مطالب

Kant believes that war should be considered a last resort with the utmost respect for human life and dignity. War should only be used when all other means of conflict resolution have been exhausted. Nietzsche considered morality as a human structure that has been used throughout history to suppress and control people, so peace is a sign of weakness and degeneration and a product of herd mentality. Real strength comes from conflict and struggle. Nietzsche considered peace as a necessary part of life, but only if it is based on power. Understanding and formulating the criticism of these two important thinkers on peace and what war is and how they interpret these concepts is the central issue of this article. Nietzsche believed that peace is not an end in itself, but a means to an end, and argued that peace is necessary for the development of higher forms of culture and civilization, but it should not be pursued at the expense of creativity and progress. On the other hand, Kant believed that countries should strive towards a more peaceful world order in which conflicts are resolved through dialogue instead of violence. 

Justice has always been the most basic issue and the most important ideal of man since the beginning of civilization on earth, and for this reason, humans have tried to turn it into reality. Parallel to this importance, the thinkers of every age have tried to explain the limits and gaps and realize it. Because the lack of justice in the society causes the emergence of discrimination, oppression, corruption, and the lack of public consensus, and a society based on injustice and heterogeneity emerges. As a result, in order to pass from this society and move towards a healthy society where justice is based, idealistic thoughts are created to reach the desired society. This creates schools, movements and revolutions. This process shows the importance of the fact that in the process of the evolution of civilization, human beings have always had the concern of justice in front of them and it is not limited to a specific group or nation. People everywhere and at all times have the desire to achieve justice. In this article, while examining the origin of justice in the thoughts of John Rawls and Allameh Tabatabaei, this concept was compared from the perspective of two thinkers. Rawls from the contemporary West and Allameh Tabatabaei from contemporary Islam are among the most prominent philosophers and thinkers in the world who look at the concept of justice with different intellectual bases. But their theoretical output has similarities in the field of the concept of justice. In this article, using the hermeneutic recovery method, the challenges in the thoughts of Rawls and Allameh Tabatabaei in the field of justice were investigated.

The importance of the historical study of the Russian and Ottoman neighborhood policy lies in the fact that, in addition to the importance of these two countries in geographical, social, cultural, political and economic dimensions, a large number of Iran's neighboring countries were somehow under the control of these two empires before independence. In this research, the historical process of Iran's relations with these two important neighboring countries has been studied using the descriptive method and discourse analysis of Lacla and Moufe with the approach of historical institutionalism. The results show that during the lifetime of the Ottoman Empire until the disintegration of this empire, coinciding with the Safavid to Qajar governments, we witness two neighboring discourses. The discourse of the first period, the discourse of structural divergence, later with the change of political, economic and social geography and the requirements of the world system, this discourse turns into the discourse of minimal convergence. The discourse of "structural divergence" was formed on the centrality of the neighborhood policy based on the tyranny of the kingdom. The discourse signs of structural divergence included geographical dominance, expansion of religious ideology, political divergence, economic divergence, and world trade. The minimal convergence discourse is based on the centrality of the political signifier based on the court's understanding of global realities. The semantic system of this discourse is based on the main signs of acknowledging the existence of the neighboring country, the unbalanced weight of different aspects of the relations between the two countries, and the continuation of divergence alongside convergence. However, in comparison, the central sign of the discourse of the neighborhood with Russia is tsarist imprudence and court tyranny, and the main signs are passivity against Russia's expansionism, "military weakness in exercising territorial sovereignty, weakness in attracting the Iranian peoples of Central Asia and the Caucasus, and giving in to disgraceful agreements." they give. With the formation of the Soviet Union and the beginning of a new discourse, Russian expansionism in Iran in its territorial form ended and the chapter of ideological confrontations between communism and capitalism began. The discourse of Iran's neighborhood policy with the Ottomans and Russia is like two pieces of a puzzle that are both complementary and effective on each other's growth. If Iran's neighborhood policy regarding Russia and Ottomans had the same importance for Iran's ruling body, it is possible that a different historical path would have been established for the region and Iran.

The 2020 US presidential election was held indirectly through the Electoral College with the rivalry between Trump and Biden from both the Republican and Democratic parties, and as a result, many American crises emerged, indicating a shift in the position of soft power. Soft power means convincing others to achieve the desired result through persuasion, which was invented by Joseph Nye. The soft power of the United States has led to a loss of its international appeal by taking a hard line on soft issues, such as ignoring public diplomacy. The question is, to what extent has the 2020 election affected America's soft power position? The emergence of crises, such as inefficiency in internal management, Trump's rejection of the election results, has led to the decline of America's soft power position in the world. Given this approach to the 2020 elections, this study seeks to examine the challenges posed by many analysts, both in the debate and after the election, through a descriptive-interpretive discourse analysis method. And explain how it has degraded America's soft power position and been able to have a direct impact on its future and global policies, such as the possibility of a power shift paradigm in the international arena. It also suggests that Iran can turn threats into opportunities with constructive policies, despite maximum US pressure.

The shadow economy (SE) is a pathological normalcy, not only in developing countries but also in developed ones, causing disagreeable distortions in the real economy. The causes of the shadow economy can be traced back to actors who operate outside the formal sector to reap the benefits. The way these actors work can both affect the quality of governance and affect it. The right to comment and accountability, political stability and non-violence, government efficiency, the quality of governance laws, the rule of law and the control of corruption are indicators of governance evaluation in this regard. Therefore, in this study, using Hishao causality method, the causal relationship between these indicators with the shadow economy in Iran during the years 1995 to 2017 has been investigated. Findings show that government efficiency, rule of law and control of corruption have a two-way relationship with the shadow economy and the indicators of the right to comment and accountability, political stability and non-violence and the quality of governance laws have a one-way relationship with it.