Can the federal supreme court in Iraq apply the methods of judicial review in the supreme court of U.S. ?

Abstract EN

This paper will start with a discussion of the United States experience of judicial review.

It is important to address a different method, the common law method, because the new constitutional court in Iraq needs to look at a variety of approaches around the world.

The United States’ judicial review has its vital roots in a repugnancy theory of a sort, and this repugnancy can be compared in some helpful ways with modern repugnancy clauses in the Islamic world.

To see this clearly, we need to take a closer look at some of the Constitution's key provisions.

One key provision, Article VI, makes the Constitution the supreme law of the land and requires the court to be “bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”1 In addition, the court is granted the power to decide cases arising under the Constitution, laws, and treaties of the United States.2 Gradually, the United States judicial review has evolved in line with society's needs and political orientations as well as a judge’s own values, which may vary over time.3 A consideration of these issues ensures that the United States has its own unique method of applying the repugnancy clause related to the history of its developing judicial system, and the political impact of judicial determinations.