the Islamic Republic of Iran

Judicial system is a reference which should take an action for general public rights realization and eliminate legal abnormalities by issuing various decrees, and its judges can bring powerful rulers to justice because of having committed crimes; so if they won’t have enough autonomy, they can’t have a fair judgments. One of the conditions of judicial independence principle objectification, is independence of judicial system set from other organs of government, by means of powers separation principle. The first goal of powers separation, is assigning specialized tasks of government to separate organs and systems consists of experts. For this purpose, judicial system is responsible for resolving claims and disputes as well as criminal penalties and prosecuted. One of the intended principles is providing judicial independence and also general jurisdiction of judicial system in order to addressing disputes and committed crimes in the community level. The third principle of fundamental principles is judicial independence that has also been mentioned. But unfortunately this issue have been violated in laws of the Islamic Republic Iran and United States of America due to the existence of quasi-judicial tribunals within agencies. Moreover, existence of special court for the clergy in Iran is a clear violation of judicial independence. Principle of judicial branch separation from the other powers of government is the first step in organizational independence of the judicial system and can be found in multiple principles of the fundamental laws of both countries. However, despite the recognition of separation powers principle and respect independence for judicial system, again we see interference of powers and other institutions in functions of judicial system in both countries. In addition to that, in order to provide judicial independence in desirable and intended means of that, providing independence and impartiality of judge's also is required. This means that judges ruled out only with regard to the law, justice and equity, and do not pay any attention to the orders and wishes of others, and finally from this independently behavior, won’t fear from dismissal, downgrading the status and change the place of employment and jeopardizing their positions. This independence must be holistic, which means that judges must be independent not only within the judicial branch, and no person or authority shall not intervene in their votes and their decisions, but also outside the judicial branch and from no authority and office or other governmental entity and even public interest and thought should not be the slightest effect on his normal and impartial judgment, but rather should always consider justice, equity, law and human rights. In addition to these two concepts, magistrate also should observed impartiality within their and has the internal autonomy.

Throughout history until today, the Islamic world has been witness to various movements which have been formed in response to special demands. The current article aims to address the similarities and differences between the political thought [1] of the Islamic Revolution of Iran and two movements in Indonesia namely the Nahdatul Ulama (NU) and the Muhammadiyah movements using a descriptive-comparative method. The research findings show that some similarities exist between these movements regarding a) unity of the Muslim world and b) political liberties (role of people in politics); however, some differences are apparent in other areas such as a) governance model and its type, b) type of the relationship between religion and politics and the issue of modernity. [1]. Political thought deals with the issues pertaining to the realms of government and governance also involving such matters as the relationship between religion and politics, type of governance, characteristics of governance and Islamic system, legislation based on the Islamic Law (Sharia), role of people and parties in religious governance, the unity of the Muslim world, role of women in religious governance and their approach to modernity.

This article seeks to identify and explain the impact of US foreign policy towards the Iraqi Kurdistan on the military security of the Islamic Republic of Iran, especially since 2003. The main question of this article is: What is the impact of US foreign policy towards the Iraqi Kurdistan on the military security dimension of the Islamic Republic of Iran? the research hypothesis is formulated as follows: the US foreign policy towards the Iraqi Kurdistan since 2003 has been influencing the military security of the Islamic Republic of Iran in structural and behavioral dimensions including: the formation of anti-Iranian armed groups and formation of regional coalitions. Stimulating the separatist tendencies of the Kurds in the northwest, especially the counter-revolutionary and dissident Kurds can be seen as behavioral part of the u.s presence effect in Iran`s securtty policy.

The relationship between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran has been a confrontational one in the past four decades and been influenced by the nature of the Islamic Revolution and its derived system. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States tried to expand its ideals and structure of the desired order by using the power components in international system as a hegemonic power. However, Iran generally considers the US hegemony as a special type of domination and given the nature of the Islamic Republic of Iran with a unique ideological discourse, the resistance against the domination hegemony is necessary and therefore counter-hegemonic strategies and policies have always been  Iranian policy priorities. This article aims to investigate the relationships between the two countries by using descriptive-analytical method in the framework of Neo-Gramscianism and in the hegemony power and counter-hegemony forms. The findings of the article show that in order to maintain its position of hegemony, the US has applied policies such as the coercive diplomacy, the soft warfare, de-legitimization of Iran and legitimization of the use of pressure through the international institutions against the country. In response Iran has tried to confront the US hegemonic position by adopting self-reliance policies, by making alliances and coalitions as well as pursuing independent political discourse in international system.

The question of dominance in human thoughts was associated with the formation of the first governmental organizations in the history. In this direction, a fundamental question that emerged in political and legal realm is search for the origin of power and sovereignty of government. There are two viewpoints on this matter, namely the perspective of God's sovereignty and the viewpoint of people's dominance. This paper will study the concept of sovereignty along with its impressions, beside explanation of the meaning of political sovereignty, and theories related to it in the constitutional laws of the Islamic Republic of Iran.