Hassan Mustafa Hussein (Soran University) has posted Constitutionalism Versus Traditional Authority: The Role of the Constitution in the Institutionalisation of Authority in the Kurdistan Region of Iraq—A Critical and Analytical Study on SSRN. Here is the abstract:
One of the fundamental questions in the political philosophy of the constitution is why states require a written constitution or legal-rational authority. A common answer is that a written constitution serves to restrain the emergence of a Leviathan, to establish rational and institutional authority, and to safeguard fundamental rights and freedoms. From this perspective, Constitutionalism is conceived as a framework for limiting political power and institutionalizing Authority, rather than allowing the persistence of traditional or despotic forms of rule. One of the primary mechanisms for achieving the institutionalization of authority is the existence of a modern constitution, functioning as the highest and most legitimate source of legal and political order.
However, the Kurdistan Region of Iraq has failed to develop such a model of rational constitutional governance over the past three decades. Despite the provisions of the 2005 Iraqi Constitution, which granted the Region the right to adopt its own constitution, political authority in the Region has remained dominated by traditional structures and Partocratic rule. This failure to institutionalize authority has contributed to the erosion of democratic practices, human rights, and the rule of law in the Region.
This study adopts a critical and analytical approach to examine the nature of authority in the Kurdistan Region. It assumes that the adoption of a written constitution is essential for the institutionalization of constitutional authority, shaping the functioning of the legislative, executive, and judicial branches.
Recommended!
To receive new posts from Legal Theory Blog by email, get a free subscription to Legal Theory Stack.
Lawrence Solum