Types of Constitutional Conciliation Based on the Formal Criterion
Keywords:Constitutional Reconciliation, Constitutional judges, Conflicted Constitutional Rules
This study aims to examine the concept of constitutional reconciliation within the framework of the formal standard. Specifically، it focuses on reconciling conflicting constitutional rules that are limited to the confines of the constitutional document، without extending beyond its boundaries. Such conflicts necessitate the development of a novel judicial approach by the constitutional judge to establish a balance and reconciliation between these rules and constitutional principles. The ultimate objective is to safeguard the unity and fundamental essence of the constitution by mitigating fragmentation that may arise from contradictory provisions rooted in conflicting constitutional rules.The primary purpose of this research is to showcase the authority vested in the constitutional judge to reconcile these constitutional rules based on the formal standard. To accomplish this aim، the study explores various modes of reconciliation in accordance with the formal standard، encompassing reconciliation between constitutional texts and the constitutional preamble، reconciliation among conflicting constitutional texts، and reconciliation between the original constitutional texts and the subsequently amended ones. The research methodology employed herein relies on a comparative approach، which involves comprehensive analysis of the subject matter and the identification of both commonalities and divergences among converging legal systems.