The Ratification and Status of the International Treaties in the Legal System of the Islamic Republic of Iran
Bibliographic record
Abstract
After the Islamic revolution in Iran in 1979, fundamental changes occurred in Iran’s political and legal system. Pursuant the referendum on creating the Islamic Republic in March 1979, the new constitution came into force in the same year and many of the ordinary laws of the country were also reformed. The purpose of this study is to consider the method of ratification of international treaties and the status of these instruments in the legal system of Iran. Firstly, the stages of the ratification of treaties in Iran's legal system have been explained. Secondly, the position of treaties among the other laws is discussed. This study concludes that, the international treaties, like ordinary laws, primarily should be passed by the Islamic Consultative Assembly; and after the approval of the Guardian Council, they should be signed by the President. Under the Constitution of Iran all international treaties should all be ratified by the Islamic Consultative Assembly (parliament) and the Guardian Council; however, based on the interpretations of the Guardian Council and the executive procedures, some treaties have been excluded from the ratification of the Islamic Consultative Assembly. International treaties may enjoy a higher position than that of the ordinary law through an objective interpretation, although they have been recognized as ordinary laws by the Article 9 of the Civil Code of Iran.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".