مطالعات بین المللی

Tous les efforts internationaux dans les domaines économiques visent à augmenter les différents niveaux de bien-être public à l’échelle mondiale. Aujourd’hui, les réunions formelles et informelles des organisations nationales et internationales présentent la question du développement, notamment économique, comme le problème mondial principal. De cette façon, ils entendent éradiquer la pauvreté et éliminer les inégalités. Dans une telle perspective, nous présenterons premièrement diverses interprétations sur l’interaction entre l’économie et les droits fondamentaux. Nous avons étudié Gabriel Tarde et Frédéric Lebaron. Tarde comparait les relations socio-économiques aux relations entre la mère et son enfant : il nomme cela l’harmonie sociale. Lebaron ajoute qu’elle est renforcée pendant le XIXe siècle dans les ordres symboliques marchands. Enfin, en définissant des indices des trois générations des droits de l’Homme, nous avons comparé les indicateurs économiques dans les trois pays étudiés pour atteindre un modèle de comparaison économique. A cet égard, nous les avons défini sur la base des rapports de la Banque Mondiale (BM) et de l’Organisation Mondiale du Commerce (OMC). Les données statistiques ont été analysées par l’application de SPSS. Les résultats nous montrent le niveau de relation existant entre l’économie sociale et diverses facettes des droits de l’homme dans l’ordre des trois générations des droits de l’homme.

On 14 July 2015, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) was finalized, marking the end of long-term negotiations between the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of both Iran and the E3/EU+3. Only six days later, the United Nations Security Council askedall participants of JCPOA to fully implement the deal. It also adopted Resolution 2231 and terminated all previous resolutions. However, despite all absolute commitments of the participants of JCPOA and contrary to theU.N. Security Council resolution, the U.S. overlooked the deal starting from the implementation day. Eventually,the current U.S. President, Donald Trump, announced on Tuesday, May 8, 2018, that he will withdraw the United States from the Iran nuclear deal. Nevertheless, according to international law, JCPOA is not considered a bilateral agreement and so does not provide grounds for any participants to alter their position asthey wish. Rather, it is a multilateral political comprehension endorsed by the UNSC and has a binding nature deriving from Resolution 2231. This resolution reiterates full and holistic implementation of JCPOA and prohibits any violation regardingthe deal. The main question of the present paperis about the legal nature of the JCPOA. The approach of the UNSC towards JCPOA and the responsibilities of the participants and other U.N. member states toward JCPOA are other questions thatare worth considering from an international perspective.

  In May of 2018, the strategy of law-making was utilized in the Kingdom of Denmark to respond to or, more to the point, respond against full-face garments along the lines of a democratic and secular society in which values like transparency inform and guide interaction, dialogue, and communication. The new legal norm and measure, law L 219, does not refer expressly to the veil, nor to women, or to Islam. Nevertheless, the national Parliament in the Kingdom of Denmark proceeded on the basis of premises that reveal, upon scrutiny, why the particular provision that prohibits full-face veils is widely known and referred to as the “burqa ban”.Like the niqab, the burqa is a full-face veil. Numerically speaking, between 50 and 200 Muslim women wear such a veil, a fact that enters them into a minority within a minority statistics of 0.1 or 0.2 percent. However, to trivialize the burqa ban would be an error. This point applies to all sides, including the stakeholders who assumed the responsibility of drafting the new norm and measure. As the Danish legislators see things, law 219 is not an instance of “shooting sparrows with a cannon”. After this, the need to legislate appears to be an instance of following a trend in Europe and, at the same time, sending a message about the prevailing (Danish) ideology in contradistinction to “political Islam” that gives rise to unwanted phenomena like gender inequality, religious extremism, and terrorism. The authors of The 2018 Danish “Burqa Ban”: Joining a European Trend and Sending a National Messageattempt to give an in-depth account of the burqa ban and the political context for this, as provided by the negotiations that led up to the ban’s final adoption. One objective is to identify the various variables in the legal equation and, as another objective, capture the wider prescriptively-proscriptive direction of the Danish case, thereby also establishing a platform for further discussion, reflection, and response. (This part of the project – an intended component and outcome since the formulation of the original research task, labor division, and methodology – is published in the concurrent but separate article, The Burqa Ban: Legal Precursors for Denmark, American Experiences and Experiments, and Philosophical and Critical Examinations.)

This paper aims to explore the emergence of a political and social phenomenon, namely political parties, during a specific period in the history of contemporary Iran, in order to move beyond simple analyses and present a deeper and more accurate understanding of political parties in Iran. The question thatthis paper aims to answer pertains to the emergence of the Executives of the Construction of Iran Party (Kargozaran-e Sazandegi-e Iran) and the role of the Hashemi Rafsanjani administration’s modernization efforts. In order to do so, among three main theories, modernization theory has been selected as the theoretical framework. The paper also uses secondary data analysis as its methodology. In new theories of modernization, instead of focusing on ‘ideal types’, the focus is shifted toward historical features specific to each society. The findings of this research demonstrate that there is a direct link between the HashemiRafsaniani administration’s modernizations and the emergence of the Executives of the Construction of Iran Party (Kargozaran Party). This administration’s modernization efforts caused a significant shift in Iran’s development indexes, which resulted in the revival of Iran’s new middle class and provided a basis for the foundation of Kargozaran Party and its victories in subsequent elections. The party became the major proponent of political and economic reform, social liberties, and cultural tolerance in Iran’s political arena.

  Extreme measures to reduce the number and cost of refugees and immigrants belong among the recent examples of the Kingdom of Denmark’s illiberal responses to crises in the wake of third party armed conflict. Politically, the process of tightening the law and having a transparently unwelcoming attitude towards foreigners began in 2001, at least according to some experts on Danish foreign policy, e.g. Thomas Gammeltoft-Hansen. While the causes are controversial, the effects are clear. Denmark is undercutting its own history. However popular the current VLAK-coalition government’s Minister of Immigration, Integration and Housingmay be among the Danes, the ongoing series of restrictive policies cannot but result in Red Flags. Irrespective of any motivationally deeper or underlying reasons for their adoption, the relevant legal and other measures constitute international relations events and changes; and, as such, they affect the order among states. In terms of regional and global politics, the question is whether there is an analogy between post-2013 Qatar and post-2001 Denmark? More precisely, the question is whether Denmark should be listed under past as opposed to present “small and influential states”? By using Mehran Kamrava’s work on Qatar as a platform for a role reversal claim, the authors present a muted subtle power argument for the need to downgrade Denmark, too. Furthermore, a tension between the official Danish image and the climate of cultural values in Denmark creates a complex us versus them disconnect which, in turn, makes it possible to provide or, more to the point, explain some aspects of the evidence for the state’s precarious human rights capacity. Part of the argument derives from pre-2001 literary whistleblowing concerning Danishness – a strategy that accords with the popular Danish Minister’s own use of satire as a truth-recognition methodology. 

As the title of the article suggests, “The Burqa Ban”: Legal Precursors for Denmark, American Experiences and Experiments, and Philosophical and Critical Examinations, the authors embark on a factually investigative as well as a reflective response. More precisely, they use The 2018 Danish “Burqa Ban”: Joining a European Trend and Sending a National Message (published as a concurrent but separate article in this issue of <span>International Studies Journal</span>) as a platform for further analysis and discussion of different perspectives. These include case-law at the international level while focusing attention on recent rulings and judicial reasoning by the ECtHR and the ECJ; critical thought-experiments in religion, morality, human rights, and the democratic public space; a contextualized account of burqa-wearing interventions by federal and state governments and, moreover, various courts in the United States; and philosophical commentary and, in some instances, criticism of the Danish and/or European (French, etc.) approach. The different contributions have different aims. The section on case-law at the international level reports on those central judgments that, in effect, helped to pave the path for the Kingdom of Denmark’s burqa ban. Concerning the concurring judges at the ECtHR, the opinions served to uphold a preexisting ban and to grant a <span>wide margin of appreciation to the national authorities, thereby limiting the Court’s own review. </span> <span>As regards</span><span>to the ECJ, the legality of company rules that contain a policy of neutrality for the workplace was examined, with a similar outcome. The authors who discuss </span>religion, morality, human rights and the democratic public space are endeavoring to, respectively, appeal to ethics as a testing stone for law and to both challenge and address several forms of “expressivist worry” in connection with face veils. In doing so, the authors ask a number of thought-provoking questions that hopefully will inspire public policymakers to careful analysis. While the section that is devoted to American perspectives highlights a comprehensive survey of political and legal responses to, in particular, full-face veils like the burqa</em>, the relevant author also incorporates public perceptions and, in the course of examining these, draws a parallel to “the fate” of the hoodie. The constitutionality of burqa</em>-wearing in America, so it also appears, is partially an open question, but differentiating between religious, political, or personal reasons is a de jure</em> premise. Given that the Danish legislators who drafted law L 219 to ban burqa</em>-wearing in public places rely on a reference to political Islam, they relegate religious and personal reasons to the private domain, thereby also adopting secularism as a premise. This is explored in the last author response of the article, more precisely, in an account of the underlying materialism that, in turn, is applied to Muslim women. If policymakers and legislators engaged in Thinking Things Through exercises, they could, as a minimum, avoid law-making strategies that are not in the spirit of the theory they themselves invoke, albeit tacitly. While the aim of, as it were, arresting culturally self-contradicting legislators is unique for the section in question, all the authors who contribute to the joint research project have one end-goal in common, namely to inform about important perspectives while at the same time</em> opening up for parameters for (more) fruitful, constructive and (if need be) critical debate in the future. With this in mind, four recommendations are presented by the research director for the project. Legally, politically, socially and culturally, conflict-resolution should not translate the relationship between rulers and the ruled into a separation ideology, an instance of controllers versus</em> the controlled. All things being equal, that is the objective limit for a democratic society.