The Legitimacy of the Protected Domain in the 2005 Constitution of the Republic of Iraq between the Requirements of Protection and the Imperatives of Development
A Comparative Study
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.35246/vdkt7630Keywords:
Protected Domain, Constitutional Legitimacy, Constitutional Identity, Constitutional Amendment, Constitution of Iraq (2005)Abstract
This study examines the constitutional legitimacy of the protected domain in the 2005 Constitution of the Republic of Iraq, focusing on the tension between constitutional protection and the requirements of constitutional development. It proceeds from the assumption that constitutions embody a core constitutional structure that defines the identity of the constitutional order and sets substantive limits on the scope of constitutional amendment. Adopting an analytical and comparative methodology, the study explores the theoretical foundations of the protected domain and draws on comparative constitutional experiences, particularly those of India and Germany. It then analyzes the Iraqi constitutional framework, highlighting the absence of an explicit constitutional provision on the protected domain and the lack of practical experience with constitutional amendment. The study concludes that, notwithstanding this absence, the protected domain enjoys normative legitimacy derived from foundational constitutional principles; however, it requires further conceptual and institutional clarification to ensure constitutional stability while allowing for constitutional evolution.
Downloads
References
Arabic References
First : Books :-
I. Khalid , Hameed. (2009). The Political systems . Al-Sanhoori. Baghdad.
II. Al-Sanhoori , Abdulrazzaq. (1998) . Constitutional Jurisprudence . Dar Al-Nahdha Alarabia . Cairo .
III. Alshukri , Ali . (2022) . Philosophy of Constitutional Amendment . Zain Legal and Literary Library . Beirut .
IV. Al-Shawi , Mundhir . (2013) . The democratic state in political and legal philosophy – the democratic idea .Al Matbooaat press co. Beirut .
V. Abu Baker , Mahdi . (2018) . The influence of political culture on authoritarian and democratic systems . Zain Legal and Literary Library . Beirut .
VI. AlShinnawi , Waleed . (2016) . Judicial oversight of constitutional amendments . Dar Al Fikr Wal Qanun Publishing and Distribution. Egypt.
VII. Hashi , Yousif . (2009) . In constitutional theory . Ibn Al-Nadim Publishing and Distribution House . Beirut .
Second : Translated books to Arabic :-
VIII. Perdu , George , The State . Translated by: Dr. Fouad Kamel . Dar Al-Nahdha Alarabia . Cairo .
Third : Constitutions :-
IX. The Constitution of Bosnia and Herzegovina annexed to the Dayton Agreement of 1995.
X. The amended Constitution of Kuwait 1962.
XI. The amended German Constitution 1949 .
XII. The amended Norway constitution 1814 .
XIII. The amended Indian Constitution 1949 .
XIV. The amended United State of American constitution 1787.
XV. The Amended Italian constitution 1947 .
XVI. Constitution of the Republic of Iraq 2005 .
XVII. The amended Romanian constitution 1991.
XVIII. The amended French constitution 1958 .
XIX. Constitution of Qatar 2004 .
XX. The amended Canadian constitution 1867.
XXI. The amended Egyptian constitution 2014 .
Fourth: Rulings of the Federal Supreme Court of Iraq:-
XXII. Case No. (122/Federal/2017) dated November 16, 2017.
XXIII. Cases No. (89, 91, 92, and 93/Federal/2017) dated November 20, 2017.
XXIV. Case No. (59/Federal/2012 and its related case No. 110/Federal/2019) dated February 15, 2022.
XXV. Case No. (73 and its related cases No. 79, 89, 103, 104, 114, 118, 144, and 145/Federal/2023) dated August 28, 2023.
XXVI. Case No. (142/Federal/2021) dated December 2, 2021. 6. Case No. (263/Federal/2024) dated 11/2/2025.
XXVII. Case No. (161/Federal/2021) dated 21/2/2022.
XXVIII. Case No. (43/Federal/2021) dated 22/2/2022.
XXIX. Case No. (89/Federal/2024) dated 25/9/2024.
Fifth: Articles published on the Internet:-
XXX. Kifah Mahmoud Karim, Mesopotamia and the Three States, an article published on the Elaph electronic newspaper website.
XXXI. https://elaph.com/Web/opinion/2015/5/1006722.html
Foreign References :
Ouverages :-
XXXII. Gaillet, Aurore. (2021). La Cour constitutionnelle fédérale allemande – Reconstruire une démocratie par le droit (1945–1961), La Mémoire du Droit, Paris .
XXXIII. Burdeau, Georges. (1966) . Traité de science politique, Tome I, Librairie Générale de Droit et de Jurisprudence (LGDJ) . Paris.
XXXIV. Burdeau, Georges .(1966). Traité de science politique, Tome II, Librairie Générale de Droit et de Jurisprudence (LGDJ), Paris .
XXXV. Duverger, Maurice . (1970) .Institutions politiques et droit constitutionnel, Presses Universitaires de France (PUF), Paris .
XXXVI. Favoreu, Louis . (1986) . Les coursconstitutionnelles, Presses Universitaires de France (PUF), coll. « Quesais-je ? », Paris .
XXXVII. Verdussen, Marc . (2010) . La légitimité de la justice constitutionnelle, Bruylant, Bruxelles .
Articles et contributions:
XXXVIII. Albert, Richard . (2015) . « The Theory and Doctrine of Unconstitutional Constitutional Amendment in Canada », Queen’s Law Journal, Vol. 41, No. 2 .
XXXIX. Kriegel, Blandine . (1999) .« Le principe de légitimité », in L’avenir du droit – Mélanges enhommage à François Terré, Dalloz , Paris .
XL. Rigaux, Marie-Françoise . (2025) .« Légitimité et incomplétude de la justice constitutionnelle », in Droit constitutionnel et démocratie : de la nation à l’Europe – Dialogues avec Hugues Dumont, Larcier-Intersentia, Bruxelles .
XLI. Scholsem, Jean-Charles . (1998) . « Droit constitutionnel, branches du droit et droit des affaires », in Liber Amicorum Commission Droit et Vie des Affaires, Bruylant, Bruxelles,
Jurisprudence
Supreme Court of India:-
XLII. Indira Nehru Gandhi v. Raj Narain, Supreme Court of India, AIR 1975 SC 2299 .
XLIII. I.R. Coelho v. State of Tamil Nadu, Supreme Court of India, (2007) 2 SCC 1.
XLIV. Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, Supreme Court of India, AIR 1973 SC 1461.
XLV. Minerva Mills Ltd. v. Union of India, Supreme Court of India, AIR 1980 SC 1789.
XLVI. B. Federal Constitutional Court of Germany:-
XLVII. BVerfGE 89, 155 (1993) – Maastricht Treaty Decision, Federal Constitutional Court of Germany.
XLVIII. BVerfGE 123, 267 (2009) – Lisbon Treaty Decision, Federal Constitutional Court of Germany.
BVerfGE 125, 175 (2010) – Hartz IV Judgment, Federal Constitutional Court of Germany, 1 BvL 1/09, 1 BvL 3/09, 1 BvL
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Copyright and Licensing:
For all articles published in Journal of Legal Sciences, copyright is retained by the authors. Articles are licensed under an open access Creative Commons CC BY 4.0 license, meaning that anyone may download and read the paper for free. In addition, the article may be reused and quoted provided that the original published version is cited. These conditions allow for maximum use and exposure of the work.
Reproducing Published Material from other Publishers: It is absolutely essential that authors obtain permission to reproduce any published material (figures, schemes, tables or any extract of a text) which does not fall into the public domain, or for which they do not hold the copyright. Permission should be requested by the authors from the copyrightholder (usually the Publisher, please refer to the imprint of the individual publications to identify the copyrightholder).
Permission is required for: Your own works published by other Publishers and for which you did not retain copyright.
Substantial extracts from anyones' works or a series of works.
Use of Tables, Graphs, Charts, Schemes and Artworks if they are unaltered or slightly modified.
Photographs for which you do not hold copyright.
Permission is not required for: Reconstruction of your own table with data already published elsewhere. Please notice that in this case you must cite the source of the data in the form of either "Data from..." or "Adapted from...".
Reasonably short quotes are considered fair use and therefore do not require permission.
Graphs, Charts, Schemes and Artworks that are completely redrawn by the authors and significantly changed beyond recognition do not require permission.
Obtaining Permission
In order to avoid unnecessary delays in the publication process, you should start obtaining permissions as early as possible. If in any doubt about the copyright, apply for permission. Journal of Legal Sciences cannot publish material from other publications without permission.
The copyright holder may give you instructions on the form of acknowledgement to be followed; otherwise follow the style: "Reproduced with permission from [author], [book/journal title]; published by [publisher], [year].' at the end of the caption of the Table, Figure or Scheme.
