Public Morals, Religion, and Human Rights: A Study on the Requirements for Chaste Social Dress in Iranian Society

Articles in Press

Document Type : Original/ Research Article

Author
Maryam Ahmadinejad
Assistant Professor, Women Research Center, Alzahra University, Tehran, Iran‎.
10.30497/flj.2025.248210.2179
Abstract
Interpreted as a legitimate objective based on the doctrine of the margin of appreciation, public morals possess the legal legitimacy to function as a mechanism dependent on the cultural-historical and belief contexts of a society, thereby influencing the delineation of individual freedoms to create equilibrium between national interests and human rights requirements. Relying on an analytical-descriptive methodology, this study seeks to answer the following question: Does the obligation for women to observe chaste social dress, under the necessity of safeguarding public morals, constitute a valid justification within the human rights framework? The research findings, through distinguishing between secular and religious societies, reveal that in secular legal systems, although religion plays no direct role in the legislative process, certain institutionalized religious values embedded within the cultural fabric are redefined as components of public morals.In contrast to this approach, within legal systems based on religion, religious doctrines directly and fundamentally shape "public morals."Accordingly, the Iranian legislature's action, manifested through the prohibition of "sartorial norm-breaking" in discharging its responsibility to protect public morals, materializes as a legitimate reflection of national sovereignty rights aimed at safeguarding public morals.
Keywords
Public Morals
"؛ Dress
"؛ Chastity
"؛ Religion
"؛ Human Rights
"؛ "؛ Governance Requirements"
Subjects
  1. ACHPR:African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights.1986.
  2. American Convention on Human Rights.(1969).
  3. Advisory opinion as to whether an individual may be denied authorization to work as a security guard or officer on account of being close to or belonging to a religious movement.(2023, December 14). No.P16-2023-001. ECHR.
  4. Ahmadinejad, M. and Marandi, E. (2024). Unconventional Sexual Orientations from the Islamic Perspectives to International Human Rights Practices and State laws. Woman in Development & Politics, 22(3), 713-745. [In Persian]
  5. Ahmadinejad,M. and Aminroaya, Y. (2016). The Legal Nature of the Permitted Margin of interpretation Doctrine. The Journal of Foreign Policy, 30(2), 115-139. [In Persian]
  6. Akhverdiev, E. & Ponomarev, A. (2018). Religion as Factor in Formation of Law: Current trends. In SHS Web of Conferences (Vol. 50, 01024). EDP Sciences. https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/20185001024
  7. Al-Khoei, Sayyid Ab 'l-Qasim. (n.d.). Mawsou`at al-Imam al-Khoei. (Vol. 12). [In Arabic]
  8. Arman Think Tank (2025). Female Prisoners: A Narrative of the Most Heinous Crime in History Against Women. Qom: Ma'aref Publishing. [In Persian]
  9. Castro, S., Silva, L. S., & Cunha, J. (2022). The Azorean traditional costume as a sign of regional identity and culture: From clothing to jewelry. In Advances in fashion and design research (pp. 219–231). Springer.
  10. China — Publications and Audiovisual Products (2009, August 12). Report of the Panel. WTO. (WT/DS363/R)
  11. Contreras, P. (2012). National discretion and international deference in the restriction of human rights: A comparison between the jurisprudence of the European and the Inter-American Court of Human Rights. Northwestern Journal of International Human Rights, 11(1), 28.
  12. Council of Europe. (1950).European Convention on Human Rights.
  13. Country Social Affairs Organization, Institute for Humanities and Social Studies, Jihad University. (2011-2016). A Report on the Findings of the National Hijab Plan (Methodology: Interviews, Questionnaires, Sample Size: 5030 individuals, Provincial Centers, City Streets and Squares). [In Persian]
  14. Dahlab v. Switzerland.(2001). No.42393/98. ECHR.
  15. Dewulf, S., & Pacquée, D.(2020). Limiting Human Rights for Religious Reasons: Rationale and Boundaries, a Perspective from Europe’s Human Rights Court. The Journal of Human Rights, 14(2),49-58.
  16. Dogru v. France(2008). No.27058/05. ECHR.
  17. S. v. Austria. 2018, October 25. No.38450/12. ECHR.
  18. Ebrahimian v. France. (2015). 64846/11.26 November 2015.ECHR.
  19. Evans, Carolyn(2005). Religious Influences on International Humanitarian Law. Melbourne Journal of International Law, 6.
  20. Fadel, Mohammad. (2012). Muslim Reformists, Female Citizenship, and the Public Accommodation of Islam in Liberal Democracy. Politics and Religion, 5(1), 2–35.
  21. Fedotova and Others v. Russia. (2023). Nos.40792/10, 30538/14and43439/14. ECHR.
  22. Forrester, D. B. (1989). Beliefs, Values, and Policies: Conviction Politics in a Secular Age. Oxford: Clarendon Press. (The Hensley Henson lectures, 1987–1988)
  23. Garaati, Mohsen (2004). Tafsir-e Noor (Vol. 6–7, 11th ed.). Cultural Center of Lessons from the Quran. [In Persian]
  24. George, Robert P. (2000). The Concept of Public Morality. The American Journal of Jurisprudence, 45 (1), 17–31.
  25. Görentaş, I. A. (2016). The Effects of Margin of Appreciation Doctrine on the European Court of Human Rights: Upholding Public Morality over Fundamental Rights. Akademik İncelemeler Dergisi (Journal of Academic Inquiries), 11(2), 197-216.
  26. Hamidović v. Bosnia and Herzegovina. March 5, 2018. No.57792/15. ECHR.
  27. Handyside v. United Kingdom(1976). No.5493/72, ECHR.
  28. Hassani, Hashem Maroof. (1411 AH). The History of Ja'fari Jurisprudence: Presentation and Study. Beirut: Dar al-Kitab al-Lubnani. [In Arabic]
  29. ICCPR:International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.1966.
  30. ICESCR:International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.1966.
  31. IRIB Research Center (2023). National Survey of Public Attitudes Towards Hijab [Research Report]. Tehran, Iran. [In Persian]
  32. N. v. the United Kingdom (2016). No.37289/12. ECHR.
  33. Jackson, V. C., & Tushnet, M. (Eds.). (2017). Paradigms of proportionality. Cambridge University Press.
  34. Jesiołowski, Kamil. (2020). Koncepcja moralności publicznej Lorda Patricka Devlina a orzecznictwo Europejskiego Trybunału Praw Człowieka [Lord Patrick Devlin’s concept of public morality in the light of the case law of the European Court of Human Rights]. Archiwum Filozofii Prawa i Filozofii Społecznej, 1, 37–51. [In Polish].
  35. Kapelańska-Pręgowska, J. (2021). The Scales of the European Court of Human Rights: Abortion Restriction in Poland, the European Consensus, and the State’s Margin of Appreciation. Health and Human Rights Journal, 23(2), 213–224
  36. Kervanci v. France(2024). No.31645/04, 2008, Fifth Section., ECHR.
  37. Kim, Seung-Hwan (2024). The Public Role of Religion and the Response of Public Theology. Religions, 15(4), 449.https://doi.org/10.3390/rel15040449
  38. Köse and Others v. Turkey. (2006) 26625/02. ECHR.
  39. Lautsi and Others v. Italy (2011). No. 30814/06, Grand Chamber. ECHR.
  40. Leo Hertzberg et al. v. Finland, Communication No. 61/1979, HRC, U.N. Doc. CCPR/C/OP/1 at 124 (1985).
  41. Leyla Şahin v. Turkey.(2005). No.44774/98. 10 November 2005.ECHR.
  42. McKay, R., & Whitehouse, H. (2015). Religion and morality. Psychological Bulletin, 141(2), 447–473.https://doi.org/10.1037/a0038455
  43. Member States of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, ASEAN Human Rights Declaration, 2012.
  44. Młynarska-Sobaczewska, A., Kubuj, K., & Mężykowska, A. (2019). Public Morality as a Legitimate Aim to Limit Rights and Freedoms in the National and International Legal Order. Contemporary Central & East European Law, 1(133), 10-20. https://doi.org/10.37232/cceel.2019.01
  45. Moghniyeh, Mohammad-Javad (1999). Translation of Tafsir al-Kāshef. 1–8, 1st ed. Islamic Propagation Office of the Qom Seminary Publishing.
  46. Mouvement Raëlien Suisse v. Switzerland. (13 July 2012). No.16354/06. ECHR.
  47. Mughniyya, Muhammad Jawad. (1421 AH). The Five Schools of Islamic Law: Al-Hanafi, al-Hanbali, al-Ja’fari, al-Maliki, al-Shafi’i. (Vol. 1). Beirut: Dar al-Kitab al-Islami. [In Arabic]
  48. Mughniyya, Muhammad Jawad. (1424 AH). Tafsir al-Kāshif. (Vol. 7). Qom: Dar al-Kitab al-Islami Publisher. [In Arabic]
  49. Müller and others v. Switzerland. (1988). No.10737/84. ECHR.
  50. Murphy v. Ireland (2003). No. 44179/98. ECHR.
  51. Naghibi, S. A. (2007). An Analysis on Modest Apparel is it A Law or A Right, Family Law and Jurisprudence, 11(44), 9. [In Persian].
  52. Namazifar,H. and Sa’adat,S. (2011). A jurisprudential and Legal Study of Islamic Dress Code (Hijab) With Special Reference to Imam Khomeini’s Viewpoints. Matin Research Journal, 12(49), 100-124. [In Persian]
  53. Nugraha, Ignatius Yordan (2021). From "Margin of Discretion" to the Principles of Universality and Non-Discrimination: A Critical Assessment of the "Public Morals" Jurisprudence of the Human Rights Committee. Nordic Journal of Human Rights, 39 (3)
  54. Pastor, Eugenia Relaño. (2018). The European Court of Human Rights: Fundamental assumptions that have a chilling effect on the protection of religious diversity. In Public commissions on cultural and religious diversity: National narratives, multiple identities and minorities. Routledgepp. 266 – 287.
  55. Powers, Francis J. (1951). Religion and the Law. Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America.
  56. Prior, Samuel (1822). The universal traveler: Containing the popular features and contents of the best standard modern travels, in the four quarters of the world. Sir Richard Phillips and Co.
  57. Qureshi Banai, Seyed Ali Akbar (1991/92). Qāmūs al-Qur'an. 2, 6th ed. Tehran. [In Persian]
  58. Rabczevska v. Poland (2022). No.8257/13. ECHR.
  59. H. and others v. Austria (2011).No.57813/00. ECHR.
  60. Saeidi, F. (2014). Islamic Hijab (modest apparel) and Its Jurisprudential Limits. Biannual Journal of Family Law and Jurisprudence, 19(61), 45-70. doi: 10.30497/flj.2014.49261[In Persian].
  61. Saghafi Tehrani, Mohammad (1977/78). Tafsir Ravān-e Jāvid (Vol. 3, 3rd ed.). Borhan Publications. [In Persian]
  62. Sekmadienis Ltd. v. Lithuania(30 January 2018). No.69317/14. ECHR.
  63. Stout, Jeffrey. 1988. Ethics after Babel: The Languages of Morals and Their Discontents. Cambridge: James Clarke & Co Ltd
  64. Taylor, Charles. 2003. The Ethics of Authenticity. London: Harvard University Press.
  65. Taylor, Charles. 2007. A Secular Age. London: Harvard University Press.
  66. The Rape, Abuse & Incest National Network (RAINN),https://www.rainn.org/statistics/victims-sexual-violence
  67. Tonolo, Sara(2016). Religious Values and Conflict of Laws. Stato, Chiese e pluralismo confessionale, 7, 1-29. https://doi.org/10.13130/1971-8543/6955
  68. UDHR:Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 1948.
  69. UN, Economic and Social Council, Siracusa Principles on the Limitation and Derogation Provisions in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, U.N. Doc. E/CN.4/1985/4, Annex (1985).
  70. (2015). Report of the Special Rapporteur on freedom of religion or belief (A/HRC/31/18). Human Rights Council.
  71. US-Gambling(10 November 2004). Panel Report, WTO.
  72. Wieder and Guarnieri v. the United Kingdom (2023). Nos.64371/16 and 64407/16.ECHR.
  73. Wingrove v. The United Kingdom (1996). No.17419/90. ECHR.
  74. Yaker v. France. (2018). ICCPR, CCPR/C/123/D/2747/2016. No. 2747/2016.
Biannual Journal of Family Law And Jurisprudence

Articles in Press, Accepted Manuscript
Available Online from 19 November 2025