درخت حوزه‌های تخصصی

Policy developments over time and the dialectic of time and power in modern Iran have a long fluctuating history. There has not been much research on the foundations of political time in Iran. The birth of a new government in Iran within the Tanzimat system coincides with the birth of a new subjectivity that has been determined in the game with the institutions. Contemporary Iranian timescapes is actually the result of tension between the Antiqui and the Moderni, the Old and the New, on the eve of the transition from medieval Iran to Iranian modernity. This temporal-spatial transition is the sphere of dialectical link between Iranian designers of Tajaddod (modernity) and the conservative body of the royal court. This article tries to apply the theoretical tools of comparative historical analysis to state that “time matters” and “time could not be neglected” in Iranian government studies. Genealogical philosophy of time would be the main approach of research. It is well recognized how useful the Foucauldian genealogy and discourse analysis could be for historical sociology and institutionalism. The creative hermeneutic toolbox will also be used in this hybrid approach. Then combined theoretical concepts from the theoreticians of `timescape`, `political time`, `short-term society`, and socio-historical concepts such as `rhizome`, `territorialization` and `bio-politics` would be used in a hermeneutical way. The main contribution is the application of timescape theory and its integration with genealogy and creative hermeneutics on Iran.

Scenario writing is especially important in the field of geo-economics because it prepares geopolitical actors to take advantage of continuous international conditions in the best possible way and reduces risks as much as possible. In the meantime, the Islamic Republic of Iran, to shape its geo-economic relations with the countries of the African continent in general and North Africa in particular, as spaces with high capacity and attraction, necessarily needs to know and understand the upcoming scenarios. Therefore, the present research was done with descriptive and analytical methods and based on library and field findings (questionnaire). The findings of the research show that the 8 sources of power geography are "investment opportunity for the private sector", "strong dependence on technical and engineering services", "cheap labour force", "the presence of rich non-metallic minerals", "availability of legal investment platforms". Foreign direct (ease of investment)", "Entrepreneurial development", "wide agricultural capacities" and "Geoeconomic position (sea trade)". respectively, the scores have had the greatest impact on the future of the geo-economic relations between Iran and Africa. The results of the scenario board show the semi-critical and critical situation of the future geo-economic relations between Iran and Africa, which makes it more important to revise the macro strategies and policies in this field. 

In spite of ancient and serious disagreements, Iran and Iraq did not go to war until 1980. Why? What changed the equation? Three-plus decades later, Iran is still a main actor in Iraq’s internal affairs. What motivates this involvement? Our main objective is to explore the politics of the Iraq–Iran conflict and attending influence of Western powers from 1980 onwards. In this study, we analyse the history and causal factors in light of Western foreign policies, and seek grounds for bilateral rapprochement and note cooperation between Western powers, proposing that if the West can cooperate to achieve respective national interests, so can Iran and Iraq. Coherent policy landscaping characterizes national and international levels on looking at theoretical global governance, but academia has yet to pay attention to extant actors and institutions required to govern energy concerns. A classical realist approach reveals that Western Powers pursued and continue to pursue respective interests at all costs. How their several interventions have affected the Iran–Iraq conflict has thus far remained undisclosed

In the burst of sophisticated platforms, it reached its peak where people worship and preach their rights of freedom of speech.  We witnessed a subsequent arose issue where people questioned the imposed restrictions on them in the realm of social media platforms by the authority. Nonetheless, the merely conferred freedom of speech will bring public disharmony. It was because people are exposed to and choose to be permeated by personal media applications. Thus, via the platforms, people are inclined to voice, issue and navigate their statements based on feelings, thoughts, and opinions without contemplating the effects and rationale of it. Normally, the statement is controversial while dripping at the edge of the sensitive topic while creating social disharmony and triggering social bonding. Thus, principle of Social Contract was brought in order to justify the restrictions imposed by the authority. At the same time, people used Social Contract as a defense to uphold their rights. Nevertheless, it may lead to numerous problems with the absence of restrictions. Besides, Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, Instagram and etc. were the examples of personal media platforms the writer referred to. Thus, the thrust of the paper is to examine to what extent the government may impose restrictions on their citizens via personal media platforms in relation to Social Contracts and the right of freedom of speech. Thus, the writers will conduct the paper through a qualitative approach which is a pure literature review. The gist of limitation is where the personal media platform would be focused, and restrictions referred to which were imposed by the governmental authorities instead of the personal media administrator. The The paper suggests that, notwithstanding the conventional Social Contract theory, the writers argued that the restrictions shall be imposed on personal media users.

The balance of geopolitical power of the United States during the last decades was changed. Biden tries to examine US security policy in the third decade of the 21st century by providing a “geopolitical balancing”. The geopolitical balance of the main axis of strategic policy-making should be in the regional security approaches. The main axes of the geopolitical balance of strategic policy- making in regional environments should be the power limitation, containment and balancing the power of the China, Russia, and Iran. Understanding the US security policy in the geopolitical field has generally been accompanied by the signs of change. Barack Obama took advantage of the geopolitical balance of power. Donald Trump policy making was based on the regional and international hegemony. The strategic hegemonic policy system has put regional hegemony on the agenda and need to be addressed in order to make US policy strategic and enforce it. Each US president has adopted a specific form of security policy making in the regional environment. The main question of the article is “Should a strategic policy making of Joe Biden be in a regional environment?” The hypothesis of the article is based on the view that “Biden uses strategic policy making threat of balancing to counter the various rival actors as so China, Russia and Iran.” Threat balancing theory has been used in compiling the article. Threat balancing theory was a special form of US strategic behavior of the power equation to limit and containing the rise of others as so emerging actors. The methodology of article based on data analysis and content analysis.

Today, the Baltic Sea has become the epicenter of the European crisis. The Baltic Sea is the only region where NATO has a land border with Russia, increasing the region's sensitivity. The slightest incident can turn into a full-blown war in the region. Russia's complex security challenges, the region's geopolitical situation, and the Baltic states' defense vulnerabilities have raised the need to revive NATO's military presence and strengthen deterrence against Russia. In the light of interpretive structural modeling, this study seeks to answer the question of what effect Russia's escalating activities in the Baltic Sea have had on the effectiveness of NATO's deterrence strategy in the region. Given the theoretical framework of broad deterrence, it hypothesized that Russia's security strategy in the three areas of conventional, nuclear, and hybrid threat had led NATO to move toward broad deterrence based on the threat of punishment and denial. However, both types of deterrence do not have the quantity and quality necessary to fully contain Russia in the region, as in the Cold War. In order to measure efficiency according to the research method and its extended formulation, the indicators of credibility, communication, and capability are used. The findings show that deterrence through punishment is much more pronounced than deterrence through denial and that the normal state of deterrence in NATO is highly vulnerable to Russia. Weaknesses in capability and communication have also led to the fragility of NATO's deterrent credentials in the region, making the Baltic Sea very sensitive and critical.

In the present study, the impact of U.S. foreign policy strategies on Iran's regional power and influence is investigated. The main question is how U.S. foreign policy strategies on the Middle East and Iran during George W. Bush, Barack Obama and Donald Trump's presidencies affected Iran's regional power and influence. The hypothesis is that various principles and strategies of U.S. foreign policy during Bush, Obama and Trump administrations have led to the greater regional power and influence of Iran. In order to test this hypothesis, after investigating the historical context and selecting a conceptual framework, the impact of U.S. foreign policy on Iran's regional power and influence has been studied. Next, the impact of the U.S. foreign policy strategy on Iran’s regional power and influence, such as aims, interests, behaviors, actions, costs, achievements, effects, and implications are analyzed.

Historically, the United Nations Security Council has been the dominant international venue for discussing on matters relevant to the maintaining of global security and peace. The term “rule of law” refers to a political and social structure in which everyone is held to the same legal standards. On the other hand, the concept that everyone is equal before the law is undermined when the veto power gives the Permanent Members the opportunity to disregard its accountability. This article aims to overview the use of veto powers in the United Nations Security Council that reflects the Rule of Law. Due to the fact that this method of research is qualitative, the data that was gathered and analysed came from non-numerical sources such as journals, articles, and news reports. The goal is to gain a deeper understanding of the conventional notions of Rule of Law as well as the ways in which the veto system is in opposition to Rule of Law. According to the findings of the research, there is a contradiction between the veto system and the Rule of Law, notably the notion that all individuals ought to be treated with equal regard to the law.     

Secularism is a political ideology that disintegrates religion from state governance. While secularism may work for countries where the majority professed religion that has no specific legal system viz. Christianity, it begins to exhibit its ineptness in countries that either have a multicultural identity or adopt a systematic religion like Islam as its official religion. To unravel this, secularism acquiesced to embody two divisions of secularism entailing freedom of religion and freedom from religion. The objective of the writing is to resolve the conflicts of the secularism ideology in multicultural state.  The methodology adopted in the research is doctrinal legal research which employed qualitative research. For multicultural counterparts, the absolute disintegration of religion raises difficulties, hence, they opt for the secular concept of freedom of religion. However, from the Islamic perspective, secularism contrasts with Islamic teachings as it is conclusive in every aspect of human life. It has its own foundations and laws that shall be followed at all times. Additionally, the impacts of secularism on the social, educational, and moral aspects have made its germaneness be put in question. Thus, there must be a law to regulate the abovementioned matter in order to ensure the community live with peace and harmony