Legitimacy of practical disruption of the constitution according to international standards: the 2005 Iraqi constitution as an example

Abstract

   Constitutional rules sometimes encounter circumstances that make their application impossible. The severity of these circumstances varies depending on the degree of their impact on security, the state's existence, and its territorial integrity. To confront these exceptional circumstances, rulers take special measures to address these situations and risks that negatively impact the permanence and supremacy of constitutional rules. This is done by suspending part of the constitution for a specified period, in accordance with the procedures and provisions contained in the constitutional document. This is called formal or natural suspension. However, sometimes constitutions are suspended, in whole or in part, by rulers without a constitutional text. To address the situation imposed by reality, rulers are forced to resort to this suspension. Since this suspension is not based on a constitutional basis, it becomes an informal and illegitimate suspension, similar to political suspension and de facto suspension. This contradicts the general principle of international law, which considers de facto suspension illegitimate because it conflicts with the rule of law, democracy, and human rights. It constitutes a violation of human rights and destabilizes the political and social situation within society.