قانون اساسی

purpose of this article is to investigate the relationship between the rule of law and the ruling of the government in the Islamic Republic of Iran.

This article is descriptive and analytical. Materials and data are also qualitative and data collection was used in collecting materials and data.

Ethical Considerations:

 In this article, the originality of the texts, honesty and trustworthiness are observed.

regarding the possible conflict between the rule of law and government decree, there are various solutions, such as interpreting the limits of the authority of the jurist within the framework of legal standards, predicting the adjustment mechanism in the. And referring to the rulings stipulated in the constitution in cases of ambiguity is one of the most important of them. Since the ruling of the government is issued in cases where there is a legal gap, therefore, it is not in conflict with the law.

The result is that, in general, considering that the main basis of the, and usually in cases of necessity and crises, it is considered to complement the legal gaps in the society; it does not conflict with each other, and the government decree complements the principle of the rule of law. Of course, the ruling of the government is temporary and includes a specific time and depends on the expediency of the society within the framework of the Holy Sharia, but the law is fixed.

The internationalization of fundamental rights, in other words, the introduction of international laws into domestic laws, is an area that has not received much attention in the past. This practice has changed in recent years, because it is believed that the internationalization of laws is a key part of our understanding of the role that international law plays in shaping the behavior of states.

This article is descriptive and analytical. Materials and data are also qualitative and data collection was used in collecting materials and data.

Ethical Considerations:

 In this article, the originality of the texts, honesty and trustworthiness are respected.

The inclusion of international law in the constitutions of states is a main component by which international law not only becomes binding for states, but can also change the public understanding of global norms and acceptable behaviors. The application of principle agreed by governments at the level of the international of proper and legal behavior at the domestic level. Just as domestic law is based on culturally relevant legal norms and institutions, international law must also be established to reach a necessary or mandatory level that is necessary to shape government action.

For internationalization to be successful, it is necessary to pay attention to the type of international law in question as well as the legal, political, social and cultural aspects of the states that may facilitate or slow down the internationalization process of the constitution.

Iran's new oil contracts, known as IPC, is a new model of contract to restore relations with the industrial world, which includes all oil operations from exploration and drilling to development and exploitation and increased harvesting. In fact, the purpose of this research is to study these types of contracts For the implementation of upstream projects in the country's oil and gas industry, it is from the perspective of the Islamic Republic of Iran's Constitution, which was written in a descriptive-analytical way, and the findings of the research indicate that the principles of exploitation of oil resources, including the negation of foreign economic domination and economic independence and The observance of public interests and public interests in the provisions of the approved general conditions have been observed and the non-contradiction of this type of contract with the principles and provisions of the Constitution is obvious, and the indicators of foreign financing, security production, technology transfer and maximum use of domestic capacities with the initiative of prolonging the period The contract and tying the contractor's fee to the amount of production from the field or tank, without transferring the sovereignty and ownership of the National Oil Company as the operator of the oil and gas resources, is superior compared to the mutual sale contracts.

Normativity, which is based on the rule of law and the requirement for punishment of law, is one of the most important qualitative features of the law. The enactment of laws lacking normative principles will certainly threaten the legal security of citizens. On the other hand, the role of the constitutional courts in monitoring the normativity of law can be analyzed. Inspired by the French Constitutional Council's procedures, an examination of the procedures of the Iranian Guardian Council and the German Federal Constitutional Court reveals instances in which these institutions, in addition to applying laws to the principles of the constitution (and sharia in the case of Iran), have also considered the normativity of laws.This article seeks to answer the question: What is the basis of the legitimacy, criteria, and manner of control of the Guardian Council of Iran and the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany in monitoring the normativity of laws? A comparative review of the procedures of the Constitutional Courts of Iran and Germany shows that both institutions are not far behind their traditional constitutional features in monitoring the normativity of laws, and the normativity of laws is governed by constitutional and religious scrutiny and they control the normality of laws through basic and sharia supervision..

Procedural rights are of particular importance as guarantors and supporters of substantive rights. Today, the right to petition and legal recourse is recognized as part of individual fundamental rights and freedoms, and as a vital tool for the protection of the right to life. This right has garnered attention in both domestic and international legal systems, with international legal instruments such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and national constitutions striving to realize it. In this context, although the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran does not overlook the right to legal recourse, the necessary mechanisms for the full realization of this fundamental right are sometimes lacking, and there are normative and structural barriers to its realization. This study aims to examine the Iranian legal system and analyze the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran concerning the right to petition and legal recourse. Using a descriptive-analytical method and library-based tools, this research explores the reasons behind the incomplete realization of this right in Iranian positive law. The results indicate that although the Constitution explicitly affirms the right to legal recourse in light of human rights principles, positive laws may pose barriers to the full realization of this right, disregarding the Constitution.

Legislators and political elites play a major role in deciding the quality and content of the Constitution. However, now there are different methods to give more effectiveness to the position and role of the people in determining the content of the constitution, to avoid the constitution that only reflects the views of legislators and elites, strengthen the possibility of drafting and approving a new constitution with a high degree of public legitimacy. The focus of this research, which was done in a library method and with a descriptive-analytical view, is to suggest opportunities to make the process of people's participation more realistic in the stage of determining the content of the Constitution. The findings of the research show that while there is no single model for how to use public participation in the process of determining the content of the constitution, a combination of methods including requests for submissions and comments, Surveys or questionnaires, face-to-face meetings, consultative referendums, and advisory boards can be used according to circumstances to ensure that as many people are given the opportunity to participate. In addition, although public participation in constitution making is today an almost universal norm associated with legitimacy, peace, and democratic outcomes, it also carries risks. If the manner and extent of effectiveness of public votes in determining the content of the law has not been determined legally can undermine the legitimacy of the process and lead to disagreements or challenges in drafting the final text of the law. In order to achieve the best result, it is inevitable to formulate laws that specify the mechanisms and methods of its realization in a transparent manner and by requiring the use of public participation.

The quest for meaning in various texts lies at the heart of hermeneutics, the study of interpretation. This pursuit of understanding transcends mere words, aiming to bridge the gap between a text and its intended audience across time, culture, and personal perspectives. Nowhere is a consistent and well-defined interpretive approach more crucial than in the legal realm, where the interpretation of foundational documents like constitutions carries significant weight. This paper examines the interpretive approach employed by the Guardian Council in Iran for interpreting the nation's constitution. By analyzing the Council's practices through the lens of hermeneutical theories, this work seeks to illuminate the strengths and weaknesses of their approach and suggest potential avenues for improvement.The Iranian constitution, like its counterparts around the world, occupies a position of paramount importance within the legal hierarchy. It serves as the bedrock upon which all other laws are built, and its interpretation carries the weight of shaping the nation's legal landscape. A consistent and well-defined interpretive approach is therefore paramount to ensure clarity, fairness, and the upholding of the constitution's original intent.Here, hermeneutics comes to the fore. By offering frameworks for understanding texts, hermeneutics provides valuable tools for navigating the complexities of constitutional interpretation. Different schools of hermeneutical thought, each with its own emphasis, offer diverse perspectives on how to approach the task of interpreting a text. Understanding these schools is crucial for evaluating the Guardian Council's interpretive practices. Traditionally, hermeneutics has been understood as operating within a triangular framework comprised of the author, the text, and the interpreter. The author-centered approach prioritizes the original intent of the text's creator. The text-centered approach focuses on the inherent meaning within the text itself, independent of the author's intentions. Finally, the interpreter-centered approach emphasizes the role of the interpreter's background, experiences, and biases in shaping their understanding of the text.The Guardian Council, in its official pronouncements, declares its interpretive approach to be centered on the "intent of the legislator" (the constitution's framers). This suggests an adherence to the author-centered model of hermeneutics. However, the Council's methodology in practice reveals a more nuanced picture.One aspect of the Council's approach aligns with objectivist hermeneutics, a branch of the author-centered school. Objectivist hermeneutics emphasizes the importance of understanding the text within its historical context and the original intent of its creators. The Council's reliance on references to the law-making process demonstrates a partial commitment to this principle.However, the Council's practices often deviate from a purely objectivist approach. In some instances, the Council resorts to literal interpretations, focusing solely on the plain meaning of the words in the constitution. While this approach can be useful for achieving clarity, it can also lead to rigidity and fail to capture the nuances of the text's meaning in its broader context.More concerning are instances where the Council goes beyond literal interpretations. Such extra-literal interpretations, while potentially motivated by a desire to adapt the constitution to changing circumstances, can stray from the spirit of the document and the intent of its framers. This inconsistency in the Council's approach can generate confusion and inconsistencies in the legal system.The Council's use of extra-literal interpretations, particularly when it deviates from the text's spirit and authorial intent, suggests a potential shift towards a fusion of meaning horizons. This concept, associated with philosophical hermeneutics, highlights the interaction between the interpreter's understanding and the meaning inherent within the text. While valuable in some contexts, a fusion approach can lead to interpretations heavily influenced by the interpreter's own biases and agendas, potentially undermining the objectivity of the legal process.Furthermore, the Council's interpretive pronouncements often lack clear justifications for their rulings. This opacity makes it difficult to discern a consistent interpretive approach and raises concerns about accountability. Without clear explanations of the rationale behind their interpretations, the Council risks accusations of arbitrariness and undermines public confidence in the legal system.Despite aiming for the "intent of the legislator" and often employing elements of objectivist hermeneutics, the Guardian Council's approach falls short of fully embracing the strengths of this school. To achieve more consistent and well-founded interpretations, the Council could benefit from a more thorough application of objectivist hermeneutics.One crucial element is the hermeneutical circle, a concept that emphasizes the cyclical nature of interpretation. The interpreter begins with a preliminary understanding of the text, which is then refined through a deeper analysis of its historical context, authorial intent, and the language used. This analysis, in turn, informs a more nuanced understanding of the text, leading back to a potential reinterpretation. By engaging in this iterative process, the Council can arrive at interpretations that are more grounded in the text's original meaning and historical context.Another important aspect of objectivist hermeneutics is the consideration of both grammatical and technical (psychological) interpretations. Grammatical interpretation focuses on the literal meaning of the words within the text. Technical interpretation, on the other hand, delves deeper, considering the underlying social, political, and cultural context in which the text was created. By employing both methods, the Council can achieve a more holistic understanding of the constitution's intended meaning.Furthermore, objectivist hermeneutics emphasizes the importance of attempting to reconstruct the author's perspective. This involves delving into the debates and discussions surrounding the constitution's creation to gain a deeper understanding of the framers' intentions and the reasoning behind specific clauses. By incorporating this element into their interpretive process, the Council can ensure their interpretations remain faithful to the spirit of the constitution.By embracing the full framework of objectivist hermeneutics, the Guardian Council can navigate the space between "interpretive reality" and "interpretive truth." Interpretive reality refers to the initial understanding of the text based on the interpreter's background and current context. Interpretive truth, on the other hand, strives to arrive at an understanding that is as close as possible to the original meaning intended by the authors.While the interpreter's perspective can never be entirely erased, a well-developed objectivist approach can minimize the influence of personal biases and agendas. By employing the hermeneutical circle, engaging in both grammatical and technical interpretations, and attempting to reconstruct the author's perspective, the Council can move closer to achieving interpretive truth. This, in turn, will lead to more consistent, well-founded, and ultimately, more meaningful interpretations of the Iranian constitution.The interpretation of the Iranian constitution plays a critical role in shaping the nation's legal landscape. Examining the Guardian Council's interpretive approach through the lens of hermeneutics reveals both strengths and weaknesses. While the Council demonstrates a partial commitment to objectivist hermeneutics, inconsistencies and a lack of transparency remain areas for improvement. By embracing the full potential of objectivist hermeneutics, the Council can achieve a more robust and well-defined interpretive framework, ensuring that the Iranian constitution's meaning remains clear, consistent, and true to the original intent of its framers. This, in turn, will contribute to a more stable and predictable legal environment for all citizens of Iran.

Unfortunately, the concept of the founding power remains neglected in discussions on the constitutional law of Iran. It has become a prevailing view that after determining the type and form of the regime and the formation and ratification of the constitution, this creative power comes to an end and dissolves in order to ensure the stability of the established system. This is dangerous because it may lead to the overlooking of the vital role of the people, who are the true creators of a political system. However, it must be noted that the creator cannot dissolve and disappear within its creation. Such a viewpoint leads to dictatorship and the erosion of the people's sovereignty. Therefore in this research, which is conducted using a descriptive-analytical method and library sources, important concepts that are often conflated will first be clarified. Then, the status of the founding power and its role in the 1979 Islamic Revolution will be examined based on Chapter VIII of Carl Schmitt's book, Theory of the Foundation.

In this article, it is claimed that in modern law, the drafting of the constitution is one of the most important and sensitive measures in forming the legal order. Because the legal system determines the general framework of individual actions and social interaction of people, and this is both for the present and future and of course, the form of this law is also a matter of choice. In line with justifying this claim, John Elster's theory of rational choice is one of the most influential and comprehensive theories in explaining and criticizing the methods of drafting the constitution, which is based on two principles: the first principle: "the individuality of human action" and the second principle " The benefit-centeredness of human actions" has been proposed. According to this opinion, the electoral behavior of a society is the best example of using a rational choice, and the formulation and construction of the constitution is the best case, because in this work, even if there is no malice, it may make the situation worse than it is, and this is due to "rationality". is incomplete. This essay has investigated the application of this method in the analysis of drafting and revising the basic law, or what is called the design of the constitution, with an emphasis on the thought of John Elster. The purpose of the research is to examine this theory in relation to how and why people participate in drafting and creating the constitution as rational agents. This is a Research Article

The necessity of overseeing elections is an inevitable and indisputable matter, and it serves as a crucial mechanism, authorization, and determining factor in the electoral process and the acceptance of election results. Given Article 99 of the Constitution, and considering the interpretations and methods of oversight by the Guardian Council, particularly the supervisory authority which leads to the expenditure of system resources to justify arbitrary and often political behaviors, there is a clear need for reform and review in this regard. In light of the shortcomings and issues present in the electoral process, and in order to improve the country's electoral system to protect the people's votes, an optimal oversight model is deemed necessary. Regarding oversight models for elections, it should be noted that, based on the experiences of other countries, supervisory bodies such as the legislature, executive, judiciary, electoral commissions, and supreme courts vary. In many democratic countries around the world, election oversight is carried out by judicial bodies, typically entrusted to institutions such as constitutional courts and supreme courts. Therefore, if the conditions allow for a constitutional revision in the Islamic Republic of Iran, judicial oversight could be proposed as the most appropriate model for election oversight in Iran among the various political systems. Judicial oversight refers to the involvement of institutions such as the Supreme Election Court, the Supreme Court, the High Council of Justice, or specialized courts with specific duties, powers, jurisdictions, and membership structures overseeing elections.

The freedom of assembly and procession is a fundamental civil and political right recognized in numerous human rights documents and legal systems, including that of the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI). The question arises as to what specific stance the IRI’s constitutional law takes on this kind of freedom. In this respect, the current study aimed to clarify the relationship between Principle 27 of the Constitution and other principles. Using a jurisprudential and legal analysis, the research sought to examine the position of Principle 27 within the broader context of the IRI’s Constitution. The analysis was to evaluate the right to assembly and procession in the Iranian legal system, offering insights into the ideal legal standard for freedom of assembly and procession.

Literature Review:

The Persian legal literature provides valuable but limited research on this topic, highlighting a notable gap in analytical approaches to examining the issue. To address this gap, the present study employed an analytical framework grounded in jurisprudential and legal analysis. 

As a qualitative inquiry, the present study used a library research method to collect the data. Moreover, a jurisprudential and legal analysis was conducted to analyze the data and examine the position of Principle 27 within Iran’s constitutional law.

The findings revealed several key insights. First, Principle 27 of the Constitution of the IRI, grounded in religious teachings and aligned with international and regional human rights documents, it recognizes the right to freedom of assembly and procession with minimal restrictions. Second, understanding the absolute right embedded in Principle 27 within Iran’s broader legal framework requires a holistic view of the Constitution and an assessment of how it relates to other constitutional principles. The analysis of this relevance revealed the universality of the right to freedom of assembly for all citizens, showing that it extends beyond the two specific restrictions stated in Principle 27. Finally, a review of domestic legal documents and executive procedures revealed contradictions with the theoretical field of constitutional rights in Iran. These legal frameworks, contrary to the constitutional perspective, adopt a permit-based approach that is notably stricter than similar systems in other permit-based legal systems. Moreover, the study advanced the argument that the lack of legislation on the part of the Islamic Consultative Assembly (the Iranian Parliament)—concerning the right of all citizens to hold assemblies and processions—does not render such gatherings illegal. If an assembly or procession does not conflict with the governing laws within the legal framework of the IRI, it is considered legal under Principle 27 of the Constitution.

A holistic view of the Constitution requires that the right to freedom of assembly and procession outlined in Principle 27 be considered in conjunction with other constitutional principles. The application of Principle 27, which is subject to two specified restrictions, falls under the jurisdiction of ordinary law tasked with determining issues such as the implementation procedures, conceptual scope, mechanisms for ensuring compliance, and guarantees against violations. In this context, valuable insights can be gained from historical interpretations, such as an analysis of the debates among members of the Assembly of Experts for the Constitution, to reveal the intent behind drafting Principle 27 as well as the historical, political, and social contexts at the time. Additionally, early experiences and real-world implications of either overly broad or overly restrictive interpretations are crucial for establishing the right to assembly and procession. These insights can inform the principles and conditions necessary for relevant legislation that can effectively embody this fundamental right, helping to institutionalize, stabilize, and strengthen it in future legal procedures.There are several important points to mention. First, the freedom of assembly and procession recognized in the Constitution is incompatible with the permit system. On the one hand, it is essential to uphold the universality of this freedom, which should not require obtaining permission for its exercise. On the other hand, the reluctance of the members of the Assembly of Experts for the Constitution to specify restrictions that would put the fate of assemblies in the hands of the government suggests that it is not feasible to orient Principle 27 of the Constitution toward a permit-based approach through ordinary law. Second, the right to assemble should not be restricted to a specific group. Principle 27 recognizes the right to assembly as a civil and political right for all citizens. Limiting this right to certain groups, such as legal political parties, contradicts the meaning and rationale of this principle outlined in the Constitution. Third, there should be maximum reservations regarding the prohibition of gatherings. In cases where a gathering or procession conflicts with restrictions such as public order, the legislator should refrain from declaring a ban or dispersing the gathering as the first response; this should only be done as the last resort. It is important to emphasize that the freedom of assembly must be protected to the greatest extent possible. Any restrictions should be imposed only to the extent necessary to manage the situation, rather than resorting to prohibitions as an immediate response. Fourth, clarity in the text of the law is essential. This principle, which generally governs the drafting of legislation, should also apply to laws related to Principle 27. Specifically, any interpretable limitations—such as the cases causing disturbances to the foundations of Islam—should be clearly defined in the law. Failing to do so will undoubtedly create problems for citizens in exercising their rights and may hinder the administrative police and judicial officials in fulfilling their duties. By precisely specifying all processes and avoiding vague language, the rights of all parties can be effectively protected from violations.

In the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the necessity of accountability of the executive branch to the parliament is emphasized and various ways have been considered for this accountability. One of these ways can be the need to give a collective vote of confidence to the cabinet - that is, a vote of confidence in the entire group before a vote of confidence in individual ministers. The present article seeks to answer the question with a descriptive-analytical view, what is the verdict of collective vote of confidence in the Council of Ministers in the constitutional law system of the Islamic Republic of Iran. The finding of the article is that according to the text of several principles, the issue of giving collective vote of confidence to the Council of Ministers is foreseen in the constitution, but this issue has not been seriously considered either in the common laws or in the practical procedure. Although this way of supervision of the parliament over the government is basically one of the characteristics of parliamentary systems, our constitution prefers to use it in order to make the government more accountable to the parliament. In this way, in addition to the individual program of each minister, the parliament will also supervise the general policy of the government.

The principle of "individuality of the effect of judicial decisions" is considered one of the procedural principles and one of the dimensions of protection from the substantive aspect of judicial independence. Based on this principle, the decisions issued by the courts are effective only in the rights and duties of the people involved in the proceedings and are ineffective for other people. Considering that the absolute acceptance of this principle in some cases may lead to differences in procedures and as a result injustice, Article 161 of the Constitution has established the authority to issue unanimity votes to the Supreme Court in order to solve this issue. Despite this importance in the legislative approach regarding the Court of Administrative Justice in general and the recent reforms of the Court Law in particular, the legislator has considered the votes issued by the branches and boards of this institution to have a specific and general effect, contrary to the aforementioned legal principle. Among these provisions is Article 93 of the Law of the Administrative Court of Justice, which considers the opinions of specialized boards and general boards in the capacity of handling complaints against government approvals to be valid and criteria for administrative and judicial bodies and authorities. The review of the legislative approach mentioned in this article showed that although the standardization of the court's decisions may have merits, the obligation of judicial and administrative bodies and authorities to follow the decisions of the general board in handling complaints against government regulations, with fundamental issues various, including the jurisdiction of judicial interpretation (subject of Article 73), the supervision of the speaker of the parliament over government regulations (subject of Article 138), the substantive dimension of the principle of judicial independence and the statistics of the sources of issuing a decision (subject of Article 167) and The jurisdiction of court judges in reviewing government regulations (the subject of Article 170) is not harmonized.

In the Iranian legal system, use of legislative history (including parliamentary materials) in legal interpretation is quite prevalent. Judges and jurists always try to remain faithful to the legislative history and refrain from giving any interpretation contrary to it. Despite the role of legislative history in interpretation, it’s been widely neglected in our legal literature. The following paper explores this matter with regard to Iranian law. It develops arguments based on legal theory, constitutional law, and thus affords deeper insight into the current discussion on legal methods. Despite the role of legislative history in legal interpretations, its nature, types and criteria are unclear and unresolved. In this paper, first a precise definition of legislative history and its types is provided, and then the validity of legislative history is discussed , and explained how legal schools can invoke legislative history based on the assumptions they have previously accepted. In the second part, the main criteria for applying legislative history in legal interpretation is stated. Finally, (Part 3), it has been tried to identify the main applications of legislative history in legal interpretation along with real examples in the Iranian legal system.

Expressing loyalty to the Constitution, especially its immutable and key principles, is a public commitment. However, this commitment is more sensitively addressed for individuals who are government officials, depending on their level and position within the governance structure. For this reason, one of the general conditions stated in the regulations governing the employment and entry of individuals into government agencies and sensitive positions, including membership in the Islamic Consultative Assembly, is loyalty to the Constitution and its most fundamental principle, namely the absolute guardianship of the jurist. In this context, Clause 4 of Article 28 of the Election Law of the Islamic Consultative Assembly, enacted in 1999 with subsequent amendments, stipulates that one of the conditions for candidates for representation is "expressing loyalty to the Constitution and the progressive principle of the guardianship of the jurist." The main question of this article is how this condition is established. The answer to this question, derived through a descriptive-analytical method and preliminary examination of the concept of loyalty and the basis of this condition, is that loyalty to the Constitution is among the natural rights of governance and is a commitment of the nation, especially in the capacity of government officials. It is expressed both verbally and practically, and it has degrees that must be established through common knowledge (ordinary knowledge or confident suspicion).

In the 7th principle of the Constitution, local councils are considered at the level of Islamic Consultative Assembly as one of the main decision-making bodies of the country. Participating in decision-making and running the country requires authority and power. Since local councils are actually local parliaments, have the local councils like the parliament enough authority and power to fulfill this fundamental role and how to obtain a suitable model from the parliament for better governance of councils. In order to clarify the issue, it’s necessary to consider the similarities and differences of the local councils and Islamic assembly. They are similar in terms of the legal regulations that are enforceable, the bounding of all approvals on the Islamic laws, being directly selected by people, the consultative and supervisory aspect and the membership of minorities. However, the local councils differ in terms of the limits of legislation, competency, publicity, cancellation of membership and dissolution. Therefore, the local councils are considered as the entity with just consultative and cooperative nature and without the least supervisory or decision making and governance power.

Economic development is a key concept and a primary factor in good governance and national progress. However, true economic transformation and progress depends on sustainable development. A crucial aspect of sustainable economic development is the integration of economic advancement with environmental protection. Article 50 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran addresses environmental protection and the concept of sustainable economic development. This descriptive-analytical research examines the relationship between the environment and development, as well as the indicators and requirements for sustainable economic development as outlined in the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran. It analyzes governance approaches in various sectors in achieving this goal and identifies the challenges and solutions for realizing the sustainable development envisioned by the Constitution. The findings of this research show that while sustainable development and environmental concerns have received significant attention in policymaking, the legislative and implementation phases face numerous challenges. Furthermore, constitutional oversight and judicial review have taken a minimalist approach to environmental restrictions. Key challenges identified include structural weakness of the Environmental Protection Organization, personality-driven environmental management, air pollution, weak monitoring and control mechanisms, and the lack of a comprehensive environment impact assessment legislation. To address these challenges, the research proposes solutions such as reducing government involvement in large industries, implementing environmentally conscious strategic management, introducing green taxes, and enacting comprehensive environmental impact assessment legislation.

History is full of popular struggles against oppression and tyranny. When a government undermines the existing democratic regime and jeopardizes the constitutional order, there is a need for a mechanism to safeguard the rule of the Constitution. To address this, democratic systems worldwide have long recognized the concept of the Right to Resistance (RtR) within their constitutional laws. However, this issue has been overlooked in Iran, leading to a dearth of legal research in this area. This theoretical gap necessitates comprehensive research to advance the public law literature. This article adopts a descriptive-analytical approach to answer this question: What is the position of the RtR IN the international legal system and constitutions, particularly in the Iranian Constitution? The research findings reveal that the RtR is regarded as a fundamental human right within the international legal system. Additionally, this right has been enshrined in numerous constitutional laws due to its dual function (both forward-looking and backward-looking). In the Constitution of Iran, the right to resist can be inferred from the affirmation of "the right to sovereignty and self-determination of the people" or "enjoining the good and forbidding the evil of the people towards the government". Resistance can also be justified as a "non-peaceful assembly" and as a "guarantee of popular implementation of deprivation of rights and freedoms".

Article 166 of the Constitution requires the courts to issue reasoned and documented decisions based on the laws and principles underlying the verdict. The importance of interpretative principles in labor law is widely recognized due to its protective nature. In cases of ambiguity, vagueness, or lack of legal texts, the aforementioned protective principles for the weaker party (the worker) are upheld. The current research was conducted using a descriptive-analytical method, supported by the library data and judicial opinions, to identify the substantive principles in labor law that protect workers. Initially, it was assumed that various principles could be identified within legislative texts, judicial opinions and legal doctrine. However, this research revealed that, firstly, many principles of worker protection, despite their implicit existence, have not been recognized; and secondly, in addition to the known principles mentioned above, other principles such as the broad interpretation in favor of the worker, the principle of limiting the will of the worker, the principle of minimum benefits in labor law, the principle of maximum obligations in labor law, the principle of prioritizing workers’ rights, the principle of valuing workers’ labor, and  the principle of continuity of the workplace were raised and examined.