public good

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.

Although the era when children were primarily considered as a source of labor for the familyhas largely passed, the procreation of children remains indispensable for societal continuity.Views on children have shifted from characterizing them as the “private property of the family”to recognizing them as a “public good.” While children may not satisfy all the criteria of a purepublic good, it is widely acknowledged that society bears a significant role in the upbringing,education, and, ultimately, the costs associated with children. Nonetheless, although theconception of a child as a personal property of the family has changed, extensive governmentalintrusion into family privacy is similarly not accepted. This article employs a descriptive-analytical approach to examine arguments for and against this perspective, drawing on theoriesof public and socialized goods, with a focus on Iranian legislation. Children, due to their potentialbenefits, such as their future roles as workforce and taxpayers, exhibit characteristics of a publicgood; however, philosophical, legal, economic, and cultural challenges limit this interpretation.Iranian laws, particularly the Family and Youthful Population Support Act (2021) and Article3 of the Child and Adolescent Protection Act (2020), recognize government responsibility andmark a step toward conceptualizing children as public goods. This article posits thatwhetherchildren are characterized as public goods or as socialized goods, an obligation is thereby createdfor non-parents and, consequently, for the state as the representative of the nation, to share in thecosts associated with them.