Acceptance of international treaties in Iraq and Lebanese law

Abstract

This study examines the mechanisms of accepting international treaties in both Iraq and Lebanon, with a particular focus on the role of parliament as the primary body for ratification before treaties enter into force. The study aims to analyze the legal procedures followed in each country to ensure that treaties are consistent with the constitution and domestic laws, while also highlighting the similarities and differences between the two systems. The findings reveal that involving parliament in both Iraq and Lebanon enhances oversight of international commitments and guarantees the protection of the constitution and national laws, while also contributing to greater transparency and accountability in the negotiation and ratification of treaties. The study further indicates that Iraq is characterized by more detailed and precise legal procedures compared to Lebanon, whereas the Lebanese constitution grants parliament the ability to discuss and debate treaties prior to ratification, reflecting flexibility in adapting to national policies. The study concludes that parliament in both systems functions as a vital link between international law and domestic law, ensuring the consistent legal application of treaties and reflecting a commitment to democracy and transparency, while emphasizing the need to continue developing legal frameworks to ensure the effective acceptance of international treaties and the reconciliation of both national and international obligations. We will examine our topic in two sections. In the first section, we will address the concept of international treaties in three points: the definition, the stages of international treaties, and the monitoring of their implementation. As for the second point, we will examine the extent of the impact of the parliamentary system on international treaties in three points.