A Comparative Study of the Rule of Law in Iranian Law and International Law

This article presents a comparative analysis of the principle of the rule of law within the legal system of the Islamic Republic of Iran and international law. The principle of the rule of law was initially developed within domestic legal systems and gradually gained recognition in the realm of international law. In domestic law, this principle serves as one of the fundamental pillars of democracy, playing a crucial role in limiting the power of rulers and safeguarding the fundamental rights and freedoms of citizens. Conversely, in the sphere of international law, the rule of law is primarily regarded as a means to maintain international peace and security, promote human rights, and compel states to adhere to universally accepted international norms. This study employs a descriptive–analytical method and is based on library sources to elucidate the essential similarities and differences of this principle in the two aforementioned contexts. The findings reveal that despite their shared foundational principles, the concept and function of the rule of law in international law differ significantly from those in domestic legal systems. Among the most notable differences are those related to systemic structures, enforcement mechanisms, legal subjects, and the methods of implementing legal norms. Furthermore, the close relationship between the rule of law and the protection of human rights, the role of international institutions such as the Security Council, and efforts to combat impunity through the establishment of international criminal tribunals are key features of this principle in international law. Overall, this comparative study indicates that although there are fundamental differences between the two approaches, the shared objective of both systems is the establishment of legal order, justice, and the restriction of unaccountable powers.