Syria’s Fragile Transition into Constitutional Reform

An Analysis of Possible Approaches to the Future of Syria’s Legal System

---

Published December 18th, 2025

Written by Addie Merrick

In late 2024, Bashar al-Assad fled to Moscow, terminating a 13-year-long, horrific and authoritarian regime in Syria. More than 14 million Syrians had fled their homes in search of safety from the violence in their homeland. Until now, Syria and its diaspora have been subject to a fragmented legal system that served the interests of executive power. On March 13th, 2025, the Presidency of the Syrian Arab Republic declared a new constitution. This temporary constitution is set to remain in force for five years until a permanent constitution is adopted. Aiming to preserve the integrity of Syria, its land, and its people, it seeks to redress victims and instill universal reparations across the country.

The new constitution also has gaps about how courts will function in adherence to the new laws. Many are uncertain of the scope of rights, powers and limitations made in judicial decisions, as these are more ambiguous than ever before. Experts like international lawyer Lara Eid Jreissati express heightened concerns, articulating that this new constitution risks entrenching authoritarianism. She concedes that this may hinder the country’s transition to democracy. Along with pitfalls in the judicial functions of the Syrian legal system, uncertainties surrounding the ideological affiliations of armed opposition groups have increased. Rebecca Hamilton, a human rights professor at the Washington College of Law, states in an article for Just Security that groups affiliated with Al-Qaeda underscore the fragility of this movement. While certain militant-led groups have recently shifted in their rhetoric surrounding the renouncement of retaliation, political instability is still likely to be inherent, impeding the path of civilian-led initiatives within the country.

These complexities raise many questions surrounding the future of Syria and whether its constitutional drafting should include external actors and international powers. Many scholars argue against a ‘top-down’ approach, deeming it unfitting for a post-conflict society and too volatile given the need to focus on stability. This ‘top-down’ approach, further articulated by Hamilton, would entail particularly rigid constitutional frameworks, enabling expediency in decisions made by external powers. This approach does not prioritize the rights and interests of those living under its framework and deprives citizens of self-determination. Applying this framework to Syria’s legal system may limit the goals of its temporary constitution, allowing more room for structural power imbalances.

A more pragmatic approach may involve a multilateral system in which Syria’s interim leadership and international powers collaborate to ensure the nation’s stability. Widyane Hamdach, a writer for the Georgetown Journal of International Affairs, argues that this approach is essential to achieve lasting peace. Ensuring not only the protection of the Syrian people’s interests, but also domestic minority interests, is essential to the effectiveness of this approach. Hamdach notes that a lack of protection of religious minority interests is deemed an urgent challenge and increases the risk of sectarian strife. She argues that this protection must be a focus within Syria’s constitutional reform, led by the Syrian people and supported by external international actors. Agreeing with many other scholars, Hamdach posits that these external actors must, however, provide support without dictating outcomes.

The future of the nation is trapped in a legal paradox where international intervention is needed but could infringe on the fundamental rights of civilians. While the end of the regime sparked a pivotal and triumphant new era for the Syrian people, the next steps taken to rebuild the country and governance system must be done carefully.

---