Key Summary: The document proposes a “hybrid approach” to managing laws during a transition, preserving the overall legal framework while targeting problematic laws for repeal. While pragmatic and intelligent, this approach risks creating legal ambiguity, political conflicts, and delays in meeting public demands due to a lack of clear and precise criteria for repeal.
Introduction: The Day-One Legal Architecture, a Foundation for the Future
In the aftermath of any fundamental political upheaval, a nation confronts a vital question: What should be done with the legal legacy of the previous regime? This decision is not merely a technical-legal choice but a test of balancing two essential needs: the need for stability to prevent chaos and social collapse, and the need for transformation to meet the public’s revolutionary demands and signal a decisive break from an oppressive past.
The “Emergency Phase” document, recognizing this complexity, presents three options and advocates for one. In this article, we dissect this choice, first praising its strengths as a pragmatic approach, then critically examining the ambiguities and operational risks, and finally offering constructive proposals to address them.
A Prudent Choice: Why the “Hybrid Approach” is Logical
By rejecting the two extreme options—a full “reversion” to pre-Islamic Republic laws and the “preservation” of all existing laws—the document wisely opts for a “hybrid approach.”[1, p. 14-18] Inspired by the British experience with Brexit, this strategy rests on two pillars:
- Preserving the Main Body of Law: This is to avoid a catastrophic legal vacuum that could disrupt the economic and social order.
- Immediate and Targeted Repeal: This involves eliminating laws that are “symbols of the Islamic Republic” or “hinder the progress of the transitional system.”
This strategy is a sound strategic decision. The bitter experience of the hasty and sweeping “de-Ba’athification” in Iraq after 2003, which led to the collapse of the army and state institutions and consequently intensified violence and instability, teaches us that wholesale purges often produce counterproductive results. By maintaining legal continuity, the hybrid approach seeks to avoid repeating such a mistake, and from this perspective, it is both defensible and commendable.
Key Ambiguities and Risks in Implementation: Three Major Challenges
Despite its theoretical strength, the success of this approach in practice depends on addressing three fundamental challenges, which the document either overlooks or addresses with generalities:
1. Ambiguity in Criteria: The “Symbolic Law” Challenge
The greatest weakness of this section is the absence of precise legal criteria for identifying which laws to repeal. Phrases like “symbols of the Islamic Republic” or “regressive laws”[1, p. 16] are political and interpretive concepts. For instance, is the law on discretionary vetting (Nezarat-e Stesvabi) “symbolic”? Are the laws granting a state monopoly on broadcasting “hindering progress”? The answer is undoubtedly yes, but a legal system cannot operate on such broad concepts. This ambiguity opens the door to arbitrary decisions, behind-the-scenes political bargaining, and conflicts between different bodies of the transitional government, potentially undermining the legitimacy of the entire process.
2. The Challenge of Criteria: From Slogan to Law
The document creatively proposes using the slogan “Woman, Life, Freedom — Man, Homeland, Prosperity” as the “six fundamental values” for identifying laws to be repealed.[1, p. 21] This effort to connect the transition process to the people’s demands is admirable. However, political slogans, no matter how powerful, cannot be directly used as legal instruments. Law requires precision, clarity, and measurability. How can one assess the validity of an article in commercial law or tax code against the criterion of “Homeland” or “Life”? This approach, despite its good intentions, could lead to legal dead-ends in practice. The solution is not to use the slogan directly, but to translate its underlying values into universally accepted legal principles (such as those enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and its covenants).
3. The Risk of Slowness and Public Disillusionment
An intense focus on maintaining stability, while necessary, carries the risk of delaying reforms in areas that are intrinsically linked to citizens’ rights and dignity. The public will expect rapid changes to laws concerning family rights (e.g., divorce, custody, inheritance), civil liberties (e.g., freedom of speech and assembly), and fair trial procedures. If the transitional government fails to deliver tangible and swift changes in these areas, it may face a crisis of disillusionment and declining public support, thereby losing its social capital.
| Main Claim | Basis in Document | Fact-Check / Supporting Sources | Risks & Ambiguities | Practical Proposals |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| The “hybrid approach” is the best legal structure for the transition. | Described as stability-inducing and hope-inspiring by combining “legal continuity” with “targeted repeal.” [1, p. 18] | Post-apartheid South Africa is a successful example. The 1993 Interim Constitution created a new framework, but many ordinary laws remained in force until reviewed. | Ambiguity in criteria: The document doesn’t define what constitutes a “symbol of the Islamic Republic” or a “hindrance,” which could lead to arbitrary decisions. | Establish an independent “Legal Review Council” tasked with providing an initial list of laws for repeal within the first 30 days, based on human rights standards and public demands. |
| Laws should be repealed based on the slogan “Woman, Life, Freedom — Man, Homeland, Prosperity.” | The document presents this six-pillared slogan as a basis for identifying laws for repeal, providing a table of examples. [1, p. 21-22] | Using a public slogan as a legal standard is rare. Typically, benchmarks are specific legal principles (e.g., the UDHR). | Risk of interpretation: Slogans are open to different interpretations and may not provide a precise basis for legal work, potentially leading to future legal challenges. | Translate the slogan’s six values into specific legal criteria. For example, “Freedom” should be benchmarked against the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. |
| The hybrid approach prevents legal chaos. | The document claims that repealing all laws at once would create a legal vacuum and instability. [1, p. 17] | The experience of post-2003 Iraq and the sweeping “de-Ba’athification” policy, which led to institutional collapse and insecurity, validates this claim. | Slowness in reforms: Maintaining the main body of law might delay reforms in key areas (e.g., family law, criminal procedure), leading to public frustration. | Create a “fast-track” legal process for reviewing areas directly affecting fundamental rights, while preserving more general laws. |
Conclusion and Practical Proposals: A Step Towards Clarity
The hybrid approach proposed in the document is an intelligent and pragmatic starting point. However, to succeed, it must be complemented by transparency, public participation, and institution-building. To move from generalities to an actionable plan, we propose the following concrete steps:
- Immediate Formation of a “Legal Review Council”: This council should be an independent body composed of distinguished jurists, representatives from bar associations, academics, and civil society activists. Its primary task would be to draft a precise and prioritized list of laws to be repealed within the first 30 days. This list should be based on transparent legal criteria (such as conflict with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights), not political concepts, and should be publicly released.
- Creation of a “Fast-Track” for Key Reforms: In parallel with the council’s work, a fast-track legal process should be established for the immediate reform of laws with the greatest impact on citizens’ daily lives (such as family and procedural laws) so that society quickly experiences the tangible benefits of change.
Such mechanisms, while preserving essential stability, would protect the legal transformation process from the risk of arbitrary and political decisions. By earning public trust and participation, they would build a stronger foundation for a democratic and durable legal system.
Call for Engagement: A successful legal transition requires careful prioritization. In your view, which laws in areas like family rights, freedom of expression, economic activity, and minority rights should be repealed or amended within the first few weeks? Send us your ideas so we can incorporate them into our future analyses.
References
1. Iran Flourishing Project: Emergency Phase, August 2025.
This page is also available in: 
فارسی 
Georgian (Georgia) 
עברית 
العربية
