نشریه حقوق اساسی
پیاپی 26 (پاییز و زمستان 1395)

With his Distributive Justice Theory, Rawls, the American philosopher of the 20th century, made a remarkable distinction with other liberalism thinkers that one of those is the difference between his views in liberty issue with other scholars. The main purpose of this article is to explore and to analyze the philosophical concept of liberty in the light of well-organized society of the and the theory of justice. With descriptive-analytical approach at this article, the research is to explain and analyze how Rawls define and demonstrate the scope and territory of liberty in the theory of Justice, and in light of the second principle of justice; “the principle of equality”? The results of the study show that his justice theory has taken away with limitless individualism of liberalism, while it is not joined to the utilitarianism seeking collective benefit. According to Rawls, everyone has the right of equal freedom, allowed to reduce the freedom in case stability of the entire liberty system and then defect which occurs the low-interest individuals in liberty must be compensated otherwise. Fundamental liberties of Rawls is including; freedom of speech, political freedom, freedom of conscience, belief, freedom, private property, prohibition of arbitrary arrest and detention.

Constitution law arises modern national states that the result of the social contract between people that regardless of ethnicity, race, color and dedication of the people want social cohesion and living in the shadow flag within the geographic boundaries are clear. This law if they can guarantee freedom and peace and tranquility that is beyond the moral norms of a particular group. That constitution in conflict-not common moral and ethical soft captured in society as a covenant to protect the public interest and prevent special stratified dominate the others. The law ought to be enough to protect the minority against the majority. Thus ethics and normative ethics in particular as a source of normative modern constitution is questionable. The modern constitution seeks to guarantee the protection of pluralism and on the principles of democracy, never seeking supremacy over others is a moral idea. So modern constitution in the path of peaceful fix can not be fed from a common morality. The idea of never being immoral concept means that the values enshrined in the constitution but the constitution raised from the principles that the political community formed by the action inter- rememberance and historical context has been agreed upon.

Globalization and its multidimensional aspects, an increase in the number of governments and international organizations, development of the communications, the shrinking world and the tendency towards causing humans’ lives to be in danger as well as its environment to be endangered are considered the characteristics of the modern society. The International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights, as a reflection of the realities existing in international community which shares common features with domestic law recently, in alignment with the tendency to convergence and sharing of common fate in the end, have obliged the governments in a steady way to undertake responsibilities and they are moving towards realization of the interests of all humans and governments rather than the governments themselves exclusively. Given that human rights have attracted attentions in the world in recent times, some governments turned a blind eye to human rights due to their conflict with the sovereignty, and consequently the government, as the entity supporting social rights, assumes it is necessary to create boundaries for human rights and restrain them, and human rights would prioritize humankind in its way to maintain human’s inherent dignity. An attempt to find or create a balanced point between implementation of human rights and maintenance of political-national elements has been the source of a lot of political tensions within the governments. The research aims to answer the following question: Is the international governance of human rights in conflict with the sovereignty of states or not? And in actuality, what challenges will “humanization of international law” face in light of the concept of sovereignty of states? Can a return to human’s inherent tendencies such as peace and self-sacrifice make a revolution in the sovereignty of states.

Irrefutable examples of freedom of thought such freedom of expression, religion, conscience, education, press and publications, access to data, radio and television, are the most natural and the most genuine individual rights and democracy and human dignity that lack of guarantees and support of these rights, are for dictatorships and authoritarian regimes. On the other, the rights and freedoms referred in shelter consistency of the rule of law and without of it, the guarantees of the rights and freedoms will not be achieved. because the rights and duties of rulers and citizens should be in the form of constitution framed to all the officials and political institutions are subject to legal rules and no one has the right to limitation of rights and fundamental freedoms, including the rights and freedoms of thought, but not in the context of certain rituals and laws. In this regard, Egypt's new constitution is not an exception and it has decreed rights and freedoms of thought in the light of the rule of law

The main and most important function of the legislature branch, is legislate for the legal system. In spite of general jurisdiction for legislative branchs in most countries, in some cases, this principle has been associated with exceptions. In most legal systems, faced with the concept of delegated legislation under which approval of acts be transferred to an authority other than the legislature branch in some cases. Hereof, in the Iranian legal system accepted the two way: legislation to test and permanent approve of government organizations, companies, agencies or government-related institutions of statute. However, in two important political legal system in Africa (Cameroon and Kenya) legislative delegation have broader dimensions. In Cameroon, delegation of official external and delegated authority is the president. in comparison with the Iranian legal system, that external delegation have one instance (approve of permanent Statute), in Cameroon, The president has this right to be entered in the special field of parliament and legislate. In Kenya delegation is accepted with more breadth and delegated authority can be individuals or public institutions. in this country, delegation of legislation has been accepted with a relaxed interpretation.