Interpretative activities in the context of the jurisdiction and powers of the Iraqi Federal Supreme Court

This dissertation aims to examine the constitutional interpretive activities of the Iraqi Federal Supreme Court within the framework of its powers and functions, while providing a comprehensive evaluation of Iraq's constitutional development, the transformation of its judicial system, the institutional structure that emerged after the 2005 Constitution, and the central role of the Federal Supreme Court in constitutional law. Iraq's modern constitutional order, beginning with the 1925 Basic Law (Kanun-i Esasi), evolved through various constitutional experiments and ultimately institutionalized with the 2005 Constitution. Throughout this process, regime changes, authoritarian tendencies, and attempts at democratization directly influenced constitutional law. Accordingly, the study demonstrates that constitutional texts in Iraq are not merely legal documents but also reflections of political power struggles. The first chapter analyzes the historical background of Iraq's constitutional system and the basic features of its judicial order. Constitutional documents from the monarchy period, as well as republican constitutions, are comparatively examined to reveal Iraq's constitutional trajectory. Since 1958, political instability and the frequent replacement of constitutions negatively affected the functionality of judicial institutions, particularly the establishment and effective operation of high or constitutional courts. The 2004 Transitional Administrative Law marked the first step toward a modern constitutional order, while the 2005 Constitution placed the Federal Supreme Court at the heart of the Iraqi state structure. The study examines in detail the Court's foundation, membership requirements, financial and administrative independence, decision-making procedures, and judicial powers, with special emphasis on its role in constitutional review, interpretation of constitutional provisions, and resolution of disputes among state authorities. The second chapter explores the theoretical foundations of constitutional interpretation. The conceptual framework of constitutional interpretation, the distinctions between interpretation and other related notions such as "ta'wil," as well as different forms of interpretation—legislative, judicial, administrative, and doctrinal—are discussed. Various interpretive methods, including constructive, restrictive, structural, teleological, and living interpretation, are elaborated upon, and the specific approaches employed by the Federal Supreme Court are analyzed. Moreover, the reasons for interpretation are examined, such as the generality, vagueness, incompleteness, contradictions, or political purposes inherent in constitutional texts. The study highlights that the Court's interpretive function is not only a legal activity but also a determinant of Iraq's political stability and balance of power. The temporal and political effects of the Court's decisions are assessed, showing that constitutional interpretations extend beyond past-oriented clarification and include prospective normative guidance. The third chapter investigates the Federal Supreme Court's jurisprudential shifts and their impact on constitutional law. The study reveals that the Court has, in some cases, altered its previous jurisprudence, adopting positive interpretive shifts through expansive interpretations of constitutional provisions, while at times engaging in implicit or explicit restrictive jurisprudential changes. Furthermore, confirmatory and implicit jurisprudential adjustments are identified as mechanisms by which the Court adapts constitutional norms to political realities. These jurisprudential changes demonstrate that constitutional interpretation is a dynamic and evolving process. From a comparative perspective, the study examines the interpretive powers of other constitutional courts, including those of Jordan, Lebanon, Egypt, Kuwait, the United States, and Germany. This comparative analysis highlights similarities and divergences between these courts and Iraq's Federal Supreme Court. For instance, the U.S. Supreme Court's tradition of broad interpretation and Germany's structuralist approach reveal significant differences from the Iraqi Court in terms of institutional independence and flexibility of constitutional norms. Such comparative insights underscore that, despite being institutionally young, the Iraqi Federal Supreme Court has developed a meaningful body of interpretive jurisprudence. The findings of the research conclude that the Federal Supreme Court plays a vital role in safeguarding the rule of law, protecting individual rights and freedoms, ensuring a balance of power among state authorities, and guaranteeing the supremacy of the Constitution. However, the Court's interpretive authority is confined to the provisions of the 2005 Constitution, excluding previous constitutional arrangements. Thus, the interpretive function of the Federal Supreme Court is shown to be central to the development of constitutional law in Iraq, strengthening both democratization and the legal legitimacy of the state. In conclusion, this research provides a comprehensive analysis of the interpretive activities of the Iraqi Federal Supreme Court through historical development, legal foundations, methodology, jurisprudential changes, and comparative law. It contributes to the literature on Iraqi constitutional law by demonstrating that constitutional interpretation is not only the clarification of legal texts but also a decisive mechanism for maintaining political and social stability during the ongoing process of building a constitutional state in Iraq. Keywords: Constitution, Iraq, 2005 Constitution, Federal Supreme Court, constitutional interpretation, jurisprudence, constitutional law, judicial independence, comparative law.