenges in the contemporary era. For example, unamendable rules are the institution acknowledged in most constitutions. Noteworthy instances include the recognition of human dignity in Germany, republicanism and secularism in France, theocracy in Iran and Afghanistan, the separation of powers in Greece, territorial integrity in Madagascar, and political pluralism in Portugal and Romania. In “Constitutional Handcuffs,” Richard Albert, a preeminent scholar in this field, states: “The advent of the written constitution has given rise to an enduring tension in constitutional statecraft pitting constitutionalism against democracy” (2017, p. 18). However, the constitutional unamendability, facilitated through entrenchment clauses, entails the freezing of certain constitutional articles or fundamental values, potentially sidelining democratic principles and popular choice.
The present study aimed to explore the relation between constitutional unamendability and the universal values of human rights. The pivotal question revolves around whether constitutional designers have the authority to shield any value from popular amendment, potentially compromising democracy to a significant extent. The acknowledgment of a relation between the universal values in human rights and the incorporation of unamendability in the constitution would imply that constitutional designers are only allowed to entrench the universal values by superconstitutional provisions, thus imposing restrictions on democracy.
Literature Review
There are significant contributions about universality of human rights and unamendable constitutional rules. Notable among these are: the book titled Contemporary Human Rights written in Persian by Mohammad Qari Seyed Fatemi and the English paper titled “Origins and Universality in the Human Rights Debates: Cultural Essentialism and the Challenge of Globalization” by Michel Goodhart (2003). Richard Albert’s outstanding book titled Constitutional Amendments: Making, Breaking, and Changing Constitutions (2019) also serves as a key reference about constitutional unamendability. Despite these valuable contributions, there remains a gap in research concerning the relation between universalism of human rights and constitutional unamendability. Furthermore, it seems there is not a serious study addressing the approach of the Islamic Republic of Iran in this regard. Consequently, the present article stands as an innovative endeavor, as it seeks to delve into the unexplored relation and sheds light on the unique perspective of the constitutional designers in the Islamic Republic of Iran.
Materials and Methods
This study falls within the category of normative legal research. Normative legal theory seeks to offer a pure, self-sufficient explanation of the law, analyzing values, concepts, principles, rules, models, and argumentations in the legal doctrine. In this line, the present analysis relied on relevant theories and doctrines to examine the relation between universalism of human rights and constitutional unamendability.
Results and Discussion
The origins of the emergence of universalism principle in contemporary human rights can be traced back to the profound debates between two trends in philosophy and ethics: deontological ethics and utilitarianism. In Kant’s philosophy, the concept of right is articulated in a manner synonymous with human rights, warranting the characterization of Kant’s philosophy as a philosophy of human rights in the exact sense of the word. Kant ascribes a transcendental status to morality, giving rise to the notions of transcendental human and universal human rights. According to Kant, moral rules grounded in duty possess absolute generality akin to natural laws; in other words, they cannot be taken as exceptions. This is where Kant introduces the concept of the absolute in his philosophy. His most explicit proposition in this context was formulated as follows: “Act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law”.
Nevertheless, the philosophical perspective of utilitarianism challenges Kant’s approach and presents thoughtful criticisms. Hegel, for instance, underscored the formal and abstract character of Kant’s philosophy, contending that social ethics finds no place in Kant’s intellectual framework. Hegel acknowledged the impracticality of Kant's philosophy, asserting its incapacity to formulate practical rules. Drawing from philosophical hermeneutics, Gadamer similarly scrutinized Kant’s concept of the absolute and his idea of universalizability. Gadamer actually placed emphasis on the spatiotemporal understanding of humanity and regarded a transhistorical and transgeographical understanding as, at the very least, contentious.
Moreover, unamendable constitutional rules are those roles that are by no means subject to modification and change as understood by the founders of a given legal–political system. Essentially, the only way to amend these rules involves a fundamental transformation in the nature and foundational values of the legal–political regime. As evident, there exist shared principles regarding the substance of unamendable constitutional rules in progressive legal systems, all converging on the central notion that values emanating from constitutionalism and universalism should be entrenched and safeguarded against amendment.
Conclusion
According to the research findings, acknowledging the universality of human rights hinges on recognizing the unique nature of the human and its capacity for transhistorical and transcultural thinking. Additionally, unamendable constitutional rules, as a pivotal aspect of the constitution, pose a significant challenge to constitutionalism. Aimed at safeguarding the achievements of constitutionalism, these rules restrict citizens from exercising their right to self-determination. Examples of such rules include human dignity, fundamental rights, democracy, separation of powers, and political and religious pluralism. The present research indicated that unamendable constitutional rules in modern constitutions are the logical-cum-historical consequence of the principle of universalism, all sharing common core elements. Consequently, global constitutions are not allowed to define the content of unamendable constitutional rules as contradictory to the values of constitutionalism and universalism. This phenomenon has propelled a shift towards transnational constitutionalism. Furthermore, the research findings shed light on the approach of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Article (177), in a contradictory and somewhat paradoxical stance, acknowledges certain core elements of unamendable constitutional rules aligned with the principle of universalism. Meanwhile, it recognizes several subjects, which diverge from universalism, given their distinct intrareligious and intralegal values. This inevitably necessitates efforts towards amendments and integration, propelling a move towards transnational constitutionalism.
Keywords: Universalism of Human Rights, Unamendable Constitutional Rules, Transnational Constitutionalism
)
