www.usip.org

1200 17th Street NW • Washington, DC 20036 • 202.457.1700 • fax 202.429.6063

Special Report 168 July 2006

United States Institute of Peace

Special Report

The views expressed in this report do not necessarily 

reflect the views of the United States Institute of Peace, 

which does not advocate specific policy positions.

Contents 

Introduction: Political Failure, Legal Workability 2

Politics and the Three-Governorate Veto: The X 

Difficulty of Amendment 5

A Constitutional Agenda for Sunni Arabs 7

The New Sunni Arab Position: What Next? 10

A Convergence of Interests: The Weak X 

Viability Agenda 13

Modalities: The Constitution Review Committee x

and Secretariat 18

Recommendations 20

About the Report

Starting in August 2004, the U.S. Institute of Peace Rule of 

Law Program, one of the Institute’s Centers of Innovation, 

has been providing in-country support on constitution making 

to Iraqi political, governmental, and civil society actors. The 

goal of this program is to maximize the transparency and 

inclusiveness of Iraq’s constitutional process, enabling Iraqi 

citizens to engage directly with the drafters, and ensuring 

domestic ownership of the constitution.

Jonathan Morrow, senior adviser in the Rule of Law Program, 

has been traveling frequently to Iraq over the past two 

years to observe and report on Iraq’s constitution-making 

process and constitutional implementation. In this report, he 

makes recommendations for Iraq’s upcoming constitutional 

amendment process that could make for a viable, if weak, Iraqi 

state and that could help to arrest the current decline in the 

country’s security situation.

.

Jonathan Morrow 

Weak Viability

The Iraqi Federal State and the 

Constitutional Amendment Process

Summary

•	 The cycle of violence in Iraq is, in part, constitutional: it derives from competing 

visions of the Iraqi state that have not been reconciled. An amendment to Iraq’s 

constitution to delay the creation of new federal regions, together with a package of 

legislation and intergovernmental agreements on oil, division of governmental power 

between Baghdad and the regions, and the judiciary, may be enough to slow or even 

arrest this decline in the security situation, and may be achievable. A “government of 

national unity,” though desirable, will not by itself be able to generate the necessary 

constitutional consensus.

•	 Iraq’s new legislature, the Council of Representatives, is now considering the process 

of constitutional amendment described in Article 142 of the constitution. Prime 

Minister Nouri al-Maliki has announced the constitutional review as part of his 

government’s platform. This amendment process, assuming it proceeds, will come in 

the wake of widespread opposition to the constitution from Sunni Arab Iraqis in the 

October 2005 referendum. It is expected that a Constitution Review Committee (CRC) 

will soon be appointed, in line with Article 142. 

•	 To the extent that it was opposed by Sunni Arabs, the constitution lacks the essential criterion of any constitution: the consent of all major national communities. The 

2005 Iraqi constitution may nonetheless, as a legal text, be a sufficient and necessary 

framework for the radically regionalized Iraqi polity which the constitution drafters 

envisaged.

•	 The constitutional challenge in Iraq is first about peacemaking, not state building. 

As the Iraqi parliament faces the challenge of appointing, mandating and staffing 

a CRC, the first, and essential, set of questions is therefore political: How can the 

amendment process be used as a vehicle to remedy the political failure of last year’s 

constitution drafting process? How can consensus be built, and in particular how can 

Iraq’s Sunni Arabs be encouraged to give their assent to the new federal Iraq? How 
can Iraq’s Kurdish and Shia leaders be encouraged to make worthwhile constitutional 

concessions to Sunni Arab positions so as to elicit that consent?

•	 The second set of questions is legal: What are the minimum constitutional amendments needed, if any, to ensure that Iraq is a viable, if not a strong, state? To the 

extent that the Sunni Arab position has been one that purports to defend the Iraqi 

state, legal or technical improvements to the text that support Baghdad’s ability to 

govern may draw support from Sunni Arabs, thereby generating clear political benefits. 

There are additional legal questions that, though not strictly related to the Sunni Arab 

problem, are pressing: in particular, What are the minimum constitutional amendments needed, if any, to ensure that the human rights of all Iraqis receive adequate 

protection? It is not only the Sunni Arabs who feel disenfranchised by the constitution; nationalists, some women’s groups, and groups representing Iraq’s minorities 

express similar views. 

•	 It will be very difficult to pass constitutional amendments of any sort, especially those 

that seek to shift power from Iraq’s regions to the central government. Regional interests have the upper hand, constitutionally and politically. There is no reason to expect 

that the constitution’s Kurdish and Shia authors will see the need for constitutional 

amendments to the text that they themselves deliberately, if hastily, constructed. 

•	 The referendum procedure for amendment is onerous, with a three-governorate veto 

power. High expectations of the amendment procedure will lead to disappointment 

and may amplify, rather than reduce, violence. For this reason, legal instruments other 

than constitutional amendments must be considered as ways to remedy the political 

and legal deficiencies of the constitution. 

•	 A CRC should be established, with strong Sunni Arab membership. Given the pressing 

and complex nature of the necessary constitutional deal, the CRC should be mandated 

to make recommendations, where appropriate, not only for constitutional amendments, but also for (1) legislation, (2) intergovernmental agreements and, where 

appropriate (3) interparty agreements and (4) international agreements, all of which 

might encourage Sunni Arab political commitment to the Iraqi constitution and ensure 

viability for the Iraqi state.

•	 A three-part formula, concerning the creation of new regions, oil, and the delineation 

of powers between the central government and the regions, offers a way forward for 

the CRC to heal the wounds caused by the deficiencies in the 2005 drafting process. 

That formula would not require the Kurdistan party or the hitherto most influential 

Shia party, the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI), to make 

major modifications to their constitutional positions.

Introduction: political failure, legal workability

With the formation of an Iraqi government, Iraq’s permanent constitution has entered into 

force; and Iraq’s new legislature, the Council of Representatives, has begun to discuss the 

process of constitutional amendment, itself mandated by the constitution in Article 142.1

The text of Article 142 was agreed to right before the referendum, on October 12, 2005, 

as a last-minute compromise to prevent another Sunni Arab boycott of a vote on the 

country’s new basic law. Many people—Iraqis and non-Iraqis—have pinned their hopes 

on this amendment process as a way of restoring a unitary, nonsectarian Iraqi state. Others, including some officials of the United States government, have disavowed Article 142 

and dismiss the amendment process as a political impossibility, given the dim prospects 

of persuading the powerful Kurdish and Shia drafters to make permanent concessions to 

Sunni Arab positions. 

Neither view is well-founded: the Iraqi constitutional amendment process provides a 

real, if fleeting, opportunity to achieve major political and legal agreements that would 

About the Institute

The United States Institute of Peace is an independent, nonpartisan federal institution created 

by Congress to promote the prevention, management, and peaceful resolution of international 

conflicts. Established in 1984, the Institute meets 

its congressional mandate through an array of 

programs, including research grants, fellowships, 

professional training, education programs from high 

school through graduate school, conferences and 

workshops, library services, and publications. The 

Institute’s Board of Directors is appointed by the 

President of the United States and confirmed 

by the Senate.

Board of Directors

J. Robinson West (Chair), Chairman, PFC Energy, Washington, D.C. • María Otero (Vice Chair), President, ACCION 

International, Boston, Mass. • Betty F. Bumpers, Founder 

and former President, Peace Links, Washington, D.C. • 

Holly J. Burkhalter, Director of U.S. Policy, Physicians 

for Human Rights, Washington, D.C. • Chester A. 

Crocker, James R. Schlesinger Professor of Strategic 

Studies, School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University • 

Laurie S. Fulton, Partner, Williams and Connolly, 

Washington, D.C. • Charles Horner, Senior Fellow, Hudson 

Institute, Washington, D.C. • Seymour Martin Lipset, 

Hazel Professor of Public Policy, George Mason University • 

Mora L. McLean, President, Africa-America Institute, 

New York, N.Y. • Barbara W. Snelling, former State 

Senator and former Lieutenant Governor, Shelburne, Vt.

Members ex officio

Michael M. Dunn, Lieutenant General, U.S. Air

 Force; President, National Defense University • Barry F. 

Lowenkron, Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, 

Human Rights, and Labor • Peter W. Rodman, Assistant 

Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs • 

Richard H. Solomon, President, United States

Institute of Peace (nonvoting)
be in the interests of Kurds, Shiite Arabs, and Sunni Arabs alike, as well as secular Iraqis, 

women, and minorities. The “amendment process” will not lead to many real constitutional amendments, but it can be used creatively, to work in concert with interparty peace 

negotiations and the development of a legislative program directed at the viability—if 

not the strength—of the Iraqi national government. It is too early to declare an end to 

the Iraqi state, for too many people in Iraq rely on its continued existence. This special 

report details the way in which this progress can be made.

Iraq’s permanent constitution, negotiated in the summer and fall of 2005, has failed 

to satisfy the most fundamental criterion of constitution making: sufficient consensus. 

That is, it failed to command the support of all of the country’s major political, sectarian, and ethnic groups. In particular, Iraq’s Sunni Arab community voted overwhelmingly 

against the constitutional text in the October 2005 national referendum: in the predominantly Sunni governorates of Anbar and Salahaddeen, more than 96 and 81 percent of 

voters, respectively, rejected the constitution. Iraq’s interim constitution or Transitional 

Administrative Law (TAL), drafted under U.S. occupation and heavy U.S. influence, clearly 

envisaged that each of Iraq’s three major blocs—Kurd, Shia Arab, and Sunni Arab—would 

agree on the final constitutional text: this was the purpose of the three-governorate 

(province) veto provision for a permanent constitution that was the central feature of 

the TAL. 

True, nobody could expect a constitution for Iraq to be approved by each and every 

Iraqi citizen. Nor could any basic law for Iraq afford to alienate any one of the country’s 

three major political blocs—but the Iraqi constitution did just that. It is a high-water 

mark of the degree to which Iraq’s Sunni Arabs have been excluded, and have excluded 

themselves, from Iraqi public life. The result of this failure has been violence. Sunni 

Islamist extremism, operating outside the universe of constitutional argument, has clearly 

played a role in fomenting such violence; but it remains quite possible that the way the 

Iraqi constitution was drafted in 2005 contributed to the post-August shift of the Sunni 

Arab insurgency to attack Shia and Kurdish civilian targets, and the corresponding arrest, 

summary detention, and, in some cases, torture and execution of Sunni Arab suspects by 

Shiite members of the Iraqi public security forces. At a minimum, the 2005 constitutional 

process was a lost opportunity to reduce the drift toward sectarian violence.

The irony at the heart of this political tragedy, though, is that as a legal text, the 

constitution may be a reasonable basis for a workable Iraqi polity; and it may be the 

only such basis. The feature of the constitution that is apparently most objectionable to 

Iraq’s Sunni Arabs is regionalization; but it is hard to imagine a different state structure 

for a country in which power, culture, ethnicity, sect, and tribe have created de facto 

regional identities and enabling institutions. The regionalizing identities are not necessarily permanent, but they are certainly durable. Regional institutions appear to be willing 

to govern, and, at least in the case of the Kurdistan Region and some southern centers 

(including Najaf and Karbala), they are able to do so. 

Apart from the political problems that form the context of Iraq’s constitution, there are 

some inherent deficiencies that are specifically legal. Contributing to the political failure 

of the constitution was the appearance of a constitutional text that did not meet high 

drafting standards and did not deliver, at a technical level, a wholly coherent vision of 

the Iraqi state. The constitutional text has now been the subject of several legal analyses, 

some of which catalogue the deficiencies in the text. Some of those analyses address 

aspects of the constitution that are believed to fall short of best-practice federal models, 

particularly those aspects of the constitution that do not provide for a strong Iraqi state. 

For example, under the Iraqi constitution, the central government has no power to tax in 

regions if the regions object, no explicit power to disband existing militias, and no exclusive power to regulate Iraq’s oil sector. Regional security forces are explicitly recognized 

(apparently enabling the Kurdistan Regional Government to retain the peshmerga) at the 

expense of national military authority in the north. Iraqi central government law is subordinated to regional law if there are any inconsistencies between the two. Also (unusual 
for a parliamentary democracy), the prime minister cannot dismiss cabinet ministers 

without the consent of the parliament (Article 77). Iraq’s central government, on paper 

and in reality, is possibly the weakest of any federal model in the world. 

Some of the legal analyses of Iraq’s constitution ascribe these deficiencies to inexpert 

or hasty drafting. What they often do not acknowledge, however, is that the predominantly Kurdish and Shia authors of the constitution, as they sat around their Green Zone 

tables in the Baghdad summer of 2005, were attempting the very constitutional outcome 

that was achieved: a prescription for a radically regionalized Iraq, with a weak (if not 

incapacitated) central government. Where the constitutional language as drafted is 

ambiguous—as with the provisions on oil—it usually reflects an inability of the parties 

to agree on the details. Yet it was no drafting error that led to the fragility of the central 

government as described in the constitution: For the most powerful of the Kurdish and 

Shia drafters, any government in Baghdad would be a natural object of suspicion. In the 

case of the Kurdish politicians, their constituents had already expressed in a January 2005 

regional poll a very clear preference for government by a more or less full-fledged Kurdistan Regional Government, as opposed to central rule from Baghdad. The commitment 

of some of the most powerful Shia drafters to a regionalized Iraq, confirmed as late as 

August 11, 2005, came as more of a surprise, although it had antecedents in the desire 

of the residents of Basra to have a share in the oil wealth that surrounded their neglected 

city, as well as a more widespread and general Shia distrust of Baghdad.

Certainly, much of the international commentary, however perceptive on other matters, 

misses the central point about the constitutional drafting process in Iraq: radical regionalization was deliberate. One recent report points to the provision that subordinates central 

government law to residual regional law (Article 115) as needing amendment because it 

may topple the federal structure of Iraq. Certainly Article 115 poses special problems for 

the viability of Iraq, but to expect Iraqi parliamentarians to amend the provision for this 

reason is to lose sight of the major political current of contemporary Iraqi politics. Iraq is 

not going through a process of “decentralization,” in which Saddam Hussein’s extremely 

centralized powers are being more or less gradually devolved to regional interests that 

still depend on the center. Iraq did not enjoy the luxury of gradualism. Regime change 

did not consist of replacing Saddam Hussein’s cabinet ministers with U.S. appointees; 

the dismantling of government ministries was near total. Saddam Hussein’s government 

apparatus was utterly destroyed in 2003, and the central governmental power that existed 

before then reverted more or less immediately to regional and local sectarian interests. 

There is now little or no inherent power in the center at all, in part because there is no 

real center. Any new Iraqi government will hold only such power as regional interests 

permit it to assume. The new constitution of Iraq reflects this reality.

Indeed, regional interests are so powerful that Iraq must be thought of as a 

confederation—a collection of loosely affiliated states in a political union—not the 

federation that Iraq’s constitution declares the country to be. More accurately still, the 

“Republic of Iraq” itself should be thought of as analogous to those entities stemming 

from international agreements (e.g., the European Union) whose purposes would be hard 

to achieve without constituent state support. In the case of Iraq, that support cannot be 

presumed. The basis of Iraqi nationalism is now slender indeed; the antiwar commentators 

in the United States who see an Iraqi identity emerging in a coherent antigovernment 

insurgency are as wrong as those proponents of the war who took a strong Iraqi state as 

a given.

It is true that this vision of a radically regionalized Iraq, when it found constitutional 

expression in August 2005, had the effect of amplifying Sunni Arab hostility to the constitutional text, in circumstances where Sunni Arabs had already been excluded from the 

drafting table.2 Iraq’s Sunni Arabs typically describe the constitution as a dismemberment 

of the nation that they once dominated, and they often equate regionalization with disintegration, anarchy, or civil war. It was this view, expressed with a greater or lesser degree 

of force by Iraq’s Sunni Arabs in August 2005, together with their declared intention to 
block the constitution at referendum, that prompted a last-minute agreement on October 

12, brokered by U.S. ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad, between Shia leaders and the predominantly Sunni Arab Iraqi Islamic Party, for a constitutional review that would supposedly 

amend the basic law to assuage Sunni Arab concerns in exchange for their support of 

the referendum. On October 12, after concluding the agreement, Ambassador Khalilzad 

announced in a Baghdad speech: “At the core of their agreement is a decision to mandate 

the next democratically elected Council of Representatives to review the constitution 

after its passage and recommend any amendments necessary to cement it as a national 

compact. This constitution, the basis of Iraq’s emerging democratic government and the 

road map to its future, will be a living document, as all enduring constitutions are.”3 He 

repeated his view that amendments were necessary for the constitution to have sufficient 

consensus in a op-ed piece published in The Washington Post on December 15, 2005: “To 

bring Iraqis together and consolidate their participation in the political process, the next 

National Assembly will have the opportunity to amend the constitution, with the goal of 

broadening support for the document and turning it into a national compact.”

Politics and the Three-Governorate Veto: The Difficulty of Amendment

The terms of the October 12 agreement, as set out in Article 142 of the constitution, are 

as follows:

First: The Council of Representatives shall form at the beginning of its work a committee 

from its members representing the principal components of the Iraqi society with the mission 

of presenting to the Council of Representatives, within a period not to exceed four months, 

a report that contains recommendations of the necessary amendments that could be made 

to the constitution, and the committee shall be dissolved after a decision is made regarding 

its proposals.

Second: The proposed amendments shall be presented to the Council of Representatives all at 

once for a vote upon them, and shall be deemed approved with the agreement of the absolute 

majority of the members of the Council.

Third: The articles amended by the Council of Representatives pursuant to item “Second” of 

this Article shall be presented to the people for voting on them in a referendum within a 

period not exceeding two months from the date of their approval by the Council of Representatives.

Fourth: The referendum on the amended Articles shall be successful if approved by the majority of the voters, and if not rejected by two-thirds of the voters in three or more governorates.

Fifth: Article 126 of the constitution (concerning amending the constitution) shall be suspended, and shall return into force after the amendments stipulated in this Article have been 

decided upon. 

There are two important contextual points regarding Article 142. They are sobering for 

anyone looking for quick peacemaking deals surrounding an amended constitution. 

First, the October 12 agreement that led to the inclusion of this provision in the text of 

the constitution had a limited constituency. In particular, the only Sunni Arab group that 

appears to have placed any value in the October 12 agreement—or indeed to even have 

been party to it — was the Iraqi Islamic Party, a party so amenable to U.S. interests that 

it had accepted membership in the Iraqi Governing Council during the period of formal 

coalition occupation. Several other Sunni Arab groups, including those now represented 

in the Iraqi parliament, did not join the Iraqi Islamic Party and their secular centrist colleagues in consenting to support the constitution once Article 142 was included. On the 

contrary, their mobilization against the constitution remained steadfast, as evidenced 

by both the referendum results in the Sunni Arab regions and ABC News opinion polling 

data, the latter of which showed that through November 2005, only 27 percent of people 

living in Sunni Arab parts of Iraq approved of the constitution.4 There is also evidence 

that even the Iraqi Islamic Party itself was lukewarm in its support for the constitution; 
much of its literature supporting the draft did not appear until after October 15. In any 

event it is not clear, looking at the referendum results in the Sunni Arab governorates, 

that the Iraqi Islamic Party was decisive in securing the ultimate success of the “yes” 

campaign in Iraq.

For these reasons, it is not accurate to suggest that the review and amendment provisions under Article 142 of the Iraqi constitution represent the hopes of Iraq’s Sunni Arab 

community as a whole. Precisely for these reasons, too, one cannot expect Iraq’s Kurdish 

and Shia leaders to feel toward Iraq’s Sunni Arab community a strong sense of moral 

obligation to amend the constitution through Article 142. As the Kurds and Shiites might 

point out, the majority of Iraq’s Sunni Arabs themselves did not see fit to invest Article 

142 with great value when voting in the October 15 referendum. Moreover, the text of the 

constitution that had been distributed nationwide to Iraqi voters prior to the October 15 

referendum did not contain the eleventh-hour paragraphs of Article 142. The distributed 

text had been sent to the printers in late September. Article 142 therefore was not presented to Iraqi voters, and it does not enjoy an especially strong popular mandate. In all 

these circumstances, the moral and political force of Article 142—if not its legal force—is 

somewhat weaker than may appear to be the case.

The second point is that the October 12 agreement, as reflected in Article 142, sets a 

high bar for constitutional amendment. True, in one respect Article 142 lowers the ordinary 

threshold for constitutional amendment for the one-time-only special review process: It 

dispenses with the special (two-thirds) parliamentary majority prescribed in Article 126 

for regular amendments and avoids the article’s entrenching of “fundamental principles” 

and human rights provisions. Instead, Article 142 contemplates an absolute majority in 

parliament for all constitutional provisions and also lowers the threshold by suspending 

the Article 126 requirement for a regional referendum in circumstances where an amendment might diminish the powers of the regions. 

However, for all its apparent leniency, Article 142 substitutes a referendum requirement 

that makes amendment hardly any easier: the requirement in the fourth paragraph that 

subjects any amendment to the possibility of a by now familiar three-governorate veto. 

It is this veto provision that guarantees the ability of the Kurdish and Shia parties—each 

of which has amply demonstrated the ability in the two previous elections to muster the 

strong if not overwhelming support of voters in three governorates—to stop dead any proposed Sunni Arab or centralist amendments. In an already regionalized Iraq that remains 

heavily influenced, if not dominated, by the same Kurdish and Shia leaders who drafted 

the constitution, the prospects for any proposed amendment that runs counter to those 

party platforms are very bleak indeed. 

Lest there be any doubt on this last point, the leaders of the dominant Shiite party in 

the constitutional drafting room, the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq 

(SCIRI) and the Kurdish president of Iraq and leader of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan 

(the more Baghdad-friendly of the two main Kurdish parties) have each pronounced apparently implacable views on the matter. On December 10, 2005, SCIRI leader Abdul-Aziz 

al-Hakim was reported in SCIRI’s own semiweekly newspaper Al-Adala as stating an intention to “work on keeping the constitution as it is without changing it.” He was reported 

in Iraqi press as have stated, during his January 11, 2006 Eid Al-Adha sermon at SCIRI 

headquarters in Baghdad, that Iraqi Shia would not negotiate on the core principles of the 

constitution. He was soon after reported by Reuters as saying that “the first principle is 

not to change the essence of the constitution” and by Associated Press that there would 

be no “substantive changes” to the constitution, “including the provision that leaves 

provincial governments strong and the central government weak.” More recently still, he 

has expressed the same views in the midst of the Basra crisis, in which the Fadhila party 

may emerge as another regionalist movement.5 Abdul Aziz al-Hakim’s son, Muhsen alHakim, claims continued SCIRI control of five southern governorates.6 Hakim’s comments 

have been echoed and reinforced by SCIRI lieutenants Sheikh Humam Hamoudi, formerly 
the chairman of the Constitution Drafting Committee, and Hamid Al-Bayati, author of a 

recent paper in praise of Iraq’s federal model. Most recently, Iraqi vice president Adil Abdul 

Mahdi was reported in the Kurdistan newspaper Al Taakhi on May 10, 2006 as stating that 

“federalism’s success in the Kurdistan is the best example that the system works well in 

Iraq,” and that “the Kurdistan experience may be used as an example throughout Iraq and 

for the next government.”

The Kurdish president of Iraq, Jalal Talabani, for his part, also told Reuters in January 

that he “did not believe the constitution needed amending.”7 Kurdish legislative deputies 

have pointedly repeated this view in recent multiparty oil and gas seminars. There can 

be no doubt that Massoud Barzani, the Kurdistan Regional Government’s president (and 

leader of the Kurdistan Democratic Party) and his followers are even less amenable than 

President Talabani to the prospect of concessions to a centralized Iraq in circumstances 

where, they allege, the Kurdish compromises have already been made. On the contrary, 

the Kurdish leadership is more keen than ever to support Shia regionalist movements with 

SCIRI, Fadhila, or wherever they can be found: the emergence of one or more Shia federal 

regions will, they believe, only strengthen Kurdistan’s hand. 

Matters are made still more difficult by the fact that any amendments ultimately proposed by the CRC will need to be approved by the Council of Representatives as a package, 

and they will probably require approval as a package as well by the people of Iraq in a 

referendum. To give Iraqis the ability to pick and choose from a menu of amendments will 

complicate the ballot. The necessity of an amendment package containing a compendious 

“yes” or “no” vote makes it all the more difficult for amendments to be passed: If voters 

reject one amendment in the package, they reject the entire package.

Indeed, the lowered parliamentary threshold that Article 142 offers to Sunni Arab and 

nationalist would-be constitutional reformers may be no concession at all in a parliament 

whose decisions on constitutional reform matters are always subject to a three-governorate veto. It is possible, if unlikely, that the new Iraqi parliament may prove to contain 

an absolute majority of constitutional reformists; there is no question that even within 

the Shia camp, for instance, there are politicians who might vote to strengthen Baghdad’s 

central rule. Yet the veto means that any proposed reforms ultimately will need to meet 

the approval of the Kurdish and Shia party leaders who have regional power bases. Those 

leaders wrote the constitution only a few months ago, so why would they change it now? 

Those same leaders did not yield to Sunni Arab pressure in the weeks before the October 

15 referendum, at a time when they had reason to believe that their inflexibility might 

have prompted a successful Sunni Arab veto of the constitutional text. Of course, the Sunni 

Arab veto was unsuccessful (although just barely: 85,000 more “no” votes in Ninevah 

would have sunk the entire constitution). So why would Kurdish and Shia leaders, with 

fears of a Sunni Arab veto behind them and the constitution having entered into force—

and now armed with new parliamentary mandates—choose to surrender what they clearly 

see as hard-won constitutional gains to a relatively small group of Iraqi nationalists, many 

of them neo-Ba’athist, whose views of a unitary Iraqi state last year were unworkable and 

in some respects offensive? 

Indeed, why should Kurdish and Shia leaders not go one step further and press for 

amendments that continue to weaken Iraq’s central government, since they know from the 

October 2005 experience that Iraq’s Sunni Arabs would probably not be able veto them?

A Constitutional Agenda for Sunni Arabs

Addressing these questions requires an understanding of the evolving nature of the Sunni 

Arab and Iraqi nationalist constitutional agenda—an understanding best grasped in light 

of the Shiite Arab and Kurdish agendas. During the August 2005 negotiations, the Kurdish 

and Shia constitutional positions, including their insistence on strong regional govern-
ments, were relatively coherent. Those positions have not changed significantly since 

then. 

There has been some speculation that Iraqi nationalist, or centralist, constitutional 

politics may have since come to the fore within the complex Shia United Iraqi Alliance 

(UIA), which now controls 130 seats in the 275 member parliament. Many political observers believe that Moqtada al-Sadr, whose party gained 30 seats within the Shia alliance, has 

Iraqi nationalist views, despite his reputation as a Shia partisan. Many also point to the 

apparent refusal of the Shiite Dawa and Fadhila parties to press the SCIRI regionalist position; and SCIRI member Adil Abdul Mahdi was defeated by centralist Dawa in February’s 

UIA ballot for prime minister nominee. In the early days of his incumbency as Iraq’s oil 

minister, senior independent UIA leader Hussain Shahristani expressed centralist views on 

Iraq’s oil management. 

Yet there has been no concrete formulation of an Iraqi nationalist or centralist constitutional position within the Shia camp, perhaps because Shia leaders know how hard such 

a position will be to sustain. A “Sadrist” constitutional position has not been articulated, 

and no meaningful alliances have been forged to date, as some international commentators predicted, between the nationalist agendas of the Shiite Sadrist and the Sunni Arab 

parties. Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, in recommending a “yes” vote in the referendum, 

seems to have accepted SCIRI’s regionalization clauses. Although undoubtedly complicated by the electoral success of al-Sadr’s party and that of Dawa for the prime ministership, 

the dominant Shia position, it seems, remains substantially unaltered since August 2005. 

In contrast to the solidity of the Kurdish and Shia constitutional posture, Iraq’s Sunni 

Arabs were disorganised in the August 2005 negotiations. To the extent Iraq’s Sunni Arabs 

had a substantive position, it consisted of these items: a rejection of a federal model of 

Iraq, (though with some recognition for the existing Kurdistan Region); a rejection of 

provisions in the constitution that might punish Baath Party membership; and an assertion of Iraq’s Arab identity, at the expense of multiethnic descriptions of national identity. 

Each proposal failed. Beyond these rudimentary substantive points, the Sunni Arab constitutional argument was directed at real or perceived procedural defects in the drafting 

process, including their exclusion from the negotiating room, the unlawful convening of 

the National Assembly beyond the August constitutional deadline, and, of course the taint 

of drafting while under U.S. occupation.

Substantive Sunni Arab positions were at no point articulated with unanimity, or 

with any strategic vision. When Kurdish and Shia leaders rejected these positions out of 

hand in August 2005, Sunni Arabs had no compromise positions on which to fall back. 

Part of the problem, of course, was that Iraq’s Sunni Arabs had little or no experience in 

strategizing as “Sunni Arabs.” They considered their views as being simply nationalist in 

the broadest sense, not seeing that post-Saddam secular Iraqi nationalism had an inevitably sectarian flavor. Iraq’s Sunni Arabs were not helped by the fact that (in contrast to 

the other groups) they had no elected leadership, having largely declined to participate in 

the January 2005 elections. The Sunni Arab insurgency, too (presumably its radical Islamist 

component), was successful in targeting for assassination those Sunni Arab leaders who 

were formulating a credible constitutional position. Most prominently, Sheikh Mijbal Issa, 

one of the fifteen Sunni Arab members of the Constitution Drafting Committee, was shot 

dead on July 19, 2005. Members of the Iraqi Islamic Party in particular are routinely targeted for assassination, as in the case of leaders Ayad al-Izzi and Ali Hussein, who were 

killed in November 2005. 

Most important, though, the insistence by the U.S. government that the Transitional 

National Assembly not exercise its right to extend the August 15, 2005 preliminary constitutional deadline denied Iraq’s Sunni Arabs the time they needed to understand where 

their true constitutional interests lay. Under those circumstances, there was no chance for 

the Sunni Arabs to develop clear positions that might protect and advance those interests, 

and that might stand some chance of success at the negotiating table. Moving at breakneck speed means that, sometimes, necks get broken.


Although the Sunni Arab parties claim not to have control over the insurgency and 

are themselves victimized by its Islamist elements, they presumably have some ability 

to influence at least the neo-Baathist insurgency: after all, agreements were reached in 

December 2005 to cease insurgent activity in Sunni Arab areas of Iraq for long enough 

to get these politicians elected. Senior Kurdish and Shia leaders are increasingly open in 

their commentary on the terrorist credentials of some elected Sunni Arab leaders.Sunni 

Arab leaders, in turn, may also publicly deplore attacks on Shia civilians, but almost all 

members of the elected Sunni Arab leadership express support for the “heroic resistance” 

to U.S. occupation, most recently rejecting Prime Minister al-Maliki’s reconciliation initiative. What might happen if this support were withdrawn? There is a possibility that the 

some of the new Sunni Arab leadership, by virtue of their electoral mandate and connections to Ansar al-Sunna and other religious insurgents, have it within their power to 

restrain, if not eliminate, the insurgency. 

In early 2006, Sunni Arab political leaders, together with diverse representatives of 

the Sunni Arab and nationalist academy, legal profession, and clergy, formulated a new, if 

unofficial, constitutional stance: the “February Position.” This position was supported by 

members of Sunni Arab groups that had declined, and continue to decline, to participate 

in post-occupation Iraqi politics. The February Position implicitly accepted the validity of 

Iraq’s U.S.-sponsored constitutional process, and implicitly accepted Iraq’s federal structure, including the existence of the Kurdistan Region, at least within certain doctrinal 

limits. The February Position also implicitly acknowledged the importance of representing 

in constitutional terms the corporate interests of Iraq’s Sunni Arab communities, albeit 

cast as the views of “Iraqi patriots.” The position remained unremittingly nationalist in 

its formulation but reached a level of detail sufficient to open up the possibility of real 

negotiation around constitutional amendment and implementation. 

The essential eight points of the unofficial Sunni Arab position, articulated in the 

February 2006 roundtable discussion, are as follows:

1. It should be easier to amend the constitution. In particular, Article 142 of the constitution, 

which prescribes the method of constitutional amendment, should be amended so as to relax 

the criteria for amendment.

2. The implementation of federalism should be delayed. The provisions of the constitution that 

would create federal regions outside the Kurdistan Region should be suspended and reviewed 

after the lapse of one electoral cycle. 

3. Natural resources should be nationally owned. The central government should be authorized 

in the constitution to manage and distribute natural resources, including oil.

4. The constitution should provide that the armed forces and security services will be formed of 

all Iraqis without discrimination or exclusion. 

5. The provisions of the constitution dealing with De-Baathification, Articles 7 and 135, should 

be repealed because they breach the principle of equality before the law.

6. The status of the city of Kirkuk should be handled by returning displaced and excluded people 

by means of law. Kirkuk should not be annexed to any region.

7. Iraqi citizenship should only pass from the father; it should not, as the constitution currently 

provides, pass also from the mother.

8. The Arab and Islamic identity of Iraq should be asserted in the constitution.

It is this evolution in the Sunni Arab position, incidentally, which vindicates the view 

that the speed of the 2005 drafting timetable was probably a mistake. 

These developments represent a potential shift in the Iraqi political terrain, and make 

the prospect of a constitutional settlement all the more pressing. Though it seems very 

unlikely that there is a quick constitutional fix to the problem of peace in Iraq, the costs 

There is evidence, however, that the Sunni Arab position has evolved since the 2005 constitutional negotiations. First, new leaders with new mandates have entered the field: Following the 

December 2005 parliamentary elections, a newly elected Sunni Arab leadership has emerged, 

with 55 parliamentarians from predominantly Sunni Arab parties and with a strong claim to be 

able to represent Sunni Arab interests. (The parties generally quibble with the “Sunni Arab” 

label—they are neither wholly Sunni nor wholly Arab—but the objections do not really conceal 

the fact that their constituents are overwhelmingly Sunni Arab.)
10

are sufficiently low, and the potential rewards sufficiently high, as to leave Iraq with no 

choice but to attempt such a settlement.

The New Sunni Arab Position: What Next?

If the February Position’s eight succinct points represent the core of an Iraqi Sunni Arab 

constitutional position for the purposes of the amendment negotiations, the question is 

whether they could possibly be accommodated by Kurdish and Shia interests. The prospect seems unlikely. The issues that were expressly detailed in the February Position had 

already been examined at length during the 2005 Kurdish-Shia drafting sessions, and, in 

most cases, the outcomes were not at all casual; they were informed by core communal 

concerns, concerns that were endorsed both before and after the drafting session by 

popular democratic mandate from Shia and Kurdish voters. 

There is some room for constitutional compromise within the terms of the eight points. 

Fortuitously, perhaps the most fertile ground for constitutional compromise lies with the 

most insistent Sunni Arab demand of all—a constitutional amendment to delay (rather 

than prohibit) the creation of a southern federal region. That demand would presumably 

involve extending the SCIRI-sponsored six-month deadline in Article 118 of the constitution, which reads: “The Council of Representatives shall enact, in a period not to exceed 

six months from the date of its first session, a law that defines the executive procedures 

to form regions, by a simple majority of the members present.” Sunni Arabs believe that 

additional time would give them an opportunity to lobby their Shia Arab compatriots to 

abandon regionalist ambitions. This demand may find no opposition within the non-SCIRI 

parts of the UIA, including the Dawa and the Sadrist camps. Senior advisers to the Dawa 

and the Fadhila parties have indicated, at least in private, their support for slowing down 

the creation of a new federal region. 

Kurdish political leaders may also choose not to oppose such a demand; after all, 

they face no great loss if Arab parts of Iraq remain, for the time being, free from de jure

regionalization. When the time comes for a referendum on the matter, the same may be 

said of the Kurdistan voters themselves. Presumably, SCIRI would resist a long delay, but 

even a modest delay—for one electoral cycle— would appear to give to the Sunni Arabs 

and nationalists the time that they feel they need. This amendment would also coincide 

with the views and wishes of the United States and its coalition partners, with Iraq’s Arab 

neighbors, and with the balance of international legal scholarship, all of which recognize 

that Shia regional institutions are embryonic (certainly as compared to those in Kurdistan). There is no guarantee that SCIRI would comply, and even less assurance that the 

Shiite population would consent in a referendum to delay a southern region. Nor is there 

a guarantee that Sunni Arab anger at the partition of Iraq in, say, two years’ time would 

be less than if a Shia region appeared one year from now. Given the stakes, however, it 

must be worth the attempt.

On other issues, however, the Sunni Arab demands to amend the constitution are less 

likely to gain purchase, and the limitations of the February Position’s eight-point amendment agenda become quite stark. On oil, Sunni Arabs are generally opposed to the constitutional provisions contained in Article 112 that effectively provide that fields other than 

“present fields” are to be managed by regional governments. The Sunni Arab contention 

is that a decentralized national oil sector cannot function properly and will lead to the 

breakup of Iraq. On its merits, the argument may have some validity, and it certainly has 

no shortage of international experts to back it up. The obvious problem with the Sunni 

Arab objection, however, is that Article 112 was a very deliberate construction of the 

Kurdish and Shia constitutional authors, on whose territory most of Iraq’s significant oil 

reserves lie and who have much less interest in the integrity of a nationally managed oil 

sector—or, indeed, in the integrity of Iraq itself. The authors of the relevant provisions 

in Article 112 point to the numerous federal models around the world in which producing 
11

regions have a stake in oil management. In particular, the Kurdistan Regional Government 

has disclosed no intention of letting an Iraqi government allow the Kurds to wait for revenue-sharing checks to arrive from Baghdad. At least as far as the Kurds are concerned, 

what Sunni Arabs want, it seems, is exactly what they cannot have. Even the centralist 

comments of Shia oil minister Hussain Shahristani do not challenge the right of regions 

to make management decisions with respect to future oil fields.

The same may be said for the first of the eight points from the February Position: the 

demand that the constitution be made easier to amend. Politicians with regional power 

bases are unlikely to surrender to Baghdad-based Sunni Arab and nationalist interests 

the ability to amend the constitution. The three-governorate veto provision has been the 

lynchpin of Iraqi politics ever since the TAL, and, for better or worse, there is no sign 

that this will change. Similarly, the February Position’s demands regarding the armed 

forces and de-Baathification trespass on the core constitutional concern of Kurdish and 

Shiite negotiators to ensure that the new Iraqi state cannot be dominated by secular 

Arab nationalists. The Sunni Arab demand that Iraq’s Arab identity be confirmed in the 

constitution, although superficially acceptable to Shia Arabs, crosses a very clear—and 

understandable—Kurdish red line. The remaining demands, including the banning of 

matrilineal passing of citizenship and the handling of resettlement in Kirkuk, are potentially capable of compromise but it is not clear that they would either require or permit an 

agreed constitutional amendment. Nor is it clear that these remaining demands are critical to Sunni Arab acceptance of the constitution: over time, these stakes have become 

symbolic, with little real political weight.

The prospects are generally grim, then, for agreement on the eight-point Sunni Arab 

February position on constitutional amendment. With the possible exception of the proposed delay in the creation of a new Shia federal region, the chances seem very high 

that Kurdish and Shia negotiators will reject the eight points out of hand, much in the 

same way they rejected in toto Sunni Arab demands in 2005. Kurdish and Shia negotiators will always perceive the possibility that concessions on these points may dampen 

the insurgency, but their refusal to act on this perception prior to the October 15, 2005 

referendum, when the insurgency was of course already raging, suggests that they will 

refuse again. Kurdish and Shia leaders know, too, that in the end there is no guarantee 

that constitutional concessions to centrist Sunni Arab political leaders would appease a 

violent Sunni Arab insurgency. The fact of the insurgency seems to have hardened, not 

softened, Kurdish and Shia constitutional dogma.

In this forbidding negotiating environment it is worth considering whether the recent 

eight-point Sunni Arab position is a necessary extension of the Sunni interest, or whether 

in fact Sunni interests could be equally well served—or better served—by a modified 

position. What, indeed, are the interests of Iraq’s Sunni Arabs? Do they reside simply 

in the resuscitation of strong national Iraqi institutions, including an oil ministry and a 

military? 

Although they do not conceive of themselves as a national minority, Iraq’s Sunni Arabs 

most likely have similar interests to other Iraqi ethnic and sectarian minority groups that 

are concentrated in particular areas and neighborhoods of the country. Far from having 

a real interest in a strong central government, they should perhaps look to the conventional political methods of preserving minority rights, including some of the minority 

and regional self-government and veto powers that the much-reviled Iraq constitution 

provides. In particular, perhaps they should ensure that Iraq’s Sunni Arab areas, oil-poor 

at least for the time being, receive from other regions their constitutional entitlement of 

a share of Iraq’s national oil revenues that is proportional to their share of the national 

population—that is, a capitation. Too little attention has been paid to the provision of 

the constitution in Article 111 that stipulates, “Oil and gas are owned by all the people 

of Iraq in all the regions and governorates.” This provision was not controversial in the 

drafting sessions, and clearly enshrines national equity, if not national strength, as a 

principle on which a new Iraq might depend. Nathan Brown of the Carnegie Endow-
12

ment for International Peace suggests that Sunni Arab Iraqis can expect the Kurdistan 

Regional Government to argue that the phrase “in all the regions and governorates” 

implies popular ownership at the regional—not national—level; such an interpretation 

means that Sunni Arabs cannot rely on the willingness of the oil-rich regions to share oil 

revenues.8 Indeed, a recent statement from Kurdistan Regional Government oil minister 

Ashti Hawrami suggests that the Kurds are asserting management rights even over the 

extraction of oil from current fields.9 Brown is undoubtedly correct in his assumptions, 

but it will be necessary for Sunni Arabs and other nationalists to argue the constitutional 

point. It is an irony of Sunni Arab politics that, with only around 20 percent of the 

population, Iraq’s Sunni Arabs can never hope to dominate the institutions of a central 

government that will, by virtue of demographic and military reality, be overwhelmingly 

in Shia hands. Logic dictates that an equitable solution for the country’s Sunni Arabs 

must be found elsewhere.

The logic of regional self-governance in Iraq is, often tragically, becoming more and 

more compelling. There are no signs that Shia death squads, which make incursions into 

Sunni Arab neighborhoods, are being disbanded. It seems possible, but not certain, that 

some Shia leaders will invoke the TAL’s Article 58 (originally designed solely for Kirkuk) 

and press for changes in Shia governorate boundaries at the expense of the authority 

of the traditionally Sunni Arab governorates of Anbar and Salahiddeen. There have been 

reports of protests among members of predominantly Sunni Arab national military units 

over being stationed outside Sunni Arab areas.10 Tribal leaders in Sunni-dominated 

Anbar province have agreed with the U.S. military to establish local police forces. The 

Kurdistan Regional Government’s moves to consolidate its regional strength and prosperity—including the formal unification of the two Kurdish administrations and the issuing 

of oil contracts—probably would have proceeded regardless of the nature of a central 

government in Baghdad, but it must be giving Sunni Arab strategists some ideas about 

some kind of model for their political future. Even Iraq’s small minority groups, including Christian, Yazidi, and Shabak, are themselves coming to believe that an autonomous 

region in the Ninevah plain may be the best means of protecting their interests. And, 

as if to underscore the futility of Sunni Arab ambitions to dominate a strong national 

government, the prospect of a SCIRI-backed southern Shia region, or a breakaway Basra 

region, or an autonomous Najaf and Karbala central region, remains a constant challenge 

to the already limited constitutional power of Baghdad. 

Will the elected Sunni Arab leaders then avert the collision with the regionalists, take 

the next step, and move toward local self-governance in Sunni Iraq? In other words, will 

Iraq’s elected Sunni Arabs adopt the same pragmatic strategy as their Shia and Kurdish 

counterparts, effectively eliminating local bases for radical Islam and the insurgency, 

consolidating local revenue streams, and establishing the conditions for regional governance? Will they put a price on their discontent? That is, will they formulate their 

position on oil in terms of the fiscal well-being of Sunni Arab populations? If so, they 

would be truly advancing the interests of their constituents, rather than grasping for 

unattainable dominance in a unitary Iraq that no longer exists.11 On this decision very 

likely rests the possibility of peace and stability in Iraq.

At this point, though, the prospect of Sunni Arab self-governance seems remote. 

Some Sunni Arab leaders, particularly those from the moderate end of the political spectrum, are ready to address, in private if not in public, the prospect of Sunni Arab local 

self-government. Most, however, are not. Conspiracy theories regarding U.S. and Israeli 

designs to break up Iraq are pervasive among members of the Sunni Arab intelligentsia. 

In the February Position, Sunni Arab leaders rejected the notion that they should press 

for their proportional share of petroleum receipts, and expressed a preference to confront 

the terms of the constitution and attempt to wrest all oil management powers back to 

Baghdad. When international military experts suggested in February that the elected 

Sunni Arab leadership should create their own regional security force, the suggestions 

were met with hostility. 
13

Thus, although the Sunni Arab position has certainly evolved, it is hard to see an 

imminent shift. The Sunni Arab eight-point constitutional agenda apparently is still a 

“nonstarter” for Kurdish and Shia leaders, and, as such, raises the question squarely: Do 

the Sunni Arabs really need constitutional amendments to achieve their stated objectives? 

Could not their stated goal of giving greater strength to the Iraq central government be 

achieved through means other than constitutional amendment? Could they not attain 

greater national coherence for the oil sector, the judiciary, and the military without a 

direct confrontation with the Kurdish-Shia constitutional text? The answer to these questions is, at least in principle, yes. 

What makes this conclusion interesting is that a Sunni Arab strategy to bring coherence to the central government through nonconstitutional means may be the makings of 

a deal. Although it will not serve Sunni Arabs’ immediate political interests, their strategy 

may coincide with the desire of Shia and Kurdish leaders—and, indeed, the desire of much 

of the international community—to ensure that the central government of Iraq is, if not 

strong, then at least viable and equitable. It is the possible convergence of these views 

that offers the greatest—and perhaps the only—chance for political and legal stability 

in Iraq.12 Such a convergence of views does not advance the explicit Sunni Arab constitutional agenda to its full extent, but it may in fact better serve short- and long-term Sunni 

Arab national interests.

A Convergence of Interests: The Weak Viability Agenda

What, then, are these points of convergence? They are, essentially, three: (1) a delayed 

Shia federal region; (2) a coherent and equitable oil sector, and (3) an agreed division 

of governmental powers and responsibilities, including the jurisdiction of federal courts 

and related human rights institutions. To these three points can be added a fourth: a 

compendious set of relatively minor and “noncontroversial” technical amendments to the 

constitution to improve the functioning of the Baghdad government. As well as representing the easiest way of attaining political consensus, this three-point agenda would 

address the problem of viability by averting the three most likely catastrophes that would 

affect Sunni Arabs, Shiite Arabs, and Kurds alike: the worsening of the Sunni Arab siege 

mentality leading to full-scale civil war; the breakdown of the oil sector, which underpins 

Iraq’s economy and is the most obvious indicator and guarantor of interregional equity; 

and the collapse of a negotiating space for the regional/center division of power.

Delay the creation of any new federal region (constitutional amendment or 

legislation)

A constitutional amendment to extend the six-month deadline in Article 118 would give 

a significant political concession to Sunni Arabs without preventing SCIRI and the Shia 

regionalists from moving forward to create a new region at some point in the future. This 

move should enable the Shia leadership to extract commitments—possibly flimsy, possibly 

not—from the Sunni Arab leadership to restrain anti-Shia violence. It is unlikely that this 

move would in fact prevent the creation of a southern federal region—as the Sunni Arabs 

and Iraqi nationalists obviously hope—but it would allow time for debate as to the nature 

and size of that region, and for institutions to evolve. Although Sunni Arab politicians 

are not likely to acknowledge it in public, the delay will also allow space for those politicians to weigh the merits of creating a new Sunni Arab federal region. The governments 

participating in the coalition, the United Nations, and international legal scholarship all 

support a gradualist approach to regionalization in Iraq. For reasons described above, 

Kurdish and Shia parties may consent to this approach, which will be necessary if the 

Sunni Arab amendment is to succeed.

There are two variations to this amendment approach. The first would rely on legislative, not constitutional, means. Instead of amending Article 118, the legislation contem-
14

plated in Article 118 could itself, when drafted, provide for a slow timetable by which 

constituents of future regions would activate the referendum process leading to new 

regions. In this variation, the prospect of a SCIRI-backed three-governorate veto could 

be avoided, but the support of some Shia parties and the Kurds would be necessary to 

attain a majority in parliament to pass legislation. A second variation would add to the 

constitutional amendment (or legislation) a limit on the size of any new federal region. 

A model for this limit is contained in the TAL’s Article 53, which permitted the creation 

of new regions but limited their size to three governorates. This approach is attractive to 

international lawyers and constitutional experts who point to the experiences of Nigeria, 

Czechoslovakia, and Ethiopia-Eritrea, and argue that federal states with a small number 

of federal regions are less likely to function. Notwithstanding the comparative constitutional law arguments, however, the approach of limiting region size has so far not been 

formally advanced by Iraq’s Sunni Arab leadership. Nor is there any evidence that such a 

permanent limitation would be accepted by the Shia leadership, because SCIRI adheres 

to its proposal to create a southern federal region and, indeed, other senior Shia figures 

have proposed the creation of still larger federal regions. 

Establish a coherent national oil management regime (legislation and 

intergovernmental agreement)

The chances of amending the constitutional provision dealing with oil management and 

revenue distribution in Article 112 of the Iraqi constitution are practically nil. Sunni Arab 

goals to bring all oil management, including future oil fields, under Baghdad’s control will 

be immediately vetoed by the Kurdish parties. 

Yet there is no reason that the Sunni Arab preference for a coherent national petroleum scheme cannot be advanced. Indeed, the very ambiguities of Iraq’s constitutional 

language on oil could be used as the blank slate for a more moderate Sunni Arab and 

nationalist legislative agenda—directed not at strength but at viability and equity—that 

will be acceptable to the Kurds and others to the extent that it maximizes overall revenue 

and does not require regions to sacrifice either net regional revenue or their constitutional 

management rights. Indeed, on most of the following points, Kurds have already indicated 

their agreement in principle.

Oil legislation can and should meet the following objectives:

•	 Prescribe a clear distinction between (1) oil management, which puts current fields 

under joint control of the central and regional governments, and future fields under 

control of the regional governments; and (2) oil ownership, which, according to at 

least one interpretation of Article 111, is in the hands of all Iraqis regardless of their 

region. This distinction, once spelled out, will establish clearly that current fields 

generate the vast majority of Iraq’s oil wealth for the foreseeable future, and clearly 

identify Baghdad as the managerial center of most of Iraq’s oil production, thereby 

relieving Sunni Arab anxiety.

•	 Prescribe a clear distinction between current and future fields, so that all oil fields 

in Iraq are agreed to fall into one or the other category, with the explicit agreement 

(because it is only implied in the constitution) that the Kirkuk fields are current fields 

and therefore open to Baghdad’s co-management, regardless of the outcome of the 

2007 Kirkuk referendum.

•	 Establish a protocol on the sharing of national oil infrastructure, including tie-in 

agreements at Fishkabour, outside Kurdish territory, for Kurdish petroleum from the 

new field at Zakho to join the Iraqi pipeline network. This is a concession that the 

Kurdistan Regional Government will need from Baghdad in the very near future to 

transport its oil to Turkey or to Basra. Similarly, Baghdad cannot realistically run a 

national pipeline network without regional support. 
15

•	 Establish respective Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries production quotas 

for Iraq’s central government and regional governments.

•	 Establish the commission described in Article 106 of the constitution to audit and 

appropriate federal revenues, and do so consistent with principles of transparency and 

accountability in accordance with international best practices.

Further, a set of intergovernmental oil agreements, supported by legislation if possible, 

could achieve even more:

•	 Establish a voluntary system in which regional and central governments agree that 

management decisions on all fields (current and future), including the awarding of 

Production Sharing Agreements, are to be made with the knowledge and approval of 

both governments, without prejudice to regional petroleum regimes and, in general, 

to the constitutional right of regions to exclusive control over future fields.

•	 Establish the appropriate intergovernmental institutions—an Oil Commission, perhaps—required for the joint regional/federal management and regulation of current 

oil fields, the marketing of Iraqi oil, and negotiation with international oil companies. 

(One of the major pitfalls of the rushed 2005 constitution drafting timetable was that 

promising Shia-Kurd plans for an intergovernmental Oil Commission were sidelined).

•	 Establish a five-year renewable oil revenue–sharing protocol, which would ensure 

that Iraq’s Sunni Arab areas receive their portion of all oil revenues (from current 

or future fields) commensurate with their proportion of the population, perhaps to 

be overseen by the Article 106 Revenue Commission. This would probably involve a 

“top-up” mechanism that would distribute oil-producing regions’ excess revenues. 

This agreement would ensure that regions share, on equitable terms, the revenues 

they handle by virtue of being the managers of Iraq’s future fields. (It will probably 

first be necessary, though, to address the Kurdish complaint that they are receiving 

less than the 17 percent of federal budget revenues to which they are entitled.)

These initiatives stand some chance—perhaps a good chance—of finding favor with 

Kurdish and Shia parties. Although the Kurds, who were the principal sponsors of Article 

112, are unlikely to brook any constitutional amendment, they are aware that the absence 

of a coherent and benign national oil regime will jeopardize their own ability to access 

the national oil infrastructure (such as pipelines, shipping terminals, and refineries) and 

to attract international investment from the major international oil companies, which they 

value as guarantors not only of wealth, but also of security. Even if the independence 

of Kurdistan is a long term Kurdish goal, the pursuit of that objective will rely, for the 

time being, on access to pipelines that cross into non-Kurdish territory. Commentators 

frequently overlook the fact that the Kurds have indicated their preparedness to help 

develop a national oil regime to attract the major international oil companies, as well 

as their preparedness to share oil revenues nationwide, even if they reserve management 

rights to future fields within the region. Although Kurdish authority over oil should be 

respected, their attempts to open up a dialogue with Baghdad over the oil issue should 

also be taken seriously. 

Agree on division of powers between governments. Establish a meritocratic judiciary 

and human rights institutions (intergovernmental agreement and legislation)

If the Iraqi federation, like most other federations, is characterized by tension between 

central and regional governments, it will need a means to resolve this tension other 

than by force. There is no doubt that this tension exists in Iraq and that it was not fully 

resolved in the constitution draft. The constitution foreshadows the creation of an upper 

house of the legislature, to be known as the Federation Council, which might provide 

the forum for regional/national discussion, but that body will not come into existence 
16

for some time and, in any event, being a creation of the Council of Representatives, it is 

likely to be weak.

The tension arising from Iraq’s current center-regional dynamic will be difficult to 

resolve. On the one hand, the regional governments—represented, for the time being, by 

only the Kurdistan Regional Government—consolidated a great deal of power within Iraq’s 

federal structure, practically guaranteeing regional priority over the central government. 

On the other hand, notwithstanding the meager list of exclusive federal powers listed in 

Section Four of the constitution, the federal government could, if it wished, invoke a list 

of implied powers that are impressive: the ability to review regional law for compliance 

with the constitution under Articles 13 and 92(1); the power to ensure the civil, political, 

social, and economic well-being of the Iraqi people (a power that stems from the responsibilities set out in the constitution’s Bill of Rights); and a mandate under Section Four for 

the federal government to “preserve the unity, integrity, independence [and] sovereignty” 

of Iraq, a phrase that could be open to broad interpretation. Baghdad could also wield 

explicit federal powers, including foreign policy, monetary policy, treaties, trade policy and 

customs, all of which are typically used in federal systems to augment central government 

control and could be used by an Iraqi federal government perhaps even to the point of 

asserting a federal right to tax, even when no such right has found explicit statement in 

the constitution. It is also clearly arguable that the federal government has the power to 

make law on any subject whatsoever, whether there is an implied power or not, and that 

the effect of such a law would be curtailed only where it did not fall within the list of 

exclusive powers and where there was a countervailing regional law. 

However these matters are resolved, it is certain that protracted tension will endure 

between the central government in Baghdad and regional governments—and this tension 

is only natural in a federal system. What is important is not that one or the other level of 

government wins the contest; rather, it is that this tension is resolved peacefully and in 

such a way that all the peoples of Iraq are able to enjoy good governance. For that reason, 

and in the absence of a strong judicial system and settled constitutional jurisprudence in 

which judicial decisions are enforced, regional governments and the central government 

should agree on a threefold strategy:

Intergovernmental agreement on division of powers. This proposed agreement should 

be for a long but finite duration (at least five years) and should be without prejudice to 

the final determination of respective governmental powers by judicial decision or otherwise. Insofar as they remain regionalist in nature, political parties from the UIA would 

stand in for the interests of a southern federal region that does not yet exist.

Such an agreement also should use the existing provisions of the constitution on 

federal and regional authorities (contained in Section Four of the constitution) as a basis 

for ensuring that good governance is delivered to all Iraqis, wherever they may live. For 

each government service, the agreement should identify essentials item by item, including 

security, electricity, water, health, education, sewerage, and roads. The agreement should 

also identify areas of jurisdiction where there is currently overlap, including the shared 

competencies set out in Article 114 and those other areas of jurisdiction where there is 

likely to be the emergence of competing regional-federal assertions of authority, including human rights, personal status law, and criminal law. The agreement should identify 

which level of government—central, regional, governorate, or local—would meet specific 

needs and with what resources. Ideally, the agreement should also contain the express 

acknowledgment by the Kurdistan Regional Government that the central government has 

the ability to raise income or consumption tax revenue within the region, perhaps to a 

prescribed limit; even if the Kurdistan Regional Government does not surrender its constitutional powers, it is crucial that it demonstrate its commitment to a viable Iraqi state. 

The agreement could conceivably lead to the establishment of the commission on the 

rights of regions and governorates described in Article 105 of the constitution.

Courts. There should be a law for the federal judiciary that preserves existing regional 

autonomy but also establishes a coherent national legal system in which the constitu-
17

tional and human rights of all Iraqis can be addressed to a professional national court 

system. The principal constitutional problem with the establishment of a national judiciary is the fact that the jurisdiction of the national courts is unclear, largely because of 

disagreement among the constitutional negotiators. In particular, the constitution does 

not specify whether Iraq’s Supreme Federal Court has the power to review decisions of 

regional courts—specifically, at this point, the courts of the Kurdistan Region—on constitutional or other grounds. The constitution also does not specify whether the Supreme 

Federal Court has the power to review the legislation of regional governments on constitutional grounds. Article 13, which deems void any text in a regional constitution “or any 

other legal text” (emphasis added) that contradicts the constitution, might be thought to 

imply that this power exists, although it is difficult to see how the provision would operate in a real world in which the Kurdistan Region could easily frustrate the enforcement 

of Supreme Federal Court decisions. 

In short, any proposal for a law on the judiciary must proceed from the understanding 

that the central government cannot prevail in any open confrontation with a regional 

government; the writ of Baghdad does not extend into the Kurdistan Region and probably 

will not extend into a southern region either. 

The proposed law would also require regions to make temporary without prejudice 

concessions to a Sunni Arab position. The proposed federal judiciary law would do the 

following:

1. Establish minimum legal qualifications for members of the Supreme Federal Court and 

other national courts.

2. Confirm that the Supreme Federal Court has the jurisdiction to hear all cases in which 

a breach of human rights is alleged, and to order appropriate remedies; the rules of 

standing must be liberal.

3. Confirm that parties have a right to appeal from regional courts to the Supreme 

Federal Court at least on constitutional human rights matters, and that the Supreme 

Federal Court has no authority to diminish the level of protection or compensation 

awarded to a complainant by a regional court.

4. Confirm that the Supreme Federal Court may review all regional law for consistency 

with the Federal constitution on matters of human rights as set out in the constitution. 

It is true that the judiciary does not rate high on the Sunni Arab agenda. The Sunni 

Arab parties explicitly address the constitution on the question of the judiciary only to 

express concern at the provision allowing a role for “experts in Islamic jurisprudence” on 

the Supreme Federal Court (Article 92), a concern motivated by a fear that Iraq’s highest court will be dominated by Shia clerics. However, the development of a meritocratic 

and coherent legal system may pay greater dividends to Sunni Arabs and Iraqi nationalists than they realize. Iraq’s smaller minorities and women’s groups, for their part, have 

identified judicial institutions as the highest priority, and their position is supported by 

the programming (and the considerable resources) of international governmental and 

nongovernmental organizations (NGOs). The central problem is that in the absence of a 

coherent national judicial system, debates regarding the structure of the Iraqi state will 

continue to be resolved by force and facts on the ground. Even the Kurdistan Regional 

Government, which has been one of the primary beneficiaries of this state of affairs, 

should be shown that cooperative national arrangements in the judiciary will not be 

inimical to their interests.

High Commission for Human Rights. For much the same reason as noted above, 

another law should establish the High Commission for Human Rights, as mentioned in 

Article 102 of the Iraqi constitution. The law should prescribe the minimum qualifications 

for membership on the commission, and the commission mandate should explicitly set as 

a goal the protection and advancement of the interests of women and ethnic and religious 

minorities. The commission should have the power to initiate investigations regarding all 
18

fundamental human rights, the rights identified in the constitution, and rights set out in 

treaties to which Iraq is a signatory. The commission should also have arbitral powers. 

During the 2005 constitutional negotiations, human rights discussions in the Constitution Drafting Committee were cast to one side at the ad hoc “Leadership Council” talks in 

favor of the main action—the federalism negotiations. As an afterthought, the Kurdistan 

Regional Government resisted the creation of a strong Human Rights Commission in Baghdad, for fear that Shia clerics would erode Kurdistan’s significant (but far from complete) 

advances in human rights protection. In the 2006 review process, the Constitution Review 

Committee must persuade the Kurds to permit the establishment of a robust Human Rights 

Commission, with assurances that no federal human rights regime will have the power to 

erode rights and liberties in the Kurdistan Region.

Other technical amendments

Several other constitutional amendments should be on the Constitution Review Committee’s agenda, none of which offer direct political solutions to the problem of Sunni 

Arab alienation but each of which would make for an Iraqi national government that will 

govern better. On those grounds, these amendments should be advanced both by Sunni 

Arabs and indeed by the Constitution Review Committee itself. None of these amendments 

should be opposed by intelligent Kurdish or Shia interests. The amendments, in order of 

significance, are as follows:

1. Clarify the status of governorates as distinct from regions. Article 115 implies that 

laws issued by governorates (as with regions) have priority over laws issued by the 

central government, whereas Article 122 implies that governorates are subordinate 

to the central government and Articles 112 (on oil) and 114 (on concurrent powers) 

do not give to governorates the powers that regions enjoy. Under these circumstances, Article 115 should probably be brought into line.

2. Strengthen and clarify the enforcement mechanisms in Section Two of the constitution (“Rights and Liberties”), which enumerates constitutional rights.

3. Clarify the circumstances in which executive emergency powers are exercised 

(Article 61).

4. Remove the “public order and morality” qualification from the provision on the 

freedoms of expression, publication, and assembly (Article 38).

5. Reintroduce the provision deleted from an earlier draft of the constitution that 

granted Iraqis the rights set out in the international human rights agreements ratified by Iraq.

6. In the section dealing with freedom of religion and belief, provide a specific right 

of conversion from one belief to another. 

7. Remove the legislative oversight of the Human Rights Commission (Article 102).

8. Provide for participation rights for minorities in all parts of the national government, not just the military.

9. Extend the provision on equality before the law (Article 14) to the disabled.

10. Provide for a right of the citizen to information from the government.

11. Make specific provision for the independence of the civil service, and reference to a 

code of conduct for civil servants.

Modalities: The Constitution Review Committee and Secretariat

All of the foregoing are the basic elements of a constitution review agenda that might 

both seal a hitherto elusive political compact around the constitution and maximize the 
19

viability—and equity—of the Iraqi state. As suggested, the key to its success will be 

(1) moderating Sunni Arab constitutional ambitions that were raised by the October 12 

agreement; (2) encouraging the continued evolution of the Sunni Arab position so that 

it can take care of genuine Sunni Arab interests; and (3) persuading Kurdish and Shiite 

leaders to make at least one significant constitutional amendment (perhaps the delay for 

new regions) and to make at least temporary and limited “without prejudice” concessions 

on oil, governance, and the judiciary, in the interests of a viable Iraqi state, to Baghdad 

and the Sunni Arabs.

Yet this compact will not be achieved unless the CRC is able to adopt the right modalities. The very unsatisfactory handling of the Constitution Drafting Committee in 2005 

stands as a striking counterexample—what not to do. The following principles should be 

established from the very beginning:

1. The CRC must be brought into existence. It is mandated in Article 142 of Iraq’s 

constitution, and it would be the worst possible result—politically and legally—for 

Article 142 to be ignored. Deep anxieties in Iraq about the structure of the state 

cannot be addressed by a mere “government of national unity,” of which there have 

now been four.

2. The CRC must have sufficient time to do its work. The four-month review period 

should not begin until the committee is fully established and has an adequately 

staffed secretariat. Once the CRC has reported to the Council of Representatives, the 

Council should take all the time necessary to consider, discuss, and debate the CRC’s 

proposals, with as much public deliberation as possible. The national referendum is 

required not more than two months after the Council approves any amendments. 

However there is no time limit prescribed between the CRC’s submission of its report 

and any Council vote of approval; this presents an obvious opportunity to extend 

discussions, if necessary, without needing to extend the CRC timetable (as some 

have recommended).

3. The CRC mandate should not be confined to proposing constitutional amendments; 

the question of “constitutional review” is both pressing and complex. Progress will 

not be made if disparate and possibly unelected bodies handle different aspects of 

the problem. In particular, the CRC should have the power to recommend and design 

legislative and other instruments to bring about consensus around the constitution, 

including Sunni Arab support, and to ensure the viability of the Iraqi state. Article 

142 does not limit the CRC’s mandate in any way. Broadening the CRC’s mandate will 

both lend the Committee greater credibility and, at the same time, have the effect 

of moderating unrealistic expectations for constitutional change.

4. The CRC should not function separately from other consensus-building initiatives 

in Iraq. On the contrary, the CRC could help set the agenda for other peacebuilding 

initiatives. Conflict in Iraq is in large part the result of clashing visions on the structure of the Iraqi state, and state-structure negotiations represent one important way 

to bring about peace. The CRC offers a way to ensure that negotiated solutions have 

a domestic, democratic, and inclusive mandate. Interaction among party leaders on 

constitutional matters should be through the CRC; although there will always be a 

crucial role for interaction between elected leaders, the practice of last-minute, ad 

hoc, and secret leadership meetings should be ended. Where party leaders need to 

make political decisions on CRC matters, the decisions should be referred back to 

the CRC for implementation.

There are certainly peacebuilding opportunities in Iraq that will likely fall outside 

the purview of the CRC, including the negotiations on the role of militias and 

regional security forces, preparations for the 2007 Kirkuk referendum to protect the 

rights of Kirkuk’s non-Kurdish citizens, and the role of Iraq’s neighboring states. 

Arab League reconciliation meetings, UN peace conferences, U.S.-sponsored Dayton-style meetings, and so on must not trespass on the work of the CRC and the 
20

Council of Representatives, whose responsibilities have democratic backing and 

should take center stage if there is to be peace in Iraq.

5. The CRC must have a diverse membership, which is mandated by the requirement in 

Article 142 that the CRC represent “the principal components of the Iraqi society.” 

Article 142 describes the committee as being created by the Council of Representatives “from its members,” but that provision need not preclude CRC members being 

chosen from outside the Council. The rules of procedure of the CRC could, as with 

the Constitution Drafting Committee in 2005, prescribe that decisions be made by 

consensus, thereby avoiding the question as to the status of non-Council committee 

appointees. Non-Council appointees could come from those groups that were most 

disenfranchised by the 2005 constitutional negotiations, including women’s groups, 

and groups representing the smaller ethnic and religious minorities, the disabled, 

and children’s interests. Non-Council appointees could also include academic representatives, including legal scholars and political scientists who are prepared to find 

practical solutions to constitutional and intergovernmental problems. The CRC must 

be large enough to be representative, but small enough to be efficient; it should 

probably consist of no more than thirty persons.

6. The CRC must have proper offices, and it must have professional staff members 

who themselves are representative of Iraq’s political, ethnic, and religious diversity. 

Professional staff with good public relations expertise could realize the great missing element in the 2005 drafting sessions: a proper and organized public discussion 

throughout Iraq. The CRC should also be equipped with professional legal staff to 

help organise the CRC’s work and to analyze submissions. In 2005, the Constitution 

Drafting Committee was crippled by lack of office space and a lack of staff, a failure 

of the Iraqi political leaders, U.S. government agencies, and the United Nations that 

severely reduced not only the Constitution Drafting Committee’s ability to interact 

with the public (including, conspicuously, the Sunni Arab public) but also, in turn, 

the legitimacy of the drafting process. Despite the limitations, the small Drafting 

Committee staff was very hard working and managed to communicate with a large 

number of Iraqis. However, the staff was not diverse and did not have time to make 

sure that the constitution drafters absorbed the results of its work. 

These mistakes are costly in terms of resources and political capital. They should 

not be made again. As the principal peacebuilding consultants to the new Iraqi government, the United Nations, the National Democratic Institute, the International 

Republican Institute, and the United States Institute of Peace have the ability, if 

given the chance, to amplify the reach of the CRC in leading public discussion and 

debate, which will certainly generate their own dividends at the community level. 

If the review process is confined to a mere four months, it is unlikely that serious 

public debate can take place—and that would be an even costlier mistake.

Recommendations

To the Iraq Council of Representatives:

•	 Establish a Constitutional Review Committee as soon as possible, with diverse membership and a strong mandate to include constitutional reform, legislative recommendations, and recommendations on intergovernmental agreements. Solicit international 

funding for the committee, but provide most of the funds from the domestic budget.

•	 Agree that the four-month timeline for the CRC does not start until the committee is 

fully established, with office space, a secretariat, and a sufficient budget to conduct 

public discussions.
21

•	 If necessary, take all the time that Article 142 affords, including the period between 

receipt of the CRC report and the approval of its recommendations.

To the Constitution Review Committee:

•	 Broaden the scope of recommendations beyond the narrow realm of constitutional 

amendment. Assume responsibility for finding new solutions to the problem of Sunni 

Arab alienation, with consideration of the legislation and agreements set out above, 

and for making the Iraqi state viable if not strong. 

•	 Establish and use a robust secretariat of professionals to generate public debate in 

Iraq. Journalists and NGO officials with media training would be ideal. There should 

also be a team of professional constitutional lawyers.

To the Kurdish and Shia leaders:

•	 Be prepared, and prepare Kurdish and Shia constituents, for a constitutional concession to Sunni Arabs and Iraqi nationalists by amending Article 118 and delaying the 

timeline for the creation of new federal regions.

•	 Be prepared to make without prejudice concessions in legislation and intergovernmental agreements regarding oil, governance, and the judiciary, as described in this 

special report.

•	 Empower Kurdish and Shia delegates to the CRC, and advance party views through the 

CRC process.

To the Sunni Arab leaders:

•	 Advance Sunni Arab interests, not a Sunni Arab position. In particular, distinguish 

between those interests and the ideal of a strong centralized Iraqi government.

•	 Adopt a negotiating strategy that does not hinge solely on constitutional amendment 

but, rather, includes other instruments that are more effective and available.

To the U.S. government:

•	 Having brokered the October 12, 2005 agreement on constitutional amendment, 

ensure that the constitutional review proceeds. Try to moderate Sunni Arab and 

nationalist expectations of the amendment process. Support the CRC in efforts to find 

creative solutions to Iraq’s constitutional impasse, including those described previously in this special report. 

•	 Support United Nations and other efforts to bring about realistic constitutional compromises between the parties.

•	 Neither assume nor accept any formal role in the review negotiations. If there is to 

be a constitutional consensus in Iraq to endure beyond the U.S. presence, the United 

States should have no formal role. If there is to be a third-party underwriter, it should 

be the United Nations.

To the United Nations:

•	 Continue to serve as a mediator among constitutional factions. Continue to provide 

negotiating advice and issue-specific technical assistance to Iraqi politicians and civil 

society leaders in multiparty dialogues.

•	 Direct the efforts of international constitutional experts away from cataloguing 

perceived deficiencies in the Iraq constitution. A comparative approach should be 
22

used positively and realistically, not as a negative way of measuring the difference 

between the Iraqi constitution and some ideal. Engage experts on peacebuilding and 

the creation of viability and equity within the new Iraqi federation.

NOTES

1. The full English text of the Iraqi constitution can be found on the United States Institute of Peace website 

at http://www.usip.org/ruleoflaw/projects/unami_iraq_constitution.pdf.

2. The author’s previous instalment on Iraq’s constitutionalism, Iraq’s Constitutional Process II: An Opportunity Lost. Special Report, No.155 (Washington, D.C.: United States Institute of Peace, November 2005), 

describes the circumstances in which this exclusion was effected.

3. http://iraq.usembassy.gov/iraq/101305_compromise.html

4. http://abcnews.go.com/International/PollVault 

5. “Al-Hakim Renews His Demand To Establish the �Province of Southern and Central Ira,” Al-Sabah (Baghdad), 

June 12, 2006.

6. See Gareth Smyth, “SCIRI Official Defends Shia Record on Security,” Financial Times (London), June 9, 

2006

7. Ross Colvin, “Sunnis Back Goverment Talks but Say Demands Must Be Met,” Reuters, January 22, 2006.

8. See Nathan Brown, The Final Draft of the Iraqi Constitution: Analysis and Commentary (Washington, D.C.: 

Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, September 2005).

9. Ashti Hawrami, “Oil and Gas Rights of the Regions and Governorates,” www.kurdmeida.com, June 14, 

2006. 

10. See, for example, Nelson Hernandez, “Iraqis Begin Duty with Refusal,” Washington Post, May 6, 2006.

11. See Jonathan Morrow, “Oil—the Curse—Might Also Be the Answer,” USA Today, January 19, 2006.

12. See Jonathan Morrow, “Federalism Could Hold Iraq Together,” Newsday, October 21, 2005.

United States 

Institute of Peace

1200 17th Street NW

Washington, DC 20036

www.usip.org

An online edition of this and related 

reports can be found on our Web site 

(www.usip.org), together with additional 

information on the subject.

Of Related Interest

In the fall of 2003, Congress requested the United States Institute of Peace to provide 

assistance for peacebuilding initiatives under way in Iraq. The Institute’s work in this 

area complements many of its long-term programs and initiatives, including support for 

the rule of law in postconflict environments and transitional states, as reflected in recent 

publications that address these issues.

Recent Institute reports include

•	 Who Are Iraq’s New Leaders? What Do They Want? by Phebe Marr (Special Report 160, 

March 2006)

•	 Iraq’s Constitutional Process II: An Opportunity Lost, by Jonathan Morrow (Special 

Report 155, December 2005)

•	 Strategies for Promoting Democracy in Iraq, by Eric Davis (Special Report 153, October 

2005)

•	 Iraq Election Scenarios: Anticipating Alternative Futures, by Alan Schwartz (Special 

Report 142, July 2005)

•	 The Coalition Provisional Authority’s Experience with Governance in Iraq: Lessons Identified, by Celeste J. Ward (Special Report 139, May 2005)

•	 Promoting Middle East Democracy II: Arab Initiatives, by Mona Yacoubian (Special 

Report 136, May 2005)

•	 The Coalition Provisional Authority’s Experience with Economic Reconstruction in Iraq: 

Lessons Identified, by Anne Ellen Henderson (Special Report 138, April 2005)

•	 The Coalition Provisional Authority’s Experience with Public Security in Iraq: Lessons 

Identified, by Robert Perito (Special Report 137, April 2005)

•	 Who Are the Insurgents? Sunni Arab Rebels in Iraq, by Amatzia Baram (Special Report 

134, April 2005)

•	 Iraq’s Constitutional Process: Shaping a Vision for the Country’s Future (Special Report 

132, February 2005)

•	 Promoting Middle East Democracy: European Initiatives, by Mona Yacoubian (Special 

Report 127, October 2004)

•	 Donor Activities and Civil Society Potential in Iraq (Special Report 124, July 2004)

•	 Building the Iraqi Special Tribunal: Lessons from Experiences in International Criminal 

Justice (Special Report 122, June 2004)

•	 Postconflict Iraq: A Race for Stability, Reconstruction, and Legitimacy, by Faleh A. Jabar 

(Special Report 120, May 2004)

•	 Islamist Politics in Iraq after Saddam Hussein, by Graham E. Fuller (Special Report 108, 

August 2003)

•	 Democratic Constitution Making, by Vivien Hart (Special Report 107, July 2003)

•	 Establishing the Rule of Law in Iraq (Special Report 104, April 2003)

•	 The Road Ahead: Lessons in Nation Building from Japan, Germany, and Afghanistan for 

Postwar Iraq, by Ray Salvatore Jennings (Peaceworks 49, April 2003)

For online editions of special reports visit our Web site (www.usip.org).

Relevant books from USIP Press include:

•	 Transitional Justice: How Emerging Democracies Reckon with Former Regimes, 3 vols., 

edited by Neil J. Kritz (1995)

For book sales and order information, call 800.868.8064 (U.S. toll-free only) or 703.661.1590, 

or fax 703.661.1501.