انقلاب

Regarding the concept of revolution, in addition to different comprehensive definitions throughout history, its result, that is, the governments emerging from the revolution, have also emerged in different forms from each other. But it seems that what determines these differences depends more than anything on the opinions and opinions of the thinkers of the revolutionary societies, rather than the field struggles of these societies. From this point of view, the new political-legal system after the revolution can be called more modern than its predecessors only if its fundamental ideas are true to their essence and far from any basic imitation of other traditions. be revolutionary. Therefore, this research, the sources of which were collected in a library method and subjected to a descriptive-analytical study, with the aim of better understanding the idea that the stability of a modern political society depends on paying attention to traditions, values and basic needs and The continuous protection of them during the different periods of the government of the most efficient governments in that society, while examining the government-making views of the thinkers and founding fathers in the two revolutions of France and America in 1789, raises as the main question that What differences have the mentioned views created in terms of limiting the authority of the government in the context of the political history of these two republican systems? The results show that the extremely unequal class political system and the existence of monarchy derived from the divine right of kings in France before the revolution, by the thoughts of philosophers such as Jean-Jacques Rousseau based on the principle of equality and its precedence over freedom and security, ultimately lead to The establishment of a centralized social democratic republic system in which all the sovereign powers belong to the spiritual personality of the whole, which is called the nation. However, according to the thinking of the founding fathers, a free government is a government that has the ability to control the "directions of a biased and domineering majority" and is officially based on the "principle of a republican government based on the opinion of a respectable majority, that is; The principle of agreement" which precedes freedom and equality. The fundamental principle on which the liberal democratic republic of the United States is based.

Today, social protests are as an expected social phenomenon in human societies, even in societies based on democracy, there are social protests because the impact of the decisions of the state and political authorities on the lives of the people of a society is undeniable.The way that the different societies deal with this social phenomenon is subject to the rights and freedoms recognized by the states for the general public. On the other hand, people's actions also determine how the state deals with this phenomenon, so it is not unreasonable to say that the state's reaction  on the one hand, and the people's reaction on the other hand, seriously can change the type and quality of protests.If a macro-level decision is taken by the state, and if this decision affects the lives of most people in a quantitative way, the  protests can be expected in all parts of a country. Now, this protest, which is a sign of the state's decision and not accepted by the people, if it is responded too violently by the state, it can change the nature of a peaceful protesting population and turn it into a violent population, and if the protest is also violent from the beginning, there will be no doubt that no state will leave such actions unanswered with the tools at its disposal.Nevertheless, to a great extent, the type, quality and quantity of tools to deal with social protests are subject to the principles that have been accepted in the field of criminal policymaking. It goes without saying that this criminal policy significantly defines the limits and restrictions of citizens' freedom  and also shows the level of accepted values ​​of the state and the adherence to the principles contained in the  documents beyond laws and regulations. It is clear that the states choose the most severe and harsh reactions when they feel a threat to their integrity, so it is important to identify such behaviors from the punishment perspective. The purpose of this research is to clarify the position of Iranian criminal policy confronting the social protests and the distinction between two types of behavior, i.e. violent protests and the need to punish these behaviors and peaceful protests and the need to recognize these types of protests.This research has been done with analytical-descriptive method through   using numerous library sources. The necessity of the current research, in addition to its impact on the country's legal literature, can also be considered in the legislative and even judicial field because the criminal reaction to Peaceful protests is actually a violation of fundamental rights recognized in constitutional   documents and even human values ​​of the society.The findings of this research show  that, where the protesters only want their lost rights and do not accept the new policy of the state which  has affected  their lives, and considering that these protesters do not have evil or criminal intentions and if these peaceful protests do not lead to the violation of the  rules  of criminal law, the state  should not practice even  the slightest aggression against this group of protesters, and only if the protesters  violate  one of the rules of criminal law, their behavior should be judged with mitigation in punishment.Social protests whether violent or peaceful have common features, such as:Relative continuityPurposefulness and agreement between protestersApplicability of the title of Protester to specific people Opposition to all parts or some part of the prevailing social conditionsWith precision in the words of researchers and experts  in the field of social protests, the topics such as civil disobedience and civil resistance can be considered as examples of peaceful social protests, and the cases such as:  riots, revolutions and coups(military coup) can be included under the title of violent protests. In terms   of Iranian criminal policy regarding social protests  ,peaceful and violent, two sources can be considered including: the constitution as the supreme legislative document of the country and other laws and regulations as normal laws. The principle of the right to peaceful protests is recognized in the 27th article of Iran’s constitution, which deals with gatherings and protests. On the other hand, normal laws, both in the field of violent protests and in the field of peaceful protests, have not a specific and explicit law for supporting   or prohibition of   social protests, and this matter has actually led to a kind of confusion among the judicial authorities.According to what kind of behavior and with what intention the protestors are  protesting , and even to what specific group of the society they belong to, there is a different criminal description and interpretation, and in addition to this, the legislator can refer to the new findings of the criminal studies  for  the legalization of  the reasons for mitigating the punishments or remission of punishment in order to consider this mitigation of the punishments or remission of punishment for  the people who have committed a crime, considering that such behaviors can continue for days and even months and thus drag the situation  of the society towards a crisis. Also, a group of protestors who have been influenced by others, are committing the crimes without a proper understanding of the social situation and begin to protest only under the influence of the psychological atmosphere of the society and the actions of others (without having a high criminal capacity).Such mitigation of the punishments or remission of punishment are not unprecedented in the field of criminal policy of Iran. It seems that in order to draw an ideal criminal policy along with protecting   the rights and freedoms of the people, we need a basic legislation in this field of social behavior.

The Constitution, as one of the important concepts of legal knowledge, has two major historical periods. From ancient Greece and Rome to the late eighteen century can be called the traditional concept of the constitution and From the French and American revolutions onward, the modern era is constitutional. Since the concepts are not static and are changing, the modern meaning of the constitution has undergone many changes to date. This article seeks to answer the question of what steps the constitution has taken in modern era. Using descriptive-analytical method, this research tries to examine these important developments from the perspective of political and historical developments. The purpose of this article is to show the importance of historical and political developments in understanding the constitution and its conceptual developments. In this article, constitutional changes in the modern era are divided into six periods of the French-American Revolution, from the victory of these two revolutions to 1848, from 1848 to 1871, from 1871 to World War I, the interval between World Wars II and developments after World War II and An attempt has been made to show how these developments have changed the meaning of the constitution.

Revolution or insurrection as a social phenomenon has been the subject of international law in some respects. Although revolution and suppression of revolution is not prohibited in international law, in certain forms of government including those based on colonialism, occupation and apartheid, the people's uprising is recognized. An old and unstable stream is evident in the practice of some states as to the recognition of illegitimacy of governments breaching human rights and humanitarian laws and undemocratic governments. The revolutionist movement may be recognized as a belligerent, the representative of the people or a government in exile. In case of being premature and against de jure recognition of the central government, this recognition would be amounted to interference in internal affairs of the state. Becoming successful, the revolution would be faced with the subject of succession to international treaties, international debts and international responsibility. While less doubt exists regarding the succession of governments resulting from revolution to international treaties and international responsibility, there are different practices and views over the succession to international debts. In the event of unsuccessfulness of the revolution, international responsibility of revolutionists would not be transmitted to the central government on the ground of force majeure. In the revolutions occurred in the region called Islamic Awakening in countries such as Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, Bahrain, Syria and Yemen, there is no practice supportive of the doctrine of illegitimacy of undemocratic regimes. As with succession, only the practice of Libyan revolution in support of doctrine of no-obligation in odious debts could be seen..