This research examines the tension between the state's commitment to international human rights instruments and the principle of national sovereignty and constitutional supremacy in the context of the internationalization of constitutional standards of political rights. The fundamental hypothesis of this research is that the relationship between these two principles is not one of structural contradiction, but rather a form of mutual adjustment that can be managed through specific legal and judicial mechanisms. The research aims to provide a critical and comprehensive evaluation of the effectiveness and challenges of the internationalization of constitutions in promoting political rights and freedoms, and to assess the extent to which the Iraqi Constitution has succeeded in harmonizing its texts and practices with international standards. This is carried out through a comparative analysis of constitutional texts, constitutional law doctrine, judicial rulings, and legislative and executive practices, as well as the construction of indicators to measure textual and institutional conformity and its impact on guarantees of political participation, freedom of expression, and peaceful transfer of power. Employing a descriptive-analytical-comparative methodology, the research analyzes the mechanisms of reconciliation between international obligations and the inviolable principles of the constitution in the Iraqi legal system, focusing on the role of the Federal Supreme Court in achieving this balance through harmonious interpretation, proportionality tests, and the principle of non-impairment of the essence of rights. The research findings indicate that the Iraqi experience offers a distinctive model for managing this tension;