Rule of Law in the International System and Iranian Domestic Law: Challenges

Abstract

The rule of law is a foundational concept in modern legal and political order, emphasizing the primacy of general, transparent, stable, and equally enforceable norms applicable to all individuals and institutions, including the state itself. This principle is regarded as the cornerstone of legitimacy, predictability, and the restraint of power, both at the national and international levels. This article distinguishes between the concepts of “rule of law” and “rule by law” and proposes an operational framework for assessing the rule of law at the international level and within Iranian domestic law. The proposed framework is built upon four categories of indicators: normative quality (generality, transparency, and relative stability), institutional guarantees (independence and reviewability), transparency and procedurality (reason-giving, publicity, and jurisdictional rules), and finally, compliance and effectiveness (independent monitoring and institutional capacity). The research method is analytical–comparative and institutional, relying on international normative instruments, the Constitution and ordinary laws of Iran, judicial practice, and legal doctrine. The findings indicate that at the international level, the effectiveness of the rule of law depends on the transparency of the relationship between state consent and peremptory norms, genuine access to impartial adjudication, judicial dialogue among bodies, and non-selective compliance mechanisms; whereas unilateralism, selective enforcement, and regime fragmentation undermine legal predictability. In Iranian domestic law, there are capacities such as due process guarantees in the Constitution, the Administrative Justice Court, and the possibility of annulment of regulations; however, challenges such as regulatory inflation, lengthy proceedings, and insufficient transparency in meta-structural decisions impair the indicators of predictability and procedural equality. The main recommendation of this study is the establishment of an ex-ante and ex-post impact assessment cycle and the periodic codification (consolidation) of laws accompanied by clarifying the criteria of expediency-based decisions. This approach would elevate law from a mere “appearance” to “normative reliability” and reduce the gap between right and power.