Context & Objective: The widespread commission of international crimes against Palestinians by Israel presents a persistent challenge within the international legal system, generating various political and legal responses. The Islamic Republic of Iran approaches the prosecution and condemnation of these crimes not merely as a matter of foreign policy but as a binding obligation rooted in constitutional mandates. The primary objective is to identify and analyze the specific foundations within the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran that justify and mandate the state's commitment to prosecuting Israel's crimes against the Palestinian nation. By examining the underutilized capacities of Iranian constitutional law in addressing international crimes, the connection between domestic constitutional mandates and transnational justice is articulated. Furthermore, the analysis delineates the position of rejecting oppression and domination within the constitutional framework, evaluates the concept of the Islamic state's transnational responsibility, and explains the systemic relationship between constitutional law and international criminal law. The central question investigates the specific constitutional foundations that obligate the Iranian state to actively pursue the prosecution and condemnation of Israel's crimes.
Method & Approach: A descriptive-analytical approach and a doctrinal method are utilized to investigate the subject matter. Library-based studies are employed to systematically examine the principles and foundations of the constitution alongside the established rules of international criminal law. The analysis is conducted through the detailed evaluation of constitutional texts, relevant legal opinions, and authoritative sources of international law to substantiate the legal arguments presented.
Findings: The normative framework of the Iranian Constitution, particularly Articles 152 and 154, creates a structural and transnational obligation for the state to actively prosecute and condemn Israel's crimes. This framework is grounded in fundamental principles such as the absolute rejection of oppression and domination, and the comprehensive support for the oppressed and vulnerable nations. The constitution mandates not only the avoidance of committing oppression but also the refusal to submit to or remain silent regarding the oppression of others. A key finding is the legal operationalization of the non-recognition of Israel, driven by the jurisprudential rule of nafī-yi sabīl (the negation of any path of domination by non-believers over Muslims). In international law, this non-recognition translates into an obligation to deny legal legitimacy to situations arising from serious breaches of peremptory norms, such as occupation and systematic discrimination, thereby preventing the granting of legal privileges to the offending entity. Furthermore, the constitution provides specific jurisdictional capacities to prosecute these international crimes. Concepts such as jurisdiction based on the passive personality principle—extending protection to the Palestinian people—and conditional universal jurisdiction establish a domestic legal basis for prosecuting perpetrators of war crimes and crimes against humanity. This requires institutional synergy wherein the Iranian Judiciary fulfills its constitutional mandate to revive public rights (Article 156) through evidence documentation and legal assessment, while the foreign policy apparatus facilitates international diplomatic and legal pursuit. Additionally, the constitution acts as a necessary gateway for international criminal law norms, with Articles 77 and 125 enabling the integration and domestic application of international treaties.
Conclusion: The Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran establishes a coherent, binding legal framework for condemning the crimes of Israel and defending the Palestinian people, thereby elevating the state's stance from a purely political or symbolic orientation to a strict legal obligation. The foundational constitutional principles actively deny the legitimacy of Israel based on its systemic violations of international law, while emphasizing justice, human dignity, and the transnational responsibility of the state. These elements collectively strengthen the domestic legal basis for invoking jurisdiction over extraterritorial international crimes. Ultimately, the Iranian constitution possesses substantial capacity to contribute to an international justice-oriented discourse and to serve as a legitimate domestic foundation for legal action against transnational crimes. Maximizing this constitutional capacity requires the development of complementary domestic legal mechanisms and the strategic utilization of legal diplomacy to effectively combat impunity on the global stage.