Although Iran and Iraq have so many aspects in common –such as: both governments are "republic", and they both have some Islamic implications in their political-legal systems- there is many differences between their legal structure and dominant systems; which can have roots in differences of different conditions under which the constitutions were written, as well as other elements such as: different histories of states, previous political status, and other structural differences. These factors caused Iranian constitution –against its writers' will- to be unsuccessful in leading neighbor countries.
We can see the differences in three legal aspects: differences in dominant foundations and spirit of constitution law, different legal-political macro-structures – which lead Iranian dominant system to be simple, versus Iraqi dominant system that is federal-; and finally different status and rule of three powers and officials; that can be derived from their job description, tasks and the procedure of application
Salahi, S. and Bahadori Jahromi, A. (2012). Constitutional Structures of Islamic Republic of
Iran and Republic of Iraq: a Comparative Study. Comparative Law Review, 3(2), 65-82. doi: 10.22059/jcl.2012.32112
MLA
Salahi, S. , and Bahadori Jahromi, A. . "Constitutional Structures of Islamic Republic of
Iran and Republic of Iraq: a Comparative Study", Comparative Law Review, 3, 2, 2012, 65-82. doi: 10.22059/jcl.2012.32112
HARVARD
Salahi, S., Bahadori Jahromi, A. (2012). 'Constitutional Structures of Islamic Republic of
Iran and Republic of Iraq: a Comparative Study', Comparative Law Review, 3(2), pp. 65-82. doi: 10.22059/jcl.2012.32112
CHICAGO
S. Salahi and A. Bahadori Jahromi, "Constitutional Structures of Islamic Republic of
Iran and Republic of Iraq: a Comparative Study," Comparative Law Review, 3 2 (2012): 65-82, doi: 10.22059/jcl.2012.32112
VANCOUVER
Salahi, S., Bahadori Jahromi, A. Constitutional Structures of Islamic Republic of
Iran and Republic of Iraq: a Comparative Study. Comparative Law Review, 2012; 3(2): 65-82. doi: 10.22059/jcl.2012.32112
)