چکیده:
Following the victory of the constitutionalism movement in the 18th century and the formation of constitutional political systems, gradually democratic constitutions enacted, as a kind of state statute and the document of legal legitimacy to obtain and transfer political power, guarantee and protect human rights. However, the later challenge was the continuity of validity and the possibility of modifying and changing the constitution. Despite the primary recognition of this right for citizens and the possibility of changing the constitution (instead of the right to revolt), in many current constitutions, certain rules were excluded from the possibility of revision. The main challenge has been the possibility or impossibility of amending the foundations of the constitution and the legal effect of the limitations of revision. Some countries have not considered any restrictions on the revision of the Constitution, while others have contained restrictions for the protection of the fundamental rights and freedoms, especially on their political participation in power (the prohibition of the deformation of the republic). As an intermediate solution, in some other countries the possibility of a general revision of the constitution, or a revision of the restrictions, is provided in the constitution by an independent and special procedure. Concerning the supervision of the revision, except for a few countries, this is not explicitly provided in the constitutions. However, about the revision's procedure, in most countries, the constitutional judg emphasized considering the formal conditions of the revision. In any case, it seems, the legal or practical impossibility of amending the constitution, in whole or in part, could be considered as a kind of invitation to change the political system by other means.
خلاصه ماشینی:
Some scholars, citing the practice of constitutional protection authorities in some countries, such as Italy, Germany, and France, while accepting the existence of a hierarchy among norms within the constitution, believe that some of these norms, by virtue of constituting the “constitutionally based identity” (constitutionnelle ́Identite) in a political-legal system, are at a higher level than other norms contained in the constitution, therefore they must be observed as its limitations in revising the constitution) (Dubout, 2010/3: 451).
For example, among rights and freedoms or regarding rights and freedoms and the requirements of public order and security (for example, in the conflict between the right to strike and the principle of continuity of public services), it may be possible to confirm Vedel's opinion that in the relationship between rights and freedoms with each other and with other principles of the constitution, the main goal is to create a balance based on the benefit of the time of revision or the revision procedure, as well as the substantive limitation in Article 89, namely the prohibition of changing the form of the republic, considered the constituent power as sovereign to repeal, amend, or complete the constitution in any desired form without any obstacles; something that some have considered a change in the Council’s practice and recognition of the Council’s control over constitutional revision, while the majority of legal scholars do not consider the enumeration of limitations as acceptance and recognition of the competence to supervise revision.
(
, 
, 
)
