مجله علوم سیاسی
پیاپی 55 (تابستان 1400)

The existence of a non-proliferation regime in the world has led governments to pursue their nuclear rights in a certain way to ensure the maintenance of international peace and security, as well as the national interests of each state regarding nuclear rights. To be. Accordingly, Iran's nuclear rights and obligations were also formed under the documents that constitute nuclear rights and its restrictive documents. In the meantime, following the disputes between Iran and the International Atomic Energy Agency, Iran went through ups and downs under various sanctions, and of course, two international bodies, namely the Security Council and the International Atomic Energy Agency, played a role. They played a role. On this basis, we seek to examine whether the actions of these two international organizations in relation to the Iranian nuclear issue have been in the realm of international law? Examining the actions of the Security Council and the International Atomic Energy Agency in dealing with Iran's nuclear case, it is observed that not only technical and professional considerations are not the criterion, but also political considerations have led to the security of Iran's case and maximum pressure to shut down the nuclear industry. It has been Iran's missile industry. Also, the actions of the IAEA are not in accordance with its statutes, and the Security Council, regardless of the IAEA reports, declares the Iranian nuclear issue a threat to international peace and security.

Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei (the Supreme Leader) in the dispute over the Islamic Republic of Iran's peaceful nuclear program and the long-term diplomatic engagement with the West, which eventually led to the formation of the so-called Borjam nuclear deal. They played an effective and decisive leadership role. The present study seeks to answer the main question, on what basis did the Supreme Leader of the Revolution manage the conflict over Iran's nuclear program and the processes leading to the nuclear deal - Borjam - and the so-called post-Borjam period? The hypothesis that has been tested in answer to this question is that His Holiness has guided the above process by combining the two models of hard leadership and soft leadership in the form of a new model of intelligent leadership style. He has implemented this process in two ways: institutional-structural (hard) and non-institutional (soft). The findings of the article show that institutional-structural management has been implemented through the Islamic Consultative Assembly, the Supreme National Security Council, the formation of the Borjam Supervision Team, and military institutions. The non-institutional management model also emphasizes the fundamental role of the people, avoiding excesses in the UN Security Council, clarifying the nature of the other side, encouraging negotiations, inviting national unity, emphasizing the need to fully lift sanctions, adopting strategic rationality and Ongoing monitoring of the other side's movements, resolving internal strategic weaknesses, determining the mission of the government and the negotiating team, and requiring the continuation of the nuclear industry have been implemented.

In the new age, there are two views on the rule of law, which is one of the most fundamental principles of modern governance; Hobbesian approach to the rule of law and the Russian approach, in which both approaches share the idea of ​​a social contract. Hobbes considered the ruler of the pyramid of society, the ruler, to be the basis of law, and intended unlimited power for the governing body, which was given to him by the first agreement between the people and the ruler. There is no power. In another plan of the rule of law, which derives from Rousseau's philosophical point of view, the public will is the source of law and in a higher position than the ruler. This idea became the basis for extensive changes in the relationship between government and citizens in the new era, which was reflected in the French Revolution. During the 19th and 20th centuries, with all the changes that took place in legal discourse, the importance of this Russian view of the rule of law as the basis for real democracy rather than formal democracy increased. Therefore, in this article, we have tried to compare these two approaches to the rule of law and show the innovative aspects of Rousseau's social contract. This descriptive-analytical research is an introduction to the broader and deeper research in the political thought of these two prominent theorists in the modern world, with an emphasis on the evolution of the concept and basis of the rule of law in the new era.

Understanding the nature of "power" from ancient political philosophy to modern philosophy has been considered in various ways, but here we analyze the concept of power from Foucault's methodological point of view, which had many critiques of different views of power. In this research, we first seek to understand the concept of power from Foucault's point of view and then examine the difference between his perception and that of others. Accordingly, the question that this article seeks to answer is what exactly does Foucault mean by power and what does not, and what is the meaning of power in Foucault's method apparatus? in this study, to answer this question, since the discussion of power in Foucault's genealogical method is an important and central concept, and Foucault himself always tried to express his distinction from the concept of power and others' understanding of power; Here we have also tried to examine this concept in Foucault's methodology in two parts called what is not power and what is power With a qualitative research approach and a descriptive method and through documentary and library study.

The coronavirus is known to be the biggest threat to human society and governments since World War II. As some experts consider the efficiency and legitimacy of governments in the third millennium depend on the safety and health of citizens. Corona's effects on Iran, as in other societies, can be examined from different perspectives. In fact, the purpose of this article is to examine the effects of Corona on the dimensions of Iranian political life, especially in good governance and transparency in performance and information. However, Corona's influence on the dimensions of Iranian life on some issues, such as lifestyle changes and economic challenges, has been similar to other countries. However, the consequences of this virus on the socio-political life of Iranians in some cases have been different from other countries, as it has been different from other countries in terms of government-citizen interaction. It can be said that Corona also has negative effects such as distrust of officials in providing accurate statistics and transparent treatment, gaps in decision-making institutions, inefficiency of institutions, as well as positive effects on good cooperation such as maximum accountability of the executive branch, and favorable flexibility of government and religious institutions. It has been in Iran.

Freedom is one of the most valuable words that have existed in human minds up to now. Freedom is the most important index of human dignity and nobility. Many of the political thinkers believe that enjoying a value and identity called freedom is the greatest index of human dignity and identity and lack of access to freedom is the major feature of animal identity of man. This is why Rousseau, the French thinker, has considered the slavery and colonialism to be against human nature and has equaled the lack of freedom to the lack of humanity. Rousseau`s is often associated with the irrational idealism of pure and savage nature as well as the primary nature of human being. However, beyond all features, he is a complicated political philosopher who has offered a determinate form of government which is the prerequisite of human freedom within the framework of a modern society. He insists that man is a man when he is free since this freedom provides the ground for his perfection. John Stuart Mill is another western thinker claiming that the lack of freedom is equal to the lack of reason. Hence, he states that there is a close relationship between the freedom and rationality. He regards the lack of freedom as the lack of reason.