Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorVAN ENGELAND, Anicée
dc.date.accessioned2008-04-16T12:11:49Z
dc.date.available2008-04-16T12:11:49Z
dc.date.issued2008
dc.identifier.issn1830-7728
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1814/8448
dc.description.abstractThe Islamic republic of Iran has often been denounced by international organizations for its lack of respect for international obligations, in particular human rights obligations. To justify its lack of compliance towards its human rights obligations, Iran which is a party to several human rights treaties, invokes its constitutional law: indeed, the Iranian constitution states that Iranian law and the Iranian constitutions supersede international law if there is a conflict of laws. This has been publicly asserted at the United Nations and repeated by the Iranian authorities in front of various committees in charge of the enforcement and respect for the instruments of human rights. Consequently, when facing a contradiction between the Convention of the Rights of Children and Iranian law, the latter will take precedence. The origin of Iran’s reservations over the international instruments it ratified originates from the same principle: the authorities have to respect Shari’a. Consequently, all international treaties ratified by the country bear the same reservation: the respect of Shari’a principles. For example, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that Iran has agreed with guarantees freedom of speech. Iran will respect such a freedom as long as it does not contradict Shari’a principles. This limit also prevents Iran from ratifying new international documents: since the authorities are well-aware of the limits this rule encompasses, they have refused to ratify two major human rights conventions: the 1984 Convention against Torture and the 1979 Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discriminations against Women. Civil society wants however these two conventions to be ratified. This is why women in particular have encouraged Parliament to present a bill to ratify them. The debate was particularly interesting in the case of the 1979 Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discriminations against Women. When the bill was presented to the Council of Guardians which is the body in charge of checking the constitutionality of laws, it was rejected for non conformity with the constitution; indeed the convention is said to be contrary to the constitution’s article that set the respect of the principles of the Shari’a as a constitutional test of compatibility. Consequently, the convention was declared to be contrary to Iranian law. The outcome was that the Iranian authorities made sure the window of opportunity to reform women’s rights in Iran opened by civil society would be closed. By drafting the bill, Parliament and civil society proved that a conciliation between Iranian human rights values and universal human rights standards was possible.en
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf
dc.language.isoenen
dc.publisherEuropean University Institute
dc.relation.ispartofseriesEUI MWP
dc.relation.ispartofseries2008/08
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
dc.subjectIranen
dc.subjectInternational Lawen
dc.subjectHuman Rights, Shari’aen
dc.subjectWomen’s Rightsen
dc.titleLe droit international des droits de l’homme et la République Islamique d’Iran : respect des obligations internationales par un gouvernement islamiqueen
dc.title.alternativeInternational Human Rights Law and the Islamic Republic of Iran: respect for International Obligations by an Islamic Governmenten
dc.typeWorking Paperen
eui.subscribe.skiptrue


Files in this item

Icon

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record