Substitutional Rulings in Constitutional Judiciary (Comparative Study)

Zahraw, Duaa Ibrahim

doi:10.63677/jqlap.2025.187062

	Substitutional Rulings in Constitutional Judiciary (Comparative Study)
AL-Qadisiya Journal For Law and Political Sciences
Article 14, Volume 16, Issue: 1 part 2, June 2025, Pages 423-440 PDF (606.09 K)
Document Type: Research Paper
DOI: 10.63677/jqlap.2025.187062
Author
Duaa Ibrahim Zahraw^*
University of Maysan / College of Law
Abstract
When the constitutional judge rules that a law is unconstitutional، he fills the text by adding something that complements it or replacing the part that violates the constitution with another text that is more compatible with the provisions of the constitution، provided that the constitutional judge does not deviate from the basic goal that the legislator wanted. Substitutionary rulings are defined as the constitutional judge issuing rulings to cancel and exclude a rule that violates the Constitution and replace it with another rule that is more consistent with its rulings. The Federal Supreme Court has a pioneering and new experience in following the substitutionary approach in its rulings، as it issues substitutionary rulings by replacing one text with another without ruling that the entire law is unconstitutional In this study, we have used the comparative analytical approach, through reviewing, analyzing, discussing and commenting on the rulings of the constitutional judiciary, in order to arrive at the position of comparative law on substitutionary rulings, namely the Arab Republic of Egypt, within a framework of comparison between the applications of the Supreme Constitutional Court in Egypt and the applications of the Federal Supreme Court in Iraq regarding substitutionary rulings.
Keywords
Substitution; Constitutional Judiciary; Constitutional Law

Statistics Article View: 257 PDF Download: 97