Introduction
Over the course of many years, the nation of Iran has seen radical shifts in governmental structure. The overthrow of the Pahlavi Dynasty by the Islamic Revolution in 1979 drastically changed the entire structure of the Iranian judicial system from its previous form. Currently, Iran is one of few theocratic countries with its laws rooted in Islam. Part of what makes Iran’s system especially interesting is its ability to establish a constitution that is a hybrid of theocratic and democratic elements. Because of the stark differences in these theories of government, a hybrid system brings many issues to rise. Due to the theocratic ideals, Islamic law takes precedence in most cases. The controversial nature of the court decisions, especially in terms of human rights violations, trace back to the strict punishments that religious laws usually entail.
In this paper, I will first describe the history and creation of the Iranian high courts. I will pay particular attention to how the Islamic revolution and other important events have shaped the court into what it is today. I will also explain the extremely unique and complicated structure of the judiciary system, paying particular attention to the supreme courts and its power.
Next, I will describe how the system used by the country has caused a great deal of controversy particularity in terms of human rights. I will go into detail about how many of the human rights violations are due to the use of Sharia law, and how the country's previous rulings and laws have caused immense conflict with human rights organizations. Finally, I argue that while the Supreme Court of Iran appears to be highly constrained by the rule of the Supreme Leader and the constitutiona...
... middle of paper ...
...herefore, I believe the Supreme Courts decision not to uphold these verdicts have a high political impact. The reason behind their choice is not perfectly clear but many believe it is due to the high pressure but on the court by many human rights activists around the world.
These two ruling are by no means common in Iran. To this day there are still many human rights violations that take place the Supreme Court ignores. I am not arguing against that. I believe that these two cases show that while highly constrained by the structure, the Supreme Court of Iran still plays a larger role politics than one might consider. These courts cases demonstration the courts ability to shows political tolerance, something Iran is not known for. If the Supreme Courts continues to make decisions like these, they may have a vast influence on the upcoming future of politics of Iran.
They all identify the importance of the right to have the choice and the right to exercise there right to choice. All three cases revolving around marriage issues that violated s. 15 of the Charter. An example of the right to choose was in the Halpern case where same-sex couples were not allowed to get married. The decision of the court of appeal allowed them to do so because they believe they were being discriminated against for not having their freedom of choice to marry. In the Layland case, the majority’s decision was that same-sex do not have the right to marry each other. However, the dissent opinion believed that same-sex marriage should be allowed and that not having the choice violates s. 15 of the Charter. These cases are all regarding the decision one should have when making decision about choices. Therefore, we can argue that having freedom of choice is an important factor to the
Not only did the religious history play a large role in Iran’s beliefs but also foreign invaders have been imposing their power on the Iranian region for thousands of years. Iran...
In Stephen Chapman’s essay, “The Prisoner’s Dilemma”, he questions whether the Western world’s idea of punishment for criminals is as humane as its citizens would like to believe or would Westerners be better off adopting the Eastern Islamic laws for crime and punishment. The author believes that the current prison systems in the Western world are not working for many reasons and introduces the idea of following the Koranic laws. Chapman’s “The Prisoner’s Dilemma” is persuasive because of his supporting evidence on the negative inhumane impact from the Western form of criminal punishment and his strong influential testament to the actions used by Eastern Islamic societies for crimes committed.
With such a unanimous resentment, particularly in the dominating religious sect of Iran, it is important to address the ideologies within the religion enforce the country’s patriarchal social structure, i.e. the “form of social organization in which males dominate females” (text 38). Furthermore, with the Islamic Revolution of 1979, these attitudes were the driving force behind many of the discriminatory laws that confined women in Iran to a life defined by its limitations.
1989 [7] Cleveland, William L. A History of the Modern Middle East. Westview Press, Colorado. 2000. [8] Milani, Mohsen M. The Making of Iran’s Islamic Revolution. From monarchy to Islamic Republic Westview Press Inc.
Since the Renaissance of the 15th century, societal views have evolved drastically. One of the largest changes has been the realization of individualism, along with the recognition of inalienable human rights.(UDHR, A.1) This means that all humans are equal, free, and capable of thought; as such, the rights of one individual cannot infringe on another’s at risk of de-humanizing the infringed upon. The fact that humans have a set of natural rights is not contested in society today; the idea of human rights is a societal construction based on normative ethical codes. Human rights are defined from the hegemonic standpoint, using normative ethical values and their application to the interactions of individuals with each other and state bodies. Human rights laws are legislature put in place by the governing body to regulate these interactions.
...st rights should be greatly appreciated, and a deep sense of guilt should be felt if these blessings of freedom, not had by Iranian people, are ever taken for granted.
After its founding in 1979, Iran became a Theocratic Republic. It was originally a monarchy, but after much fighting, the last Shah (king) went into exile and the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini established the Islamic Republic (Kagan, 2012a). In a theocratic republic, God is the supreme civil ruler of the nation. The people elect a supreme leader and president to oversee political and some civil laws, but the leaders must look to the Qur’an for spiritual and civil guidance (Theocratic, 2016). The supreme leader has the overall control in all matters to include the military and the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, a military entity charged with protecting the revolution of 1979 and its achievements (Kagan, 2012). The state’s government is a multi-tier system with some checks and balance systems in place so that one group does not have total power. The first tier is the Islamic consultation assembly, a parliamentary group who creates and passes laws. The second tier is the Guardian Council. Elected by the supreme leader, this group is the approval authority for all of the parliament’s decisions. The Guardian Council also has the power to remove the Supreme Leader if they feel he is not worthy of the title. The Expediency Council is the last tier, which mediates decisions between the previous two entities. The
Over the course of the last century, the Islamic Republic of Iran (formerly known as Persia) has seen colonialism, the end of a dynasty, the installation of a government by a foreign power, and just over three decades ago, the popular uprising and a cleric-led revolution. These events preceded what could be considered the world’s first Islamic state, as politics and fundamentalist religion are inextricably linked in contemporary Iran. Looking at Iran from the mid 1940’s until the present day, one can trace the path that led to the rise of fundamental Islam in Iran in three distinct periods. The first is that which began with the rise of secular nationalism and the decline of Islam. In the second, the secular, western-friendly government eventually gave way to the Islamic revival in the form of a government takeover by hard-line clerics and disillusioned, fundamentalist youth; both motivated and led by Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini. Rule of Iran by these fundamentalist clerics then led to the formation of the fundamentalist Islamic theocracy that governs present-day Iran. The current government has some democratic appearances, but all real power is in the hands of the supreme leader, an Ayatollah who is chosen by the Assembly of Experts, a group of clerics chosen by the Guardian Council. With the Iranian Revolution, political Islam was born, with the fundamentalists holding the reins of power in Iran to the present day.
In the 1970’s Iran, under Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi was a very centralized military state that maintained a close relationship with the USA. The Shah was notoriously out of touch with working class Iranians as he implemented many controversial economic policies against small business owners that he suspected involved profiteering. Also unrestricted economic expansions in Iran lead to huge government expenditure that became a serious problem when oil prices dropped in the mid 1970’s. This caused many huge government construction projects to halt and the economy to stall after many years of massive profit. Following this was high rates of inflation that affected Iranians buying power and living standards. (Afary, 2012) Under the Shah, political participation was not widely available for all Iranians and it was common for political opposition to be met with harassment, illegal detention, and even torture. These measures were implemented by the Iranian secret police knows as ‘SAVAK’. This totalitarian regime combined with the increasing modernisation of the country paved the way for revolution.
Griffith, William E. “The Revial of Islamic Fundamentalism: the Case of Iran.” International Security. Volume 4, Issue 1, 1979, 132-138.
Introduction Human rights are fundamental rights and freedoms that all people are entitled to regardless of nationality, gender, national or ethnic origin, religion, language, or other status. And these human rights violations are in some countries like Central African Republic, Syria, USA, Ireland, and etcetera. One example is Syria, where the people afraid live here. Therefore, article 3 of the Universal Human Rights Act is violated in Syria. This essay seeks to consider the human rights violations in Syria.
The Islamic Republic of Iran, formerly known as Iran or Persia, was crowded with a young generation looking for full freedom against the Shah. Persia, once as a powerful country with vast oil resources, soon became a vulnerable nation, ready to accept a new leader to guide them. The people were ready for change, but were the changes they got the changes they were looking for. The people wanted freedom against the shah, (For generations Iran was ruled by Kings) who allowed some freedoms, but it was somewhat limited. The people wanted freedom of speech, so that the press could freely publish their own opinions. They wanted to get rid of a law that made all eighteen-year-old males attend two years of military service unless they are accepted to a university, which would allow them attend the army later as a service worker. The shah was anti-religious, which was not ideal for many of the civilians in Iran. Savak (Secret organization of Iran) was accused of many anti – human rights actions, such as killing students who protested and immediately jailing press members for inappropriate conduct. A major problem was that the shah was a “puppet” of the United States many say, because the Shah would constantly confer with the U.S. of all of his decisions as ruler. The after affects of the revolution resulted in similar conditions, however. Human rights are horrible, the government limits all freedoms, the economy has suffered greatly, average salaries are hard to live with, most of the educated people in Iran fled to foreign countries, the quality of public schools is horrible, and the government still controls all television broadcasts and keeps a watchful eye on the newspapers. From bad to worse is what many people feel has become of Iran, but the people are ready for a real change.
This war-torn land shows nothing but death and the dying. The ground is muddy from the rain, it’s dank and sodden. Up above the trench line is barbed wire and … nothing else. No birds, no animals … no people. A few dead bodies of the brave men going to assassinate the enemy by night fall, but stopped dead in their tracks, they got picked off by the sharpshooters. No! No one ever makes it! Never! There is a constant sound of gun blasts and the sound of explosions from the grenades. The dark is lit up by the flashes of the guns against the silver clouded sky. Nobody dares to look up for more than a few seconds otherwise they will be taken out.
The courts primary purpose is to repress totalitarianism by supporting democracy, though constitutional values are greatly violated. Most of the time, constitutional values are violated by the legislature and executive powers. To minimize the violations, constitutional jurisdiction was established which secures democratic constitutional stability and eliminates suppression of democratic values. Certainly one may think that the constitution and constitutional courts are the “weapons” in the hands of power to set down mutual interests and relations. However, constitutional law, establishing a framework for the society and its members, belongs to every and every one, who can count on it whether it is unwritten or written.