Presidential Solution for Parliament A Comparative Study of Iraqi Law and Egyptian and Lebanese Law

Modern Parliament Systems are based on separation and cooperation among three Legislative, Executive and Judiciary Branches and they provide their powers and authorities, according to the Constitutional Law in order to prevent from any intervention or misuse among themselves. The competencies are granted to any branches and one of these authorizations is to grant power to the President for premature dissolution of Parliament, considering the mechanisms, circumstances, limitations and guarantees specified in the Constitutional Law. But, this solution, due to various affects such as unsettlement of the legislative and supervisory role and also unsettlement of the sovereignty system, has very dangerous consequences on parliament and political life of each country inter alia compared countries, for example, suspension of the legislative and supervisory role as well as stopping the role of government and inability in fulfillment of duties to which were entrusted as per Constitutional Law. Therefore, the recognition of nature of dissolution of parliament by the President and whatever is dealt with from the viewpoint of type of dissolution, legal incentive, permission and non-permission cases and also required guarantees for the same and its effects in the political and parliament policy are necessary. Such dissolution is required to exist some guarantees for its enforcement such as new elections, according to schedules specified in the Constitutional Law and also non-repetition of dissolution of parliament for the same of reason which the previous parliament was dissolved and finally, non-permission to dissolve the parliament at the time of interpellation of the Government. These guarantees are considered the sovereignty limitations for the President and they are mandatory for dissolution of parliament. This research with descriptive-analytical approach is dealt with this subject with the different elements. The studies show that there are some differences in the mechanism of dissolution of parliament by the President in the Constitutional Laws compared. This dissolution is related to positive and convincing reasons and there is no difference whether these reasons are by Constitutional Law or Statute Law. Concerning the proposing authority, there are different laws, points of view and opinions. Because, the standpoint of Constitutional Law in the compared countries (Iraq, Egypt and Lebanon) for dissolution of parliament by the government is different. But, all of them have a denominator as to the non-dissolution of parliament in the extraordinary situation and at the time of interpellation of government and necessity of issuance of execution order of early elections by the President, because the dissolution of parliament in this method, affects the performance of parliament and precludes the fulfillment of the inherent duties and Constitutional Law of the parliament and the legitimation of the government for advancement of routines is questioned.