ابومحمد عسگرخانی

International peace and security are one of the values ​​and aspirations of humanity in the world, and for all human beings, regardless of ethnicity, race, religion or nationality, enjoying a life of peace and security is a vital value. This common sense, the study of the history of human life, tells of bitter events and bloody wars that have disrupted the order of the international community and endangered peace and security. All factors have led to the implementation of any rules related to the public interest of the international community to solve this problem; International humanitarian law and human rights are part of international law that builds peace and security. They communicate internationally and exchange and coordinate with each other for the sake of international peace and security. This article will provide a comparative study of humanitarian law and human rights in the context of international peace and security and will answer the question of how human rights and humanitarian law contribute to international peace and security.  

The way we look at international institutions has always been one of the most controversial issues in the field of international relations, and after the Islamic Revolution, Iran's foreign policy took a new approach to international institutions. In addition, with the recent withdrawal of the United States from several international treaties, including the Iran nuclear deal (JCPOA) under Trump Administration the issue of international regimes and their effectiveness has gained new political and intellectual significance. The question of the present article is what are the determining factors in the formation of international regimes, their efficiency and permanence? The hypothesis is that the three factors of power, interests, and pride simultaneously play a role in the creation, efficiency, and permanence of regimes. This article examines three major approaches to the definition of international regimes, each of which emphasizes one of the factors of power, interests, and ideas, and concludes that one-factor explanations can not provide a deep understanding of the formation and functioning of regimes. Therefore assuming that difference between propositions of the studied approaches are does not necessarily mean that they are inconsistent, we Introduce a multivariate approach that goes beyond the mere integration of the perspectives under consideration, combining the three factors into a general analytical framework and Using Islamic thought, we have considered Fitrah along with the two stimuli of fear and profit as the third side of the triangle of fundamental stimuli in determining the behavior of international actors.