Judicial Review of the Constitutionality of Laws as a Guarantee of the Rule of Law

This study examines judicial review of the constitutionality of laws as an institutional guarantee of constitutional supremacy, the rule of law, and the protection of rights and freedoms. Using a qualitative legal research design that combines historical, doctrinal, analytical, and comparative approaches, the study traces the emergence of judicial review, explains its legal foundations, and compares the principal mechanisms used to organize constitutional review. The analysis distinguishes diffuse and concentrated review, identifies the entities entitled to initiate constitutional challenges, and evaluates judicial powers including non-application, injunctions, declaratory judgments, and annulment. It also compares review by original action with review through a plea of unconstitutionality and considers the Iraqi experience through the constitutional role of the Federal Supreme Court. The results indicate that judicial review is most effective when constitutional adjudication is institutionally independent, procedurally accessible, and capable of producing authoritative remedies against unconstitutional legislation. The study concludes that constitutional review is a central guarantee of legality and constitutional supremacy, but its practical contribution to the rule of law depends on judicial independence, professional competence, procedural safeguards, and protection from political influence.