The legal system governing the reinstatement of parliament in the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran

The principle of continuity of the political system requires that legislatures not be closed. However, there may be circumstances cause a re-establishment or interruption. The present study uses a law-based approach through adaptation and comparison while using hermeneutics and interpretive methods to comprehend the interruption concept. In addition, by presenting an intentional view, using the detailed form of constitutional negotiations, considers the interruption in the legislatures to be functionally and institutionally examinable. Although the principle of non-closure of the parliament is taken from the prima facie of Article 63 of the Constitution; however, the gaps and ambiguities that exist in the various principles of the constitution, raise the question of what is the legal system governing the interruption of parliament in Iran’s constitution compared to other legal systems? If interruption occurs, which institution is the most suitable substitute for the Islamic Consultative Assembly? Other political systems, have provisions in their laws, depending on whether they are parliamentary, presidential, or semi-parliamentary. The British parliamentary system, meanwhile, offers more efficient forecasts during the interruption. Because if the government resorts to the tactic of dissolution of the parliament, the judgment between the parliament and the government will be left to the people in the form of a general election. This solution will not only provide solutions to escape the crisis but also give a democratic format to interrupt the parliament. It also envisions arrangements for decision-making during the parliamentary recess, called "Recall of Parliament”.