Foundations and Criteria of Legitimacy in the Conflict between Right and Interest: A Comparative Study in Iranian Positive Law, Imamiyyah Jurisprudence, and the Common Law System
Keywords:
right, benefit, Imami jurisprudence, Iranian statutory law, common law, legitimacy, justice, proportionalityAbstract
The conflict between right and interest is among the most important issues in public law, philosophy of law, and theories of justice in contemporary legal systems. On the one hand, protecting individual rights and guaranteeing freedoms and fundamental rights are regarded as central objectives of every legal system; on the other hand, securing the public interest, maintaining social order, and realizing collective welfare are also undeniable necessities. The main problem of this study is to identify the criteria of legitimacy in cases of conflict between right and interest and to examine the possibility of extracting a common framework from Imamiyyah jurisprudence, Iranian positive law, and the common law system. Using a descriptive-analytical method and a comparative approach, the present study examines the theoretical and practical foundations governing the relationship between right and interest in the three legal systems under study. The findings indicate that, despite differences in epistemological foundations, legal sources, and modes of reasoning, all three systems emphasize principles such as justice, necessity, limitation of power, protection of fundamental rights, reviewability, and accountability, and none of them supports the absolute priority of either right or interest. Based on the findings, a six-criterion model of legitimacy is proposed, including legitimacy of aim, necessity, proportionality, reviewability, accountability, and preservation of the core content of fundamental rights. By drawing on the common elements found in Imamiyyah jurisprudence, Iranian law, and the common law system, this model provides an analytical framework for assessing legitimacy in cases of conflict between right and interest. The main contribution of the study is the presentation of a mediating and balancing model that can be used in the analysis of legislation, administrative decisions, public policies, and judicial rulings, while enabling simultaneous protection of individual rights and the public interest.
Downloads
References
Ansari, M. (1996). Al-Makasib. Islamic Publications Office Affiliated with the Society of Seminary Teachers of Qom.
Bojnourdi, S. H. (2010). Al-Qawa'id al-Fiqhiyyah. Al-Hadi Publications.
Craig, P. (2016). Administrative Law (8th ed.). Sweet & Maxwell.
Dicey, A. V. (1915). Introduction to the Study of the Law of the Constitution (8th ed.). Macmillan.
Dworkin, R. (1977). Taking Rights Seriously. Harvard University Press.
Fuller, L. L. (1969). The Morality of Law (Rev. ed.). Yale University Press.
Haeri Shahbagh, A. (2003). Constitutional Law of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Mizan.
Hashemi, S. M. (2013). Constitutional Law of the Islamic Republic of Iran (Vol. 1). Mizan.
Hosseini Nejad, H. (2009). Foundations of Public Law. SAMT.
Jafari Langroudi, M. J. (2008). Legal Terminology. Ganj-e Danesh.
Katouzian, N. (2007). Philosophy of Law. Enteshar Publishing Company.
Katouzian, N. (2008). Introduction to Legal Science. Enteshar Publishing Company.
Najafi, M. H. (2008). Jawahir al-Kalam fi Sharh Shara'i al-Islam. Dar al-Kutub al-Islamiyyah.
Naraqi, A. (2007). Awa'id al-Ayyam. Islamic Publications Office.
Rawls, J. (1999). A Theory of Justice (Revised ed.). Harvard University Press.
Wade, H. W. R., & Forsyth, C. F. (2014). Administrative Law (11th ed.). Oxford University Press.
Downloads
Published
Submitted
Revised
Accepted
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Reza Vatan Pour (Author); Ramazan Dehghan; Marzieh Afzali Mehr, Mohammad Javad Baghizadeh (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
