Historical foundations: a progressive law under threat

Iraq’s Personal Status Law No. 188, enacted in 1959 under Prime Minister Abdul Karim Qasim, marked a progressive shift in family law in the region. At a time when many regional legal systems were governed by religious or tribal norms, Iraq chose a secular, unified civil framework to oversee personal matters - such as marriage, divorce, child custody and inheritance.

This landmark law reflected a commitment to modernity, gender equality and national sovereignty over family affairs. Key provisions included setting the minimum legal age of marriage at 18 for both men and women (Article 7), requiring mutual consent for marriage (Articles 6–8) and placing family law under the jurisdiction of civil courts rather than religious authorities.

These reforms represented a significant advance for women’s rights: women now gained legal recognition in matters of divorce, custody and inheritance. 

However, from the outset, Law 188 faced resistance, especially in rural and conservative communities where traditional norms remained deeply entrenched. Article 8 introduced a major loophole: it allowed judges to approve marriages for girls as young as 15 in cases of 'urgent necessity' and signs of physical maturity. In practice, this clause has often been exploited with little oversight, leading to widespread child and forced marriages, many of which violate the spirit, if not the letter, of the law.

Over time, the gap between the law’s progressive vision and its uneven implementation widened, leaving many women and girls without effective legal protection.

Decades of erosion: conflict, conservatism and legal ambiguity (1980s–2000s)

From the 1980s onwards, Iraq underwent profound upheaval. Years of conflict, international sanctions, and the fall of Saddam Hussein’s regime in 2003 contributed to the weakening of state institutions and the breakdown of centralised legal oversight.

As civil structures eroded, tribal and religious leaders gained greater influence over family and community affairs. This shift gradually undermined the authority of Law 188 and introduced significant inconsistencies in how family law was applied across regions.

By the early 2000s, the political rise of conservative religious factions further destabilised Iraq’s civil legal system. Protections for women under Law 188, which were already limited in practice, began to be openly challenged or disregarded. Courts increasingly deferred to religious interpretations, and the influence of sectarian doctrine grew stronger.

This period created the conditions for future legislative efforts that would seek to embed religious doctrine more formally into Iraq’s legal framework.

2017: The Jaafari Law proposal and public outcry

In 2017, a bill commonly known as the 'Jaafari Law' was introduced, sparking widespread concern both nationally and internationally. Based on Shi’a Islamic jurisprudence, the proposed amendments to Law 188 aimed to shift personal status matters from the civil courts to religious authorities.

The proposed legislation contained several deeply regressive provisions. Among the most concerning were:

• Lowering the legal age of marriage to nine years
• Permitting unregulated polygamy
• Severely limiting women’s rights in divorce and child custody
• Granting exclusive adjudicatory powers to religious courts, thereby bypassing civil judicial oversight

The reaction was swift. Women’s rights groups, legal experts, and civil society organisations launched a nationwide campaign against the bill. Demonstrations were held across Iraq, and petitions gained traction globally. International bodies, including Human Rights Watch and various UN agencies, warned that the bill violated Iraq’s obligations under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW).

Although the Jaafari Law was eventually withdrawn, it revealed the growing political appetite to reframe family law through a sectarian lens and dismantle the civil protections established in 1959.

2024–2025: From civil protections to sectarian control

The trajectory set in motion by the Jaafari Law resurfaced in 2024, but in a more incremental form. This time, the government proposed formal amendments to Law 188 that incorporated many of the same sectarian and patriarchal ideas - though introduced with less public visibility and more political backing.

Parliamentary debate on the amendments began in July 2024, with the first formal reading on 4 August. The proposed changes allowed husbands to decide whether civil or religious law would apply at the time of marriage. In cases of mixed-sect marriages, the husband's religious affiliation would determine the applicable law, unless a prior agreement stated otherwise. This undermined the principle of legal neutrality.

Other changes included:

• Permitting marriage from age 15 with judicial or parental consent
• Authorising religious clergy to officiate marriages outside the civil court system
• Reducing oversight on polygamy, custody, divorce, and inheritance matters
• Strengthening the role of religious courts at the expense of the civil judiciary

Some versions of the proposed amendments even reintroduced references to marriage as young as age 9, which sparked immediate concern among human rights defenders.

A second reading took place on 16 September 2024. The following day, the Federal Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the amendments, citing Article 41 of the Iraqi Constitution, which allows for personal status laws to be governed by religious affiliation. This ruling echoed the arguments behind the 2017 Jaafari Law and effectively legitimised a sectarian model of family law.

Despite criticism from UN agencies and human rights organisations, the Iraqi Parliament passed the amendments into law on 21 January 2025. Although the final text did not explicitly lower the marriage age to 9, it retained provisions that allow for marriage from age 15 - well below international human rights standards. It also enshrined religious courts as central authorities in family law, significantly weakening civil protections.

The 2025 amendments have had far-reaching implications. By reinforcing religious jurisdiction over family law, they have institutionalised a fragmented legal system. The civil judiciary, which was once envisioned as a neutral arbiter of rights, has seen its role diminished.

In particular, the application of the Shia Jaafari school has become more prominent. Sunni legal scholars and religious leaders have largely opposed these reforms, leading to inconsistencies in the legal rights afforded to women depending on their religious background or geographic location.

Women’s rights advocates continue to raise alarms. These changes increase the risk of:

• Coerced and child marriages
• Reduced legal protection in cases of domestic violence or divorce
• Expanded polygamy without accountability
• Limited access to civil courts for resolving personal matters

Unlike in 2017, when widespread public resistance helped stall regressive legislation, the 2025 reforms have not only passed but are now reshaping Iraq’s legal landscape. They represent a shift from a rights-based civil framework to a system dominated by sectarian identity and patriarchal control.

Findings from advocacy workshops

1. Impact of the amendments to Iraq’s Personal Status Law

1.1 Child marriage and early pregnancy

Participants expressed deep concern about the provision lowering the legal age of marriage to as young as nine. This was widely condemned as a direct violation of both the Iraqi Constitution and international treaties such as the Convention on the Rights of the Child, to which Iraq is a signatory.

Key concerns included:

Health Risks: Early pregnancy endangers the health of young girls, increasing the risk of maternal mortality, sexually transmitted infections (STIs), and lifelong reproductive health complications.
Education and Economic Impact: Child marriage often leads to school dropouts, limiting future opportunities and contributing to cycles of poverty and economic dependency.
Psychosocial Consequences: Forcing young girls into adulthood results in long-term psychological trauma, emotional distress, and increased vulnerability to gender-based violence.

1.2 Inheritance and custody rights

Participants highlighted the discriminatory nature of the proposed changes to inheritance and custody laws.

Under the Al-Jaafari interpretation, wives are excluded from inheriting land or real estate, prioritising male relatives in the distribution of assets.

Custody laws were also criticised for automatically transferring custody to fathers once a child reaches the age of two, which may result in trauma and disruption of maternal bonds, particularly in cases of divorce or separation.
These provisions were described as institutionalising gender inequality and eroding women’s legal and familial rights.

1.3 Polygamy without consent

Another contentious issue raised was the amendment permitting polygamy without the consent of the first wife. Participants noted this could lead to:

• Heightened emotional distress, instability, and competition within households.
• A rise in divorce rates and social exclusion for abandoned first wives.
• Reinforcement of patriarchal norms that subordinate women’s agency and consent.

1.4 Broader social and cultural impacts

The workshops unpacked the cultural justifications often used to defend child marriage and gender discrimination. While some community members argue that child marriage reduces family financial burdens or aligns with traditional values, the overwhelming consensus was that:

• These reforms would exacerbate poverty, child trafficking, and homelessness, especially in high-risk settings such as IDP camps and rural areas.
• Vulnerable groups, including female-headed households, orphans, and children living with elderly caregivers, would face compounded risks.
• The implementation of these amendments across Iraq—particularly in areas governed by conservative tribal or religious authorities—could undermine more progressive policies in the Kurdistan Region, creating legal and social discrepancies across regions.

1.5 International and political ramifications

Participants also warned that the amendments could severely damage Iraq’s international reputation, jeopardising diplomatic relations, development assistance, and foreign investment. The reforms contradict Iraq’s commitments under international human rights frameworks and were described as a move away from democratic and inclusive governance.