Legal Security in Public Employment: A Comparative Constitutional Study

Abstract

This study examines the principle of legal security in public employment as one of the fundamental constitutional pillars for ensuring the stability of the legal relationship between public employees and the state. It adopts a comparative constitutional approach involving three countries with different legal and political systems: Iraq, Egypt, and Iran. The significance of the topic lies in its direct impact on one of the most sensitive areas of public administration, influencing the effectiveness of state institutions, the satisfaction of public sector employees, and citizens’ trust in administrative authorities. The study aims to establish the constitutional foundations of the principle of legal security and to identify its core elements, including clarity of legal rules, legal stability, predictability, protection of acquired rights, and the non-retroactivity of harmful laws. It also explores how this principle is embedded in the constitutions of the three countries, their civil service legislation, and relevant judicial applications. Methodologically, the research relies on a descriptive-analytical approach to conceptual clarification and legal text interpretation, alongside a comparative method to examine similarities and differences among the three countries through an analysis of constitutions, civil service laws, and judicial precedents. The study assumes that entrenching the principle of legal security in public employment depends not only on the existence of clear legal texts, but also on an independent judiciary and administrative practices that respect constitutional principles. It raises a central question concerning the extent to which these states have succeeded in institutionalizing legal security within their legal and administrative systems, and the effectiveness of institutional and judicial mechanisms in ensuring respect for this principle. The findings reveal a clear variation among the three countries. Egypt appears more advanced in terms of the clarity of legal provisions and the development of administrative judiciary jurisprudence. Iraq, by contrast, suffers from legislative instability and weak institutional implementation of the principle. Iran, while containing constitutional provisions emphasizing justice and equality, is affected by the overlap between religious authority and legal power, which undermines the independence of the administrative and judicial systems. The study also identifies the absence of transitional periods in legislation and the frequent, poorly considered legal amendments as major obstacles to consolidating legal security. Accordingly, the study recommends the explicit inclusion of the principle of legal security in constitutions, the adoption of more stable and clearer legislation, the strengthening of the role of administrative, and the provision of effective guarantees to protect the legal status of public employees. Legal security is thus not merely a means of individual protection, but a cornerstone for building a sound public administration based on transparency, equality, and justice.