https://jrpl.illrc.ac.ir/ Research and Development in Public Law en daily 1 Fri, 20 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0330 Fri, 20 Feb 2026 00:00:00 +0330 https://jrpl.illrc.ac.ir/article_734795.html This article examines the constitutional and administrative ramifications of differential access to unfiltered internet services (“white internet”) within the governance structure of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Prompted by recent technological developments that disclosed the geographic location of users on the X platform (formerly Twitter), public attention has been drawn to the existence of selective and privileged access to unrestricted internet services for certain officials and social groups, while the general population remains subject to extensive filtering. This phenomenon has transformed a technical disclosure into a broader legal and normative controversy concerning digital inequality and administrative discrimination.The analysis proceeds through four complementary frameworks: digital justice and the credibility gap between official discourse and administrative practice;constitutional guarantees of equality and non-discrimination; the binding Charter on the Protection of Citizens’ Rights in the Administrative System; and the institutional mandate of the Supreme Administrative Council under Iranian administrative law. It argues that tiered internet access, when tolerated or institutionalized, is incompatible with the principles of equality before the law, impartial administration, and the rule of law. In this context, the President both as the highest executive authority responsible for implementing the Constitution and as Chair of the Supreme Administrative Council bears a heightened obligation to clarify the legal basis of such practices and to ensure their prompt elimination.More broadly, the article conceptualizes digital discrimination as a contemporary form of unequal access to public goods, one that challenges traditional understandings of administrative justice. It contends that technological transparency has created a critical opportunity for institutional accountability: a transparent, reasoned, and effective response by executive authorities would not only address the specific issue of privileged internet access but would also strengthen constitutional resilience, administrative legitimacy, and public trust in the legal order. https://jrpl.illrc.ac.ir/article_732078.html One of the key requirements for designing an optimal legislative model in contemporary legal systems is ensuring the effectiveness of enacted laws. Utilizing innovative tools such as artificial intelligence (AI) can enhance legislative efficiency as one of the transversal elements of the concept of law in social systems. In this regard, a cyclical oversight model has been designed and implemented, which proceeds based on continuous feedback, data-driven analysis, and gradual reform of laws. Accordingly, this article aims to present an indigenous model for establishing a cyclical oversight system in the Islamic Republic of Iran, seeking to answer how efficient rule-based governance can be achieved through the use of AI-based cyclical oversight tools. The findings of this analytical research, relying on library data and authoritative sources along with reference to global experiences, indicate that the use of AI — by step-by-step design, legal simplification, data-driven indicatorization, and institutional interaction — can lead to enhanced rationality in legislation, transparency, and accountability. Furthermore, the development of data-based structures and smart monitoring systems provides legislative bodies with effective tools to observe the impact of laws and assess their outcomes. Real-time reporting, online analysis, and the use of learning algorithms contribute to more effective decision-making for legislative reform.Within this framework, establishing intelligent mechanisms in the design of the oversight cycle can create institutional coherence and integration in the implementation of regulations by facilitating the flow of information between the parliament, executive branch, and judicial bodies. Emphasizing the experiences of leading countries in digital legislative transformation — such as Singapore and Estonia — this study demonstrates that reliance solely on traditional accountability mechanisms lacks the efficiency required to address modern socio-legal complexities, making it necessary to adopt a proactive, data-intelligent approach. Therefore, the article proposes that the creation of national databases, standardization of legal metadata, and development of AI-analytical portals capable of stakeholder interaction should be regarded as the main prerequisites for realizing the cyclical oversight model in the legislative system of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Ultimately, the proposed five-stage model not only facilitates the process of continuous legal reform but may also form a basis for transitioning from reactive to anticipatory and efficient law-making in the era of digital transformation. https://jrpl.illrc.ac.ir/article_731843.html This article has been written with the aim of explaining the theoretical foundations and practical functions of the theory of balancing and its threefold tests in the field of public law and human rights. The main research question is whether the three-stage conflict-resolution model in the theory of balancing—consisting of the tests of suitability, necessity, and proportionality (in the narrow sense)—can provide a valid and rational framework for assessing the legitimacy of governmental interventions in individuals’ fundamental rights and freedoms. The research method is descriptive-analytical, and its data have been collected and analyzed through the study of documents, laws, and judicial practices at both domestic and international levels, especially in the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, the Court of Justice of the European Union, the Supreme Court of Canada, the German Federal Constitutional Court, and the Supreme Court of the United States.The research findings show that the theory of balancing, unlike rigid and absolute approaches in legal adjudication, offers a flexible, dynamic, and context-oriented model for resolving conflicts between individual rights and collective interests. According to this theory, the restriction of fundamental rights is justified when, first, it pursues a legitimate and lawful aim; second, the chosen means and measures are necessary and represent the least harmful way to achieve that aim; and third, there exists a reasonable and fair balance between the extent of the interference and the importance of the intended objective. The examination of judicial examples shows that these three tests, by assessing all relevant considerations on a case-by-case basis, have provided a coherent foundation for fair adjudication between individual freedoms and public interests.Accordingly, the research concludes that the theory of balancing and its threefold tests—based on the principles of rationality, fairness, and balance—not only serve as effective instruments for evaluating the legitimacy and reasonableness of governmental interventions in human rights, but also, through analyzing the relationship between individual rights and public interest, play an essential and reliable role in fulfilling the requirements of protecting individual rights and freedoms as well as the obligations of safeguarding collective interests. https://jrpl.illrc.ac.ir/article_730105.html War, as the most evident manifestation of the use of force, has been explicitly prohibited following the adoption of the United Nations Charter, pursuant to Article 2(4). Nevertheless, this prohibition has not prevented the occurrence of armed conflicts in the contemporary era, and war remains an undeniable reality of international life. Within this framework, international law, while recognizing the reality of war, has established rights and obligations for both the parties to a conflict and third states that are not directly involved in hostilities. This body of rules is recognized and articulated under the term “law of neutrality.” On the other hand, with the rapid expansion of information technology, states have become increasingly dependent on cyberspace infrastructure. This dependence, while creating new avenues for political, economic, and military interactions, has also paved the way for a new form of conflict known as “cyber warfare”—a form of warfare that fundamentally differs from traditional warfare in both nature and method of execution. However, the lack of specific treaty provisions and the scarcity of customary rules governing cyber operations represent major challenges in contemporary international law. In this regard, the Tallinn Manual 2.0, as one of the most comprehensive scholarly efforts to regulate cyberspace, holds particular significance. This document examines the applicable rules for cyber operations and attempts to outline a legal framework to address emerging challenges in this domain. Chapter 20 of the Manual, through five specific rules, explores the status of cyber operations from the perspective of the law of neutrality and provides notable analytical insights. Accordingly, the central question of this article is: What obligations and limitations govern cyber activities in light of the rules of the law of neutrality? In order to answer this question, the present study, using a descriptive-analytical method and relying on library-based sources, seeks to assess the positions presented in the Tallinn Manual 2.0 in relation to existing rules of the law of neutrality. https://jrpl.illrc.ac.ir/article_729806.html Political representation is one of the key concepts in contemporary systems of public law; a notion that emerges at the intersection of the general will, institutional authority, and political legitimacy. Since the formation of the modern state, this concept has undergone multiple phases of conceptual redefinition and structural transformation. In the historical trajectory spanning from classical Greek democracy and modern parliamentary models to the fluid condition of the digital platform era, the boundaries between representation and participation, political agency and algorithmic systems, and law and data have become increasingly blurred and contested. This article, through a comparative and analytical approach, seeks to revisit these transformations in light of foundational theories in the philosophy of public law, critical discourses on representation, and the legal-institutional practices emerging in contemporary governance. To this end, the experiences of selected jurisdictions including Germany (marked by tensions between elite-centered parliamentary structures and emerging participatory platforms), Estonia and Taiwan (pioneers of digital democracy and institutionalized CrowdLaw), Switzerland (with its semi-direct referendum-based model), and the United States (under platform-driven pressures on its party system) are critically examined. Subsequently, the article evaluates the conceptual and legal dimensions of political representation in the Islamic Republic of Iran, with a focus on constitutional principles, the performance of representative institutions, and prevailing structural challenges. Finally, by offering a set of policy and legal proposals, the article explores the legal, technological, and institutional pathways toward a hybrid model of political representation grounded in transparency, accountability, and platform-based participation. Rebuilding representation in Iran requires a hybrid model; one that neither leads to the negation of existing institutions nor to an unquestioning fascination with technology, but rather establishes a link between parliament, councils, and digital platforms. Such a model can revive the capital of public trust and show that representation is still alive, provided that it speaks to the will of the people in the present and in the language of transparency and accountability. https://jrpl.illrc.ac.ir/article_729783.html This research aims to elucidate the moment of administrative law's genesis in Iran by phenomenologically analyzing the transition from the institution of the Divan to the construct of the Idareh (modern administration). Prior to the Constitutional Revolution in Iran, the Divan was not structured on the basis of modern formal rationality and bureaucracy. Instead, it was organized around royal justice and personal authority. The Divan was a historical-cultural system that evolved in Iran, aligning with the spirit and demands of the Iranian people. Its functionaries were not expert specialists or managers but rather literati and scholars who developed within the Iranian context and its culture, educated according to a specific Iranian worldview. This explains why most members of the Iranian Divan were also poets, men of letters, astronomers, and philosophers. They served the Divan based on the ideals in which they were raised. The Shah presided over this Divan, and everyone obeyed him, with justice forming its foundation. The Divan lacked the fundamental characteristics of modern bureaucracy, including a systematic hierarchical structure, separation of workplace from personal life, precise legal competencies, and a coherent system of administrative duties and offices. Furthermore, the Divan's value-laden foundation, rooted in the ideal of substantive justice, differentiated it from bureaucracy, which is a calculable and non-value-driven system. However, in the contemporary era, Malcom Khan, with his profound understanding of the logic of legal administration in Europe, expounded upon the components of bureaucracy in his works to establish a model for creating the Idareh. He laid the first theoretical groundwork for administrative law in Iran. Subsequently, the practical transition to modern administration began with the Sepahsalar's reforms and was solidified during the Constitutional Revolution. This process involved the transformation of the Divan's personal and traditional offices into legal and specialized administrative structures. Consequently, administrative law in Iran was not a continuation of the Divan but rather the outcome of moving beyond it and establishing modern rationality. Thus, the founding moment of administrative law was a break from the past and an embrace of a new conceptual framework that carried within it the exigencies of the modern phenomenon: the modern administrative system and, by extension, modern administrative law with its specific demands and characteristics. Therefore, any understanding or theory of administrative law in Iran must be based on a precise distinction and differentiation between the Divan and the Idareh. https://jrpl.illrc.ac.ir/article_731606.html Doping has emerged as one of the most pressing challenges to both sports justice and public health, attracting growing attention from international institutions over the past decades. While the international anti-doping framework—particularly through the UNESCO International Convention against Doping in Sport and the Council of Europe’s Anti-Doping Convention—has provided a basis for cooperation, these instruments largely emphasize technical coordination and standard-setting rather than imposing strong, enforceable duties upon states. As a result, the insufficient direct and effective involvement of governments continues to represent a key structural gap in the global anti-doping regime.This article seeks to address this gap by examining the problem of doping through the lens of international human rights law, with a particular focus on the right to health as enshrined in Article 12 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). From this perspective, states—including Iran—bear substantive obligations to respect, protect, and fulfill the right to health. These obligations extend beyond the traditional sports regulatory framework and require governments to adopt proactive measures aimed at safeguarding both athletes and society from the harms of doping.Such measures include, inter alia, implementing comprehensive public education and awareness campaigns, ensuring accessibility of preventive medical advice, and exercising strict supervision over the production, importation, distribution, and consumption of banned substances and methods. In addition, states are expected to establish effective monitoring and enforcement mechanisms capable of deterring organized doping practices, whether at the domestic or transnational level.By framing doping not merely as a regulatory challenge for sports organizations but as a human rights concern falling within the scope of the right to health, this article highlights the dual responsibility of states: on the one hand, to contribute to the integrity of sport as a public good, and on the other, to safeguard the well-being of their populations. Ultimately, the analysis demonstrates that linking the human rights framework to anti-doping efforts provides both a normative justification and a practical pathway for strengthening state accountability in addressing one of the most complex threats facing contemporary sport and public health. https://jrpl.illrc.ac.ir/article_731121.html In recent decades, the widespread development of blockchain technology and the emergence of cryptocurrencies and crypto-assets have made regulation—in both its general sense of governance and its specific sense of rule-making—an unavoidable necessity. This technological phenomenon has not only transformed financial and economic systems but has also reshaped the traditional legal foundations of ownership, value, credit, and trust. Consequently, it calls for a comprehensive rethinking, conceptual clarification, and a new regulatory perspective capable of addressing the interdisciplinary and rapidly evolving nature of this field. However, entering such a complex and technologically driven domain without adequate epistemic preparedness has given rise to significant epistemological errors—errors that ultimately lead to policy failure, regulatory inefficiency, and the ineffectiveness of enacted rules. Employing a descriptive–analytical method with a critical approach, this study seeks to answer the following question: what are the main epistemological errors in the regulation of cryptocurrencies and crypto-assets, what are their implications for regulatory outcomes, and what solutions can be proposed to overcome them? The findings indicate that regulators’ limited understanding of the nature and logic of blockchain technology, inconsistencies in defining regulatory objectives, and errors in selecting appropriate tools and standards constitute the fundamental sources of these challenges. Such cognitive deficiencies often result either in overregulation, which hinders innovation and economic growth, or in underregulation, which produces instability, uncertainty, and informational asymmetry in emerging markets. In Iran, these challenges are manifested through regulatory silence, whereby the absence of coherent strategies and policy frameworks has led to a passive stance among regulatory bodies, and even recent legislative initiatives such as the new Central Bank Law have failed to close this gap. Ultimately, the paper argues that adopting flexible and neutral international standardization frameworks, alongside the use of regulatory sandboxes with an educational function for regulators, can serve as an effective, sustainable, and forward-looking model for reducing epistemological errors and improving the quality of regulation in emerging technological domains. https://jrpl.illrc.ac.ir/article_732074.html The tension between two fundamental rights—liberty and security—remains one of the most prominent and controversial issues in political philosophy and public law. This conceptual opposition has gained renewed urgency in light of emerging global crises such as terrorism, pandemics, migration waves, and the resurgence of authoritarianism. This study aims to conduct a comparative analysis of the place of liberty and security in the political thought of Niccolò Machiavelli by focusing on his two seminal works: The Prince and Discourses on Livy. Using a qualitative, content-based methodology centered on key political-legal themes, the research seeks to determine whether Machiavelli promotes an absolute hierarchy between these rights or conceives of their relationship as contextual, fluid, and regime-dependent.The findings demonstrate that in The Prince, Machiavelli presents security as the foundation of political authority and the condition for survival under crisis. Liberty is portrayed as subordinate to political stability and largely dependent on the consolidation of power. Conversely, in Discourses, liberty is not only treated as a civic virtue but also as a structural necessity for sustaining a republican order. Here, Machiavelli emphasizes the role of institutional balance, citizen participation, and rule of law in securing a functional equilibrium between liberty and security.From Machiavelli’s perspective, liberty and security are not inherently antagonistic but exist in a dialectical and situational relationship. In unstable or corrupt regimes, the primacy of security may be justified, whereas in legally grounded and participatory systems, liberty becomes integral to long-term security. This reading challenges reductive interpretations of Machiavelli as a purely authoritarian thinker and instead positions him as a realist strategist of political order, concerned with designing sustainable models of governance that harmonize restrained liberty and participatory security.By bridging the theoretical gap between Machiavelli’s two major works, this article offers a more nuanced and balanced interpretation of his legacy and opens the way for applying classical political insights to contemporary debates about governance, crisis management, and democratic resilience. https://jrpl.illrc.ac.ir/article_731258.html The political thought of Giorgio Agamben, the contemporary Italian philosopher, offers a fundamental reflection on the key concepts of sovereignty, the state of exception, and biopolitics, which hold great significance in analyzing the relationships among law, politics, and the body. Drawing inspiration from the prominent theories of thinkers such as Carl Schmitt and Michel Foucault, Agamben demonstrates how modern states, by creating and normalizing states of exception, facilitate the suspension of law under emergency conditions. Consequently, human beings are reduced from citizens endowed with political rights to what he terms “bare life”—a condition in which individuals are deprived of legal and political protections and subjected to the arbitrary control and domination of sovereign power. This leads to a complex blurring of the boundary between law and lawlessness within the political and legal order, allowing sovereign power to exercise unrestrained authority over the lives and rights of citizens without legal limitations. This article aims to precisely examine and explicate the key concepts in Agamben’s theoretical framework and analyze their manifestations within public legal systems. A critical dimension of this analysis is the concept of “bare life,” which philosophically represents the human being excluded politically and legally from the sphere of protection under modern legal systems. The legal and political implications of this concept include the examination of states of exception that governments officially or unofficially declare, thereby restricting or suspending individual rights. Furthermore, the article explores the role of biopolitics—that is, the process by which human biological life becomes a central target of power investment and political control. This study seeks to demonstrate how Agamben’s notions such as “state of exception” and “bare life” can be interpreted and elucidated within the frameworks of legal and political institutions, as well as how these concepts become apparent in phenomena like citizenship rights, political crises, and emergency restrictions. Case analyses of contemporary events gain significant importance within this conceptual framework. Additionally, the critical role of camps and exceptional spaces is emphasized as tangible examples where bare life is actualized and complete domination over bodies is exerted.Ultimately, by utilizing Agamben’s theoretical framework, this article provides a perspective for a better understanding of the complex relationship among politics, law, and the body in contemporary legal and political systems, as well as how these theories emerge and manifest within the realities of public law. https://jrpl.illrc.ac.ir/article_732015.html The constitution is one of the most fundamental and at the same time the most complex institutions in the science of law, which, as the supreme legal document in a political system, has a profound impact on a wide range of areas and shapes government, political authority and the protection of individual rights. Due to this central role, numerous concepts and terms have emerged in relation to the constitution, each of which is analyzed in constitutional theory. Among these concepts, the concept of constitutional resilience is of great importance. Employing a descriptive–analytical methodology, this research seeks to answer the core question: what does constitutional resilience actually mean? Like any other institution, a constitution is not immune to deficiencies, crises, and challenges. A resilient constitution is one that, while remaining faithful to its fundamental principles and values, demonstrates the capacity to adapt to new circumstances, respond to crises, and renew itself in order to ensure continuity and survival. In this sense, constitutional resilience reflects both stability and flexibility, allowing the constitution to endure in the face of change. The study identifies several advantages of constitutional resilience, including the preservation of democracy and the rule of law, adaptability to evolving political and social realities, resistance to threats and challenges, and reinforcement of constitutional legitimacy. At the same time, resilience is not without risks. Potential disadvantages include the erosion of constitutional norms, the possibility of authoritarian capture, and excessive reliance on informal mechanisms rather than institutionalized safeguards. Furthermore, constitutional resilience is closely linked to the notion of democratic resilience, a relationship that this article examines in detail. The comparative experiences of different countries illustrate the diverse outcomes of constitutional resilience. In some aspects, constitutions have successfully withstood crises and are cited as positive examples of resilience. In others, however, the absence of resilience has undermined constitutional performance and led to failure. By presenting examples from both categories, this article highlights the importance of studying constitutional resilience as a means of deepening our understanding of the constitution itself. Understanding and theorizing this concept can help the constitution overcome the inevitable problems that arise along its path. https://jrpl.illrc.ac.ir/article_729807.html According to some thinkers, private property, alongside liberty, is one of the foundational pillars in the formation of the first civilization of free humans. The protection of private property of civilians in occupied territories is a primary obligation of the occupying power under International Humanitarian Law (IHL). Utilizing a descriptive-analytical method and through library research and a comparative review of international instruments and the events of the Gaza War (2023–2025), this study analyzes the obligations arising from IHL concerning private property and the extent of Israel's compliance with these obligations. The findings indicate that the Four Geneva Conventions (1949) and The Hague Regulations (1907), alongside customary international law, impose three main obligations on the occupying power: the prohibition of destruction, the prohibition of permanent appropriation, and the prohibition of pillage of private property. These instruments permit the destruction or limited seizure of private property only in cases of "absolute military necessity," and even then, on a temporary and conditional basis. Widespread violations of private property in the occupied territories often overlap with other international crimes, including forcible transfer, persecution, and cruel and degrading treatment, and can be considered part of a broader policy of collective punishment or ethnic cleansing. The review of events in the Gaza War demonstrates that the Israeli military has breached these obligations through the widespread and deliberate destruction of residential areas, infrastructure, farms, movable and immovable property, and the organized pillaging of civilians' personal assets. These actions, which in many instances lacked military justification and were carried out for purposes such as collective punishment, ethnic cleansing, and the achievement of long-term political objectives, constitute not only grave breaches of IHL but also amount to prosecutable "war crimes" and "crimes against humanity" before the International Criminal Court (ICC). This study concludes that the systematic violation of the right to private property in Gaza has had devastating humanitarian and economic consequences and obliges the international community to ensure the accountability of the occupying power through legal mechanisms, including sanctions, criminal prosecution, and support for the documentation of violations. https://jrpl.illrc.ac.ir/article_731607.html The continuous increase in fossil fuel consumption and the persistent use of traditional methods for its transportation, storage, and distribution have created profound and multidimensional challenges in environmental, economic, and public health domains for human societies. These conventional methods, through the extensive emission of toxic gasoline vapors containing volatile organic compounds and carcinogenic substances such as benzene, not only lead to significant wastage of national resources but also pose serious threats to public health, urban air quality, and natural ecosystems. The intensification of these challenges has highlighted the urgent need for the development and implementation of innovative, sustainable, and scientifically grounded fuel management solutions. In this context, the National KAHAB Project has been proposed as a technological and sustainable initiative aimed at reducing pollutant emissions and optimizing fuel resources management to overcome this crisis. The purpose of this research is to comprehensively analyze the environmental, economic, and legal dimensions of the KAHAB Project and to examine its role in environmental protection, prevention of national resources wastage, and the realization of sustainable development principles. The findings of this research, developed through a descriptive–analytical approach, indicate that the KAHAB Project, by capturing and recycling toxic gasoline vapors, represents an effective step toward reducing air pollution, conserving national reserves, and safeguarding public health. Based on the constitutional principles, environmental protection laws, and national energy policies, this project offers a practical and generalizable model for integrating economic development with environmental requirements. The results of research further demonstrates that the full and precise implementation of the project, in addition to significantly reducing carcinogenic pollutants, results in substantial economic savings, enhanced facility safety, and improved quality of life for citizens. Therefore, strengthening legal frameworks, expanding economic incentives, and promoting environmental culture across society are essential and inevitable for achieving the full objectives of the National KAHAB Project, serving as a successful example of integrating economic benefits with social responsibility in national resource management. https://jrpl.illrc.ac.ir/article_731376.html This article undertakes an in-depth investigation into the foundational ontological tension between reason (as a normative, universal, and a priori ground) and will (as a concrete, instituting, and political act), positing them as two conflicting and irreconcilable foundations for the legal order. By centering its analysis on Martin Loughlin's intellectual project of "Political Jurisprudence," this study formulates and defends the central thesis that this tension is not a theoretical problem to be resolved through abstract formulas, but rather a dynamic, permanent, and constitutive antinomy at the very core of modern politico-legal life.To substantiate this claim and illustrate the dimensions of this conflict, the article anatomizes the intellectual debate between Loughlin and one of his most trenchant critics, Lars Vinx. The principal argument herein is that Vinx's critique—rooted in the liberal-normativist analytical tradition and its insistence on "theoretical coherence" as an absolute criterion—is incapable of grasping the essence of Loughlin's project due to a fundamental and insurmountable methodological incongruity. In a two-pronged attack, Vinx first attempts to undermine the necessity of Loughlin's theory by accusing him of a "straw man" fallacy. Subsequently, by ensnaring him in a false and inescapable dilemma—a forced choice between a domesticated "Rousseauian" rationalism and a radical "Schmittian" decisionism—he seeks to expose the project as internally contradictory.Through a meticulous deconstruction of both stages of this attack, this paper demonstrates that what Vinx identifies as "incoherence" is not a theoretical deficiency in Loughlin's project, but rather an honest reflection of the inherently paradoxical, dialectical, and "tragic" character of the politico-legal realm itself. This is a reality that analytical reason, by virtue of its intrinsic commitment to clarity, non-contradiction, and transparency, is structurally unable to comprehend. In its final step, the article engages with Panu Minkkinen's immanent and sympathetic critique—which highlights the tragic conflict between "science" (as a detached act of understanding) and "politics" (as a partisan, power-oriented act) within Loughlin's project itself. It concludes that "Political Jurisprudence," in the final analysis, is an invitation for an epistemological shift: a transition from a "jurisprudence of innocence," which seeks refuge from contingency in abstract formulas, to a "jurisprudence of experience" that possesses the theoretical courage to confront the complex, concrete, tension-ridden, and tragic reality of human existence. https://jrpl.illrc.ac.ir/article_729784.html The constitutional revolution is considered as one of the most important political and social upheaval in Iran in the last two centuries. This historical event, which roots go back to a century ago, is the result of many theoretical thoughts and practical actions, among which the role of the chancellors of the pre-constitutional era as powerful political figures is very significant. This research, with a descriptive-analytical approach, while analyzing the actions of the chancellors in order to limit and regulate the absolute power of the monarchy, examines the effect of these actions on the demands of the constitutionalists and the constitutional constitution and its amendments. The purpose of the research is to answer the question of what effect did the efforts of the chancellors have on the absolute Qajar monarchy in the first place and what effect did it have on the constitutional movement in the second place. It seems that the chancellors, with their reformist actions, have taken important steps towards making fundamental changes in the political and legal system of Iran. Although these efforts faced many challenges, they gradually provided the ground for the formation of the demands of the constitutionalists and finally the victory of the constitutional revolution. The constitutional revolution is considered as one of the most important political and social upheaval in Iran in the last two centuries. This historical event, which roots go back to a century ago, is the result of many theoretical thoughts and practical actions, among which the role of the chancellors of the pre-constitutional era as powerful political figures is very significant. This research, with a descriptive-analytical approach, while analyzing the actions of the chancellors in order to limit and regulate the absolute power of the monarchy, examines the effect of these actions on the demands of the constitutionalists and the constitutional constitution and its amendments. The purpose of the research is to answer the question of what effect did the efforts of the chancellors have on the absolute Qajar monarchy in the first place and what effect did it have on the constitutional movement in the second place. It seems that the chancellors, with their reformist actions, have taken important steps towards making fundamental changes in the political and legal system of Iran. Although these efforts faced many challenges, they gradually provided the ground for the formation of the demands of the constitutionalists and finally the victory of the constitutional revolution. https://jrpl.illrc.ac.ir/article_729786.html In the early Qajar era and during the wars with Russia, the need for familiarity with the modern world and drawing inspiration from new sciences and technologies first became evident to Iranian progressives. This path was pursued by many reformists and intellectuals, reaching its peak during the reigns of Naser al-Din Shah and his son, Mozaffar al-Din Shah. A significant part of these intellectuals’ activities was dedicated to addressing the shortcomings of the political system and promoting the foundations of modern public law, one of the most important of which was the constitution.The question, then, is how Iranian intellectuals of the Constitutional era introduced the modern constitution and what actions they took to implement it in Iran. To answer this question, the study will examine the works of intellectuals, analyze their performance and influence, and carefully review the perspectives of renowned historians and researchers. The research concludes that a group of constitutionalist intellectuals, such as Sepahsalar and Malkom Khan, sought to gain the Shah’s approval and have him enact a constitutional-like text. In this regard, they presented proposals to Naser al-Din Shah. However, these proposals differed significantly in terms of detail and precision. For instance, Sepahsalar’s constitution consisted of seven articles and was quite brief, whereas Malkom Khan’s proposal, known as Ketabche-ye Gheibi (The Secret Booklet), was highly detailed. In addition to these two, Yek Kalameh (One Word) by Mirza Yusef Khan Mostashar al-Dowleh is also noteworthy. While its main focus was on familiarizing people with their rights, some sections resembled constitutional laws in content, form, and structure. On the other hand, figures like Talebov aimed primarily to explain the concept of the constitution to the people and the elite. He wrote his works in the language of the nation and in accordance with their values and understanding. Similarly, Malkom Khan pursued the same goal by publishing Qanun (The Law) newspaper. https://jrpl.illrc.ac.ir/article_729785.html One of the most pressing challenges in contemporary Iran is the question of the theoretical foundations of governance and how these foundations have been shaped and can be strengthened within the country’s historical, cultural, and legal context. In this regard, revisiting the thoughts of the pioneers of the Constitutional Movement—as the initial architects of modern political order in Iran—is an unavoidable necessity, especially those thinkers who sought to reconcile modern concepts of governance with the indigenous conditions and intellectual structures of Iranian society. However, despite their theoretical and historical importance, the works of many of these thinkers have remained largely neglected or insufficiently examined from a legal perspective. Among these figures, Mirza Fathali Akhundzadeh stands out as one of the intellectual fathers of constitutionalism in Iran, yet his views on the theoretical foundations of governance—due to their distinction from those of other constitutionalist thinkers—have received comparatively little attention in public law scholarship. Akhundzadeh, who may be regarded as a radical or absolute constitutionalist, formulated a unique theory of governance. This concept is not only politically significant but also carries philosophical and theoretical weight, as it is grounded in two specific foundational principles. The first of these foundations is more prominent in his earlier works, while the second gradually gains prominence and eventually becomes the central pillar of his thought—one he remains committed to until the end of his life. This study, employing a primarily descriptive and to some extent analytical approach, seeks to explore the concept of governance in Akhundzadeh’s thought and to identify and explain its theoretical foundations. The objective is to clarify the legal dimensions of Akhundzadeh’s ideas on governance and to assess their theoretical potential for enhancing the legal and political structure of contemporary Iran. Accordingly, this article aims to conduct a close reading of his texts and writings, analyzing his perspectives on constitutional monarchy, the desired political order, and constituent power within the political system, and exploring how these foundations can be utilized to strengthen the pillars of public law in Iran. https://jrpl.illrc.ac.ir/article_732292.html AbstractThe 12-day aggression of the Zionist regime against Iran in June 2025 represents a critical stress test for contemporary doctrines of shared responsibility in international law. This article examines the international responsibility of the United States for its multifaceted assistance—financial, military, intelligence, and political—to Israel during this conflict. Adopting a theoretical–interpretive approach, it integrates doctrinal analysis of the Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (2001) with jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights, particularly in areas of due diligence, positive obligations, and extraterritorial jurisdiction.The study introduces three conceptual innovations: (1) a Layered Responsibility Model, distinguishing between direct commission, facilitative complicity, and coalition omission; (2) a Dynamic Breach Theory, extending the notion of continuing violations to post-ceasefire sanctions and ongoing assistance; and (3) a Facilitation Spectrum, an empirical tool for quantifying levels of participation in collective wrongdoing. These frameworks operationalize Article 16 of the ILC Articles by lowering the traditional threshold of knowledge to encompass “constructive awareness” derived from human-rights jurisprudence, thereby transforming formal attribution into a functional duty of due diligence.Based on declassified U.S. documents, UN Security Council records, and post-war human-rights reports, the paper argues that U.S. conduct—ranging from aerial refueling and real-time intelligence sharing to direct B-2 strikes and Security Council vetoes—constitutes material and mental elements of complicity in aggression under Article 2(4) of the UN Charter. Furthermore, U.S. post-ceasefire sanctions are framed as continuing breaches, reinforcing systemic complicity in violation of peremptory norms (jus cogens) and the duty of non-assistance under Article 41 of the ILC Articles.Iran's claim of US responsibility is analyzed as an emerging procedural platform to test this reconceptualization of shared responsibility. The study concludes that while procedural and political impediments—such as Security Council veto power and bilateral defense arrangements like the 2016 U.S.–Israel Memorandum of Understanding—still obstruct accountability, the integration of human-rights–based due-diligence standards into the law of state responsibility provides a viable pathway for advancing collective justice and protecting victims of hybrid warfare.Ultimately, this article contributes to the evolving discourse on networked accountability by linking jurisprudential developments in human rights to the structural reform of international responsibility in the age of transnational and cyber-enhanced conflicts. https://jrpl.illrc.ac.ir/article_734043.html AbstractThe present article examines the conceptual and institutional challenges of implementing restitution in situations where multiple States simultaneously share responsibility for the commission of human rights violations. Restitution, as a remedial concept, aims to restore the injured party to the position that existed prior to the wrongful act. However, when several States or international organizations contribute to the occurrence of such violations—namely in scenarios of shared responsibility—the application of this concept encounters profound theoretical and practical difficulties. The core question addressed in this study is how the effectiveness of implementing restitution in such contexts may be strengthened, both normatively and institutionally. To answer this question, the article employs an analytical-descriptive approach and relies on a citation-based method to examine the 2020 Draft Principles on Shared Responsibility, as well as the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, including Hirsi Jamaa v. Italy, Ilaşcu v. Moldova and Russia, and Catan v. Moldova and Russia. The findings indicate that one of the principal obstacles is the absence of binding mechanisms for cooperation among responsible States and the lack of an expansive interpretation of the notion of a “collective victim.” The research further demonstrates that the explicit recognition of the principle of solidarity in compensatory responsibility is a fundamental condition for ensuring effective reparation. The principle of solidarity entitles the victim to claim full reparation from any responsible State, while allowing States, thereafter, to exercise rights of recourse among themselves. In practice, however, reparations tend to be limited to monetary compensation, and restitution in its genuine sense remains largely unrealized. The article ultimately proposes several solutions, including explicit endorsement of the principle of compensatory solidarity, the establishment of joint restorative commissions, the expansion of the concept of restitution to institutional and collective levels, and the strengthening of the role of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. These measures would elevate restitution from a predominantly judicial and individual remedy to a cooperative, structural, and justice-oriented process, and could enable a transition from “symbolic restitution” to “genuine restitution” within the framework of restorative justice in the European system. https://jrpl.illrc.ac.ir/article_734615.html The institution of the judiciary in the Islamic state, particularly during the caliphate of Harun al-Rashid (170–193 AH), when the process of judicial institutionalization reached its peak, functioned as one of the fundamental pillars of the Islamic government. It aimed to achieve justice, safeguard public rights, and repel oppression, thereby strengthening the political legitimacy of the system. By adjudicating disputes and preventing encroachment upon public rights, this institution provided the groundwork for the realization of Islamic justice and public trust, playing a pivotal role in maintaining public order and security.The findings of this research indicate that Harun al-Rashid's reformist measures—such as establishing the position of Chief Judge (Qāḍī al-Quḍāt) and appointing prominent figures like Judge Abu Yusuf to head the judicial system—led to the systematization of legal proceedings and the enhancement of judges' religious and administrative qualifications. The consolidation and expansion of the Court of Grievances (Dīwān al-Maẓālim), as a manifestation of Islamic justice during this period, facilitated the adjudication of complaints filed by the people against state officials and agents, thereby preventing the spread of administrative corruption and governmental tyranny. Furthermore, the judiciary's protection of Dhimmis (non-Muslim subjects) and religious minorities exemplified the observance of social justice and the legal civilization of the Abbasids.Moreover, the active presence of judges in the caliph's official travels, their participation in managing political and security crises, and their commitment to observing the rights of subjects, highlighted the social and political status of the judicial institution. The relative independence of judges from the caliphate institution, their scholarly competence in jurisprudence (fiqh) and hadith, and their practical adherence to Islamic legal standards, bolstered public trust and consolidated social justice.The results of the study suggest that the relative independence of judges, their professional competence, and their commitment to the administration of justice formed the main foundations for securing public rights and public order. The connection between judicial justice and political authority provided the groundwork for the continuity of the caliphate's legitimacy and the establishment of stable order in Islamic society. https://jrpl.illrc.ac.ir/article_735359.html As a component of public resources and national wealth, mines play a vital role in the economic development of nations, and their exploitation has always been subject to specific financial and legal regulations. In most legal systems, governments collect payments from operators, known as government royalties, the calculation of which may be based on the volume or weight of the extracted mineral, its market value, the operator’s profit, or a combination of these methods. The conceptual evolution of this institution in Iranian law—marked by the legal definition’s shift from “government revenue” in the 1998 Mining Law to “government’s share” in the 2011 amendment—has transformed its nature from a tax-like financial levy to one more akin to an inherent proprietary right. In Iran, pursuant to Articles 44 and 45 of the Constitution and the Mining Law, the right to exploit mines is granted to persons or entities by the Ministry of Industry, Mine, and Trade through a public tender and the issuance of an exploitation license. The licensee is then obligated to pay a percentage of the mineral’s value, as stipulated in the license and calculated at market rates, under the title of government royalties. Using a descriptive-analytical method and drawing on legal statutes and Islamic jurisprudential (fiqh) texts, this article seeks to answer the question: What is the legal nature of government mining royalties in Iran’s legal system, and what are its fundamental distinctions from similar concepts in public finance law? To this end, the study analyzes the concept and status of these royalties, distinguishing them from institutions such as taxes, duties, rent, ground rent (haqq al-ard), and Khums. It also examines the legal framework through which exploitation rights are granted. The findings indicate that government royalties constitute a legal institution distinct from other financial instruments. Its essence lies in the exploitation of public wealth under an innominate administrative contract, for which consideration is paid to the state. Although the law stipulates that these royalties should be determined based on the specific conditions of each mine (such as reserve size, extraction method, and profitability), in practice, there is a tendency to apply uniform rates, a practice that diverges from the legislator’s intent. Revising the mechanism for determining these royalties based on the specific conditions of each mine and the operator’s profit would lead to greater transparency, attract investment, and better realize the objectives of distributive justice. https://jrpl.illrc.ac.ir/article_735820.html For law to possess authority and function as the ultimate source of obligation, it must remain independent of other normative realities. Conditioning its validity upon the normative reality of Sharia—or any other normative realities—leads to a “crisis of disproportionate authority” and inevitably results either in the weakening of both legal and religious authority or, in practice, in reducing law to a mere instrument for enforcing a particular interpretation of Sharia.However, the impossibility of a co-existing and proportionate authority of law and Sharia does not imply the exclusion of Sharia from the legislative process. Law, as a product of social facts, has a non-contingent existence; in this respect, Sharia may enter the process of lawmaking, provided that it is considered not as a normative reality and a criterion of legal validity, but as a social reality—that is, insofar as it is reflected in the beliefs and practices of the members of society.By distinguishing between Sharia as a normative reality and Sharia as a social reality, this article examines the theory of Mohammad Hossein Na’ini as a prominent example of the theoretical efforts of religious constitutionalists, and demonstrates why attempts to establish a form of proportionality between the authority of law and Sharia—both in the Constitutional era and thereafter—are bound to fail. It is finally argued that only through this distinction, and by recognizing Sharia as a social reality, can the authority of law be both realized and preserved, while also making possible the just governance of a plural society with due respect for individual rights and freedoms. https://jrpl.illrc.ac.ir/article_735828.html Protest, as one of the most fundamental forms of social action, bears a close relationship to the dominant conception of the political human, the structure of power, and the status of law. In Iranian history, protest has not merely been a reactive behavior; rather, it serves as an indicator for understanding conceptual transformations in the relationship between state and society. Adopting a phenomenological approach and drawing upon the foundations of public law, this article examines the transformation of the meaning of protest within the historical transition from subjecthood to citizenship, from the pre‑constitutional period to the Constitutional Revolution. The central question of this study is how protest gradually evolved from a moral and religious act, largely situated outside the legal order, into a phenomenon intelligible within the horizon of law and public rights. The article advances the hypothesis that protest functions as a mirror through which the transformation of the political human in Iran can be understood. In pre‑constitutional society, the political human was defined as a subject (ra‘iyat), and therefore the possibility of protest in its juridical sense did not exist. Responses to power typically appeared in forms such as supplication, patience, or individual petitions for redress. With the intensification of social and economic crises in the nineteenth century, a form of pre‑political collective consciousness emerged that created the conditions for the rise of social protest. Within this context, the Tobacco Protest constitutes a historical turning point, marking the first widespread and relatively organized experience of protest and challenging the prevailing perception of society’s incapacity vis‑à‑vis political power. The article demonstrates that although such protests possessed social legitimacy, they lacked a juridical articulation prior to the Constitutional Revolution. The Constitutional Movement represented an attempt to transform the social experience of protest into a legal understanding grounded in the recognition of the citizen, the limitation of power, and the rule of law. Ultimately, the article argues that the right to protest is the historical product of this transformative trajectory, and that without acknowledging this development, the analysis of public law in Iran remains incomplete. https://jrpl.illrc.ac.ir/article_735832.html "The Law abiding" is one of the favorite phenomena of the sociology of law, and most of the views on it are linear, instrumental and adaptive. This is despite the fact that the above phenomenon has complex characteristics. In this article, an attempt was made to analyze legalism in an interdisciplinary manner and to focus on its interaction with the culture of Iran on the basis of lessons from the Constitutionalism. Considering that the aforementioned concept, its emergence and consistency are examined with different epistemic systems, achieving a comprehensive understanding of it, especially in the transitioning society of Iran, requires entering into various fields such as theology, jurisprudence, history, law, sociology, anthropology, etc. (systemic analysis). In this essay, a descriptive-analytical method was used with a survey tool and it was tried to be another step in the study field of sociology of law. The results showed that The Law abiding has a social aspect and is a complex, multifaceted, variable and textual phenomenon that is in a Dialogical (back and forth) relationship with its most important requirement - culture. The reason for the mentioned relationship is rooted in the importance of the existence of a platform for the emergence of culture of The Law abiding. The importance of cultural prerequisite is also due to the fact that The Law abiding is a type of social behavior and this itself is mainly modeled by dominant social norms. According to the available statistics, our country currently lacks favorable conditions for the stability of The Law abiding. In search of the cause of this discrepancy, In search of the cause of this inconsistency, our studies showed that a kind of sectarian characteristic can be identified in Iranian culture.This feature puts the said culture in front of the goal and spirit of The Law abiding. But the mentioned relationship is not of the type of Empty. Due to the dialogical (back and forth) relations between the legal system and culture, there have been changes in terms of compliance with the law in some social areas, which shows the evolution of Iranian culture and The Law abiding. https://jrpl.illrc.ac.ir/article_735845.html The transformation of public law in Iran during the Constitutional era cannot be explained without understanding the role of farang‑raftagān (Iranian intellectuals and officials who had studied or lived in Europe) and their lived experience of Western civilization and political thought, particularly in France. Focusing on the process through which Iranian intellectuals and diplomats became acquainted with modern concepts such as sovereignty, law, the separation of powers, and the social contract, this article demonstrates how the farang‑raftagān, as carriers of modern public‑law concepts, played a fundamental role in translating, adapting, and localizing these ideas. Drawing on Persian sources (treatises and works by Mostashar al‑Doleh, Talebof, Malkom Khan, and Taqizadeh) as well as contemporaneous French texts (Montesquieu, Rousseau, and the French Constitutions of 1789 and 1791), the study employs a descriptive–analytical method and library‑based research to reconstruct the trajectory through which concepts of public law were transmitted and transformed from Paris to Tehran. The central hypothesis of this research is that the transfer of public‑law thought to Iran occurred not merely through textual translations, but primarily through the lived experiences of farang‑raftagān within French intellectual milieus and their direct engagement with Western educational, cultural, and political systems. Upon their return, through authorship, translation, and institution‑building, they provided the epistemic foundations necessary for the emergence of the Constitutional Constitution. In this sense, they may be regarded as cultural intermediaries between two intellectual traditions: Iran’s juristic–monarchical tradition and France’s republican tradition. The findings indicate that, by selectively interpreting and translating the French Constitution, the farang‑raftagān laid the theoretical groundwork for the formation of a law‑based state in Iran and forged a conceptual bridge between Iran’s bureaucratic tradition and modern institutions of governance. https://jrpl.illrc.ac.ir/article_735848.html The Constitutional Movement in Iran, as a watershed moment in the nation’s history, catalyzed the first structured initiatives toward social modernization and welfare enhancement under the influence of modern thought. During this period, public health concerns and the right to health—especially amid widespread epidemics—evolved into matters of national significance. Employing a descriptive-analytical methodology, this study examines the impact of the Constitutional era on women’s rights and their agency in advancing those rights. Findings reveal that the active engagement of women intellectuals in civic and health associations, such as the "Anjoman-e Nazafat" (Hygiene Association) in Tehran, along with their interventions in areas including water sanitation, street cleaning, waste management, child vaccination programs, and critical discourse on public health in the press, not only represented a substantial leap forward in community health but also constituted a pivotal inception for the recognition of women’s public agency and their influence on health policy formation. By fostering nascent civil and governmental institutions, this movement established the foundational framework for systematic attention to health and sanitation in Iran. https://jrpl.illrc.ac.ir/article_735849.html This paper first elucidates the concept of constitutionalism as a historical movement emphasizing the rule of a written constitution over political customs. Employing a historical-cross-sectional method with respect to the constitutional era, it examines the role of two influential parties—the Democrat Party (with liberal and radical leanings) and the Moderate Socialists Party (with conservative and religious inclinations)—in either reinforcing or undermining this movement. The findings indicate that the fundamental disagreements between these two parties over issues such as the source of legitimacy, the relationship between religion and politics, the system of representation, and partisanship, coupled with the absence of the necessary socio-economic foundations (e.g., an urban middle class and an industrial economy) for constitutionalism, as well as their practical confrontations and recourse to physical elimination, ultimately led to the relative failure of the constitutional movement and the incomplete consolidation of constitutionalism and the development of constitutional rights in Iran. https://jrpl.illrc.ac.ir/article_735850.html In the discourse of the Constitutional Revolution, justice emerged not merely as a moral virtue, but as the foundation of Iran’s new legal and political order. The concept of the House of Justice (Edalatkhaneh), which first took shape in popular slogans and in the thought of clerics and modernist intellectuals, marked the beginning of a transformation in the understanding of justice. This transformation moved from a moral and religious demand for justice toward its legal and structural conception. The House of Justice was not a clearly defined preexisting legal concept; rather, it functioned as a floating signifier and a field of discursive contestation that enabled the coalition of heterogeneous social forces while simultaneously concealing the radical nature of the revolution. Accordingly, the model of the House of Justice evolved through different stages, each displaying distinct sub-models ranging from reform of the judicial system to a structure resembling a representative assembly. In this way, justice became an instrument for limiting absolute power and safeguarding the public rights of citizens, and within this intellectual framework, the first steps toward the emergence of a modern Iranian criminal policy were also taken. The principal aim of this study is to trace the evolution of this key concept from the initial demand for the establishment of the House of Justice—as a discursive construct for constraining despotic power and enforcing religious law—to the rise of the modern concept of criminal policy as a mechanism for the management of crime and punishment. This policy sought not merely to punish offenders, but also to restrain the punitive power of the state and guarantee individual freedoms. From this perspective, it may be argued that the criminal policy of the Constitutional era rested upon three pillars: legality in place of sovereign will, separation of institutions of justice from political power, and justice as the criterion of penal legitimacy. Indeed, in Constitutional thought, justice created a bridge between public law and criminal law in Iran—a bridge whose reconsideration may inspire the rethinking of contemporary Iranian criminal policy. https://jrpl.illrc.ac.ir/article_736020.html Focusing on the years leading up to the Constitutional Revolution in Iran, this article examines the internal intellectual traditions and discourses that, despite the dominance of autocracy and the theory of absolute monarchy, possessed the capacity to constrain the King’s power. These traditions provided the necessary theoretical groundwork for the formation of public law and the establishment of a constitutional system. Employing a historical-ideological analysis method and investigating eight major traditions/discourses (Shi’a political-legal thought, the discourse of law, the tradition of andarznameh [advice literature] writing, religious reformist thought, progressivist discourse, the discourse of Edalat Khaneh [Houses of Justice], the theory of divine deposit and trust, and the institution of Waqf [endowment]), this study argues that the limitation of power in this era was rooted in a complex and interwoven system of ideas. From the Shi’a jurisprudential-theological tradition, with its components of clerical deputyship and the conditional legitimacy of government, to the discourse of law featuring mechanisms for the separation of powers and the rule of law; from the tradition of andarznameh writing, emphasizing justice and the right to criticize, to religious reformist thought, which reinterpreted concepts of consultation (Shura) and public interest; from the progressivist discourse, which transformed concepts of nation, homeland, and functional legitimacy, to the discourse of Edalat Khaneh, focusing on the right to petition and the transition toward institution-building. Furthermore, the theories of divine deposit/trust and the institution of Waqf provided robust legal-philosophical and socio-economic frameworks, respectively, for limiting power. These traditions, through their interaction and occasional confrontation, shifted Iranian society’s intellectual climate from the "absolute legitimacy of the King" toward "constitutionalism and accountability of power." This process paved the way for the transformation of scattered moral constraints into institutionalized and systematic limitations of public law within the Constitutional Constitution. https://jrpl.illrc.ac.ir/article_736105.html Mirza Mohammad Hossein Naini is among the most significant juridical-political thinkers of the Constitutional era, and his thought played a decisive role in the conceptual transition of law and politics in Iran. The central question of this article is how and to what extent Naini—without claiming direct engagement with modern Western political philosophy—reformulated modern legal and political concepts within the logic of Shia jurisprudence, and what place this reformulation occupies in the transition from traditional readings to the requirements of a modern political order. The research employs a conceptual analysis approach and an interpretive-critical reading of the text »Tanbīh al-Milla wa Tanzīh al-Umma«, examining textual evidence in relation to the core concepts of modern political thought and the historical context of the Constitutional Revolution.The preliminary findings demonstrate that Naini, through a series of concepts, provides clear signs of this conceptual transition: a non-deterministic view of history; the separation of the “religious domain” (*al-amr al-dīnī*) and the »national domain« (*al-amr al-waṭanī*) as the foundation of the public sphere; the formulation of “type-based common rights” (*ḥuqūq-i mushtaraka-yi nawʿiyya*) grounded in the distinction between right (*ḥaqq*) and ruling (*ḥukm*); the principle of equality in the political sphere; the negation of the inherent authority of power; the concept of *mustaṣghirīn* as a constructed political immaturity; the implicit acceptance of the separation of powers; and an emphasis on collective organization through »legitimate scholarly associations« (*anjuman-hā-yi ṣaḥīḥa-yi ʿilmiyya*). Based on this reading, the article’s main hypothesis is that Naini can be regarded as a trend-setting and transitional thinker who, through the endogenous recreation of modern concepts, forged a link between traditional jurisprudential readings and the imperatives of modern political order. From this perspective, *Tanbīh al-Milla wa Tanzīh al-Umma* is not merely a defensive treatise in support of constitutionalism, but a theoretical text in the formation of a new political jurisprudence in Iran. https://jrpl.illrc.ac.ir/article_736116.html This study attempts to refute linear, unidirectional, and reductionist approaches to public law in the constitutional context. It claims that public law was not merely a linear reflection of the transition from despotism to law but rather a complex, multi-layered process of conceptual and institutional metamorphosis. The primary research question examines how key concepts of public law were reconfigured and transformed through a nonsynchronous process during the constitutional era, and how this transmutation led to the complexity of the public law condition. The central inquiry explores how the legal and semantic structures of the constitution were formed by combining traditional and modern symbolic forms and what impact this had on the development of public law. The research methodology integrates Ernst Cassirer's philosophy of symbolic forms and Edgar Morin's complexity theory, based on Bloch's concept of non-simultaneity, to provide a morphological and systemic analysis of the transformation of concepts and institutional structures. The findings indicate that public law in the constitutional period, characterized by historical nonsynchronism, polycentric legitimation, and the fluidity of mythical and rational concepts, evolved into a complex system reflective of the struggle between tradition and modernity. This study underscores the necessity for non-linear and interdisciplinary reinterpretations of public law as a complex system wherein meaning and structure are shaped through feedback and recombination processes. https://jrpl.illrc.ac.ir/article_736169.html The Constitutional Revolution was the reflection of the first comprehensive national movement in Iran's contemporary history. By creating a form of general consensus, it managed to transcend the boundaries of traditional identity, initiating a movement towards achieving a new political identity based on the rejection of despotism, the demand for law, the establishment of modern institutions, the creation of a form of historical self-awareness, the pursuit of progress, the realization of freedom, and the establishment of equality. In fact, with the advent of the Constitutional Revolution, in addition to the emergence of diverse identity discourses — whose internal discursive concepts sometimes appeared completely contradictory to one another — a coalition was formed at the national level that placed before Iranians a new experience.The main question of this article is: What was the internal discursive nature of the Constitutional Revolution, and what were its outcomes? The hypothesis of the article is that the profound penetration of concepts derived from the first wave of modernity into the structural dimensions of Iranian society — which manifested itself in the form of liberal constitutionalism and the establishment of parliamentary democracy — along with political initiatives and innovations, and the formation of new parties and political groups, led to the emergence of a modern pattern of political activity and the direction of political actions and efforts aimed at limiting the monarch's arbitrariness, redressing the wrongs of the nobility and princes, preventing landowners from encroaching upon the rights and freedoms of the people, and striving for the realization of awareness, freedom, and equality.At this juncture, with the creation of a kind of political-social transformation distinct from previous eras, we witness the formation of new processes whose internal discursive elements exhibit a kind of incongruity, asynchrony, and non-conformity with traditional discourse. This endows the Constitutional Revolution with characteristics that allow it to be regarded as "the boundary between old and new Iran." Constitutionalism is the point of departure for a movement in which the effort to transform traditional attitudes, perceptions, and the relations arising from them, along with the initiation of modern ideas and institutions, markedly draws a line of distinction between traditional and modern conceptions and stances.