نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی

نویسندگان

• جواد یحیی زاده ¹
• محمد محمدی گرگانی ²

¹ دانشجوی دکتری حقوق عمومی دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی، تهران، ایران

² استادیار حقوق عمومی دانشگاه علامه طباطبایی، تهران، ایران

چکیده

اصل «جهان‌شمولی» به‌ویژه پس از جنگ جهانی دوم و از رهگذار شناسایی در «اعلامیه جهانی حقوق بشر»، افزون بر صبغه فلسفی اهمیت حقوقی نیز یافته است. این اهمیت صرفاً در «نظام بین‌المللی حقوق بشر» خلاصه نشده و «نظام‌های حقوقی ملی» را نیز تحت تاثیر قرار داده است. از سوی دیگر، «دستورگرایی» به‌مثابه پارادیم غالب در حقوق عمومی مدرن و البته همزاد جهان‌شمولی، با چالش‌‌هایی جدی روبرو شده که مهمترین آن‌ها «قواعد غیرقابل بازنگری» است. از این‌رو پرسش اصلی مقاله آن است که نخست، نسبت میان اصل جهان‌شمولی و قواعد غیرقابل بازنگری در قوانین اساسی چیست؟ و دیگر اینکه رویکرد قانون اساسی جمهوری اسلامی ایران در این‌باره کدام است؟ یافته‌های پژوهش متکی بر روش «هنجاری» و گردآوری اطلاعات از طریق «کتابخانه‌ای»، حاکی از آن است که قواعد غیرقابل بازنگری به‌نحو اجتناب‌ناپذیری پیامد «تاریخی» و «منطقی» اصل جهان‌شمولی حقوق بشر به‌شمار می‌روند. نیز تدقیق در قانون اساسی جمهوری اسلامی ایران در این ‌خصوص نشان می‌دهد علی‌رغم پذیرش برخی عناصر هسته‌ای مشترک راجع‌ به قواعد غیرقابل بازنگری توسط مقنن اساسی ایران، اصل جهان‌شمولی حقوق بشر به ‌رسمیت شناخته نشده است؛ آنچه بازنگری در این اصل و حرکت به سوی «دستورگرایی فراملی» را ناگریز می‌سازد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

• جهان‌شمولی حقوق بشر
• قواعد غیر قابل بازنگری
• دستورگرایی فراملی

موضوعات

• حقوق عمومی

عنوان مقاله [English]

The Relationship between Universalism in Human Rights and Unamendable Constitutional Rules; With a Reflection on the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran

نویسندگان [English]

• Javad Yahyazadeh ¹
• Mohammad Mohammadi Gorgani ²

¹ Ph.D. Student, Public Law, Allameh Tabataba’i University, Tehran, Iran

² Assistant Professor, Public Law, Allameh Tabataba’i University, Tehran, Iran

چکیده [English]

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 concept
of 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

کلیدواژه‌ها [English]

• Universalism of Human Rights
• Unamendable Constitutional Rules
• Transnational Constitutionalism