University of Baghdad’s College of Law discussed a master’s thesis entitled “Constitutional Judiciary Oversight of Legislative Silence: A Comparative Study,” submitted by the student Saja Safaa Mahdi in the Department of Public Law, on Tuesday, May 12, 2026, at the college’s Moot Court Hall.
The examination committee consisted of:
1. Prof. Maha Bahjat Younis – Chairperson
2. Assist. Prof. Yamama Mohammed Hassan – Member
3. Dr. Hassan Ali Abdul Hussein – Member
4. Assist. Prof. Sura Harith Abdul Karim – Member and Supervisor
The thesis aimed to shed light on defining the concept of legislative silence by clarifying its legal nature and establishing a distinguishing criterion between it and other closely related concepts that are often confused with it. The study also sought to explain the major consequences resulting from legislative silence and to reveal the principal foundations and justifications upon which constitutional judges rely when intervening to address legislative inaction.
The thesis consisted of three chapters. The first chapter examined the concept of legislative silence, the second chapter addressed the effects of legislative silence, and the third chapter discussed the role of constitutional judiciary in exercising oversight over legislative silence.
The thesis concluded with several recommendations, the most significant of which were:
1. Calling upon the Federal Supreme Court to activate judicial oversight over legislative silence. Although legislative silence may fall within the discretionary authority of the legislator, the prolonged failure of the legislator to regulate matters required by urgent necessities, and the continued absence of important laws, may constitute a constitutional violation that necessitates the intervention of the constitutional judiciary to compel the legislator to address such deficiencies.
2. Urging the Federal Supreme Court to adopt directive judgments by issuing binding recommendations to the legislator and encouraging the exercise of its legislative function, rather than relying solely on declaratory judgments concerning legislative silence, due to their limited effectiveness in pressuring the legislator to enact the necessary legislation.
3. Recommending that the Federal Supreme Court adopt the principle of a “reasonable period,” similar to the approach followed by the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany, by obligating the legislator to remedy legislative silence within a specified period determined by the court, while clarifying the legal consequences resulting from the legislator’s failure to comply with the court’s directions and recommendations within that period.
