The Right to Peace: A Comparative Look at the Components of Peace-Seeking in the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Peace has been an important and key concept in human societies since ancient times. Peace was originally interpreted as the absence of war and violence, but today, the enjoyment of many fundamental rights and freedoms and the observance of human rights are considered as indicators of peace. The right to peace is also considered a fundamental right. National and international treaties and documents have always emphasized peace and peacemaking. The constitutional texts of countries should not be indifferent to this essential need, just as international documents such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights have also considered it important and respected the right to peace—and the pursuit thereof—is defined as a fundamental and inalienable human right; beyond merely striving to establish peace, individuals possess the right to live in a world and an environment free from violence and characterized by peace. From this perspective, fostering a peaceful environment is a collective responsibility, though naturally, a greater obligation rests upon governments as well as national and international institutions. The right to peace is recognized in contemporary international legal discourse not merely as a human aspiration, but as a legal obligation. Rooted in the innate human desire for a life free from fear and want, this right encompasses both negative dimensions (the right to be free from conflict) and positive dimensions (the right to the conditions necessary for development and dignity).
Methodology
The present study aims to examine and compare the right to peace and the components of a commitment to peace within two significant documents: the Constitution of Iran (as a national document) and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (as an international document). Employing a descriptive-analytical method and drawing upon library and online resources as well as the texts of the documents themselves, the study seeks to answer the question: What are the similarities and differences between these two documents regarding the concept of peace?
Result and Discussion
An examination of the provisions of both documents reveals a certain convergence in their texts regarding the right to peace, with both emphasizing peace across their identified components. A comparative analysis of their peace-oriented elements demonstrates that both documents provide a solid foundation for achieving peace; the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran defines peace within the framework of religious identity, distributive justice, and the strengthening of domestic structures, whereas the Declaration offers a global, liberal framework for positive peace rooted in individual rights Thus, while both documents are committed to negative peace and the absence of war, the fundamental difference regarding the realization and guarantee of the components of positive peace stems from the differing paradigms governing each document. Participation under Iranian law is ideology-driven, whereas in the Declaration, it is absolute. Similarly, freedoms in Iran are conditional upon non-contradiction with Sharia, the law, and public order—a perspective not shared by the Declaration. Justice in the Constitution is grounded in religion, with its establishment viewed as a form of religious and transcendent obligation, whereas the Declaration emphasizes the equality of individuals—regardless of race, gender, or other factors—from a human-centric and secular perspective. The Declaration’s emphasis on individual security—viewed as an inherent right—and human well-being differs from the Constitution’s focus on national security and economic prosperity. The most significant divergence between the two documents appears in the realm of minority and women's rights; although the Constitution acknowledges the protection of these groups' rights, it does not reflect the absolute gender and racial equality championed by the Declaration, and certain citizens are deprived of specific rights based on their religion, sect, or gender.
Conclusion
The Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights—as two reference documents at the national and international levels, respectively—contain numerous principles that can be regarded as components of a commitment to peace. However, grasping the paradigmatic differences between these two documents requires a precise analysis of these peace-oriented components in light of the theoretical approach adopted by each. While acknowledging the differences in the content of the two documents, it appears that common elements can be identified—elements whose consideration could foster a better understanding and improvement of the state of peace. Research findings indicate that both documents possess strong foundations for achieving peace; however, fundamental differences exist regarding the prioritization and enforcement mechanisms for certain components of positive peace, stemming from the prevailing ideology of each document.