فصلنامه پژوهش حقوق عمومی
سال بیست و چهارم شماره 78 (بهار 1402)

Artificial intelligence is the science of empowering machines to perform actions similar to human activities. In other words, artificial intelligence is considered a science and a set of computer technologies designed to think, reason and imitate human behavior.Artificial intelligence is considered a new technology that has influenced various aspects of human life, from the economy to health and employment.Activists in the field of artificial intelligence always talk about the capabilities of this technology. According to them, the development and expansion of artificial intelligence is a great tool to deal with human problems and dilemmas. For example,  the increase in temperature, decrease in biodiversity, deforestation, floods, droughts, air pollution, and garbage accumulation are all among the environmental problems that have plagued humanity, problems that require immediate and effective solutions. For this purpose, resorting to artificial intelligence and its capabilities in environmental care has been proposed as one of the scientific and technical solutions to deal with these environmental challenges.The capabilities of artificial intelligence in agricultural management, measuring the amount of greenhouse gases, managing and monitoring the optimization of energy consumption, recycling waste, and strengthening and optimizing the public transportation system are all among the potential capabilities of artificial intelligence in the protection of the environment.But on the other hand, the process of designing, producing, supplying, and resorting to artificial intelligence has been associated with various challenges such as high energy consumption, extensive use of rare metals, and destruction of mineral resources, as well as increasing waste production and environmental pollution. These problems have caused serious doubts about the capabilities of this technology considering the growing trend to resort to artificial intelligence. This has led to environmental activists raising the question of whether this technology will provide a toolbox for a sustainable future for humans.Concerns regarding the performance of artificial intelligence and the widespread global support for this technology on the other hand prompted the world community to respond to these doubts, by regularizing the processes of research, development, production, and supply of artificial intelligence.One of these attempts is preparing the First Draft of the Recommendation on the Ethics of Artificial Intelligence in September 2020 By the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO).This draft, which was prepared in the form of 8 sections with the efforts of UNESCO international experts, with the aim of creating an international framework in the field of ethical and legal issues related to artificial intelligence systems, is approved at the 41st annual meeting of UNESCO, which was held in November 2021, with the votes of 193 member countries of this organization as the first international document that specifically considers the ethical norms and human rights of artificial intelligence..This document will not be binding but it is significant because it will be the first international document that specifically considers the ethical norms and human rights of artificial intelligence.The drafters of this recommendation talked about four human values which the 1st is respecting, encouraging and ensuring the basic principles of human rights, the second is , protecting the environment,  the third is protecting biodiversity and the fourth, is  living in peace and reconciliation.This draft demanded all the activists in the field of artificial intelligence to participate in the activities and adhere to principles such as proportionality, safety, fairness, responsibility, and accountability.But when looking at the draft text it seems that in some cases it contains ambiguities and defects, especially environmental discussions.These defects lead to several questions such as: “Has UNESCO's ethical draft been able to address the challenges in the environment sector, to provide effective regulations and solutions?” and “Considering the important and ever-increasing role of private companies active in the production and supply of artificial intelligence systems, have the authors of the draft been able to act successfully regarding attributing responsibility, methods of compensation for environmental damages, and commitment to observe the precautionary principle?” This article aims at working on these subjects, questions, and ambiguities with an analytical-descriptive method.

freedom of people in determining their own destiny is a value first raised during the French Revolution in the form of a general concept called “the right of the people to determine their destiny” and was later pointed at internationally in different ways by statesmen such as Lenin and Wilson. This right was developed to discard of the old approach in the international arena i.e., the state-oriented tendency in international interactions.According to the old approach, the international community was made up of states which essentially pursued the political interests of their leaders. In fact, the relations between the governments resulted in the relations between the ruling groups who considered the interests of their citizens only when they were threatened by foreign powers or only when the protection of the citizen’s interests was directly related to the interests of the country's leaders. On the contrary, self-determination means that individuals and nations have a say in the international arena. Governments with sovereignty can no longer oppress nations freely and can't take over territory without considering the wishes of the beneficiary population. People should also play a role in domestic and foreign relations. Self-determination, as a democratic principle, requires the consent of the governed meaning the people must always have the right to freely choose their rulers.Therefore, institutionalization and gradual legalization of this right, especially after World War I, gave a new concept to domestic and global relations. This right, which was first created in order to support the nations under colonialism, gradually extended its scope of protection to human groups under the domination of racist regimes, as well as the protection of religious, linguistic, and in general, all cultural minorities, and ultimately all peoples and nations. Paragraph 2 of Article 1 of the United Nations Charter states one of the goals of this organization is to establish friendly relations between nations with respect for equal rights and the right to self-determination. This goal is also repeated in Article 55 of this document.In addition to recognition of this right in the United Nations Charter, the well-known Declaration On the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, also known as the United Nations General Assembly Resolution 1514 approved by the General Assembly in 1960, while calling for the end of colonialism and the domination of foreign nations, emphasized that the nations have the right to determine their own destiny and to freely determine their political status and pursue their economic, social and cultural development.This concept is also repeated in Article 1 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. These documents were approved in 1966 by the General Assembly Resolution A/2200. It is noteworthy that the Human Rights Committee's General Interpretation No. 12 of Article 1 of the Covenants also mentions the right to determine the destiny of nations and highlights its importance to guarantee, and effectively respect, individual human rights. The principle of equal rights and self-determination for the people is also stated in the Friendly Relations Declaration of 1970[1]. All the above-mentioned documents indicate that the principle of self-determination is an internationally recognized right.According to international law, the Afghan nation has the right to self-determination. Therefore, they have the right to freely determine their political status and pursue their economic, social, and cultural development, in front of the ruling body from an internal perspective and also, from an external perspective, in front of other nations in the world. Furthermore, respecting this fundamental human right is considered a general obligation for all members of the international community, the violation of which entails responsibilities for transgressors. Therefore, with the establishment of the Taliban government, the question arises as to whether the right to self-determination of the Afghan people has been properly exercised, and have other governments fulfilled their commitment to the rights of the Afghan people in this regard? The current research has explored this issue using the descriptive-analytical method. At First glance, it appears that the self-proclaimed government of the Islamic Emirate has not only violated the right of the Afghan people to choose their political structure but is imposing its power on the Afghan nation by widely violating even more of their human rights. Despite all this, it, unfortunately, has the explicit and implicit support of some members of the international community, contrary to their erga omnes commitment.[1]. Full title: Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations.

Seafaring is one of the risky jobs that needs more support and attention from governments and the international community. Human rights apply at sea as they do on land. Since the abuse of human rights at sea is not as tangible as it is on land, it has not received much attention from the international community. However, due to the importance of the role of shipping in international trade and, consequently, the role of seafarers in this industry, this group should be given more attention. Accordingly, international organizations and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) such as ILO (International Labor Organization) pave the way for protecting seafarers' rights by developing international documents.The most important international document by the ILO is the Maritime Labor Convention. The Maritime Labor Convention (2006) is often described as the "Seafarers' Labor Rights Charter". This convention places responsibility on the flag state and the port state as well as the labor supply state.The unfavorable working conditions of seafarers, due to the temporary nature of their work and the lack of effective implementation of domestic and international laws by the flag state, put seafarers in a bad situation. Seafarers' rights depend on where the ship is registered. Examining the policies of the governments that grant convenience flags and paying attention to the cases in which even the seafarers’ basic rights are ignored, it is evident that joining international documents on behalf of these governments is a tool for them to present a positive image in the international community.On one hand, lack of implementation of a monitoring mechanism on seafarers' rights and international agreements and documents leads to the violation of international obligations. On the other hand, the seizure of ships by the coastal states for various reasons and detention of the crews, in a country whose laws are not familiar, may further result in the violation of seafarers' rights. Whereas the expansion of the use of convenience flags places more prominence on the role of the coastal government to enforce the rights of seafarers.The coastal government plays an important role in observing the rights of seafarers based on the Convention on the Law of the Sea, the Maritime Labor Convention, and the Tokyo and Paris Memorandum. In addition, for the effective implementation of seafarers' rights, there are international organizations such as FAO, IMO, and ILO that aid in this path, in addition to better and more cooperation with non-governmental organizations such as the "Human Rights at Sea".Obviously, rights have a limited value if it is not implemented in practice. So how can seafarers guarantee the implementation of their rights? Or in case of violation, how is it possible to compensate? As said before, the rights of seafarers are described in international conventions and treaties, the ILO conventions allow seafarers to learn about their rights and encourage the government to implement laws and regulations to protect them, but the mentioned documents lack a guarantee to oblige governments to implement them and so, there is no monitoring and reporting mechanism for human rights violations at sea. The monitoring mechanism should be available for the crew to sue the violation of their human rights.It seems that the establishment of competent maritime courts and the possibility of access to these courts can guarantee the observance of seafarers' rights. Although the establishment of competent courts is an important step in promoting respect for human rights, the establishment of competent courts will not be effective without experts who are familiar with the rules of international law and the law of the seas. There is hope that the establishment of the Maritime Court along with the approval of the "Commercial Shipping Law" will improve the respect and enforcement of seafarers' rights in Iran. It is better for the judges and experts of this specialized court to be familiar with the principles and rules of international law of the seas and other branches related to international law, including human rights. In other words, the establishment of courts with exclusive jurisdiction and the presence of judges and legal experts with sufficient knowledge in the field of international law of the seas and familiarity with the principles and rules of international law can have a significant impact on protecting the rights of seafarers. In this paper, we use the descriptive-analytical method and library resources as well as electronic resources such as books, articles, theses, and official conferences related to the subject (regional and international) in Persian and English languages.

By recognizing the inherent duality of private law and public law, each domain has been allocated its distinct territory. Despite the relative and interconnected nature of these realms, the application of public law within its designated territory is essential due to its specific role, functions, and methodologies. Throughout history, fundamental rights (public laws) have governed the relationship between the government and its citizens, while private rights (civil laws) have governed the interactions between individuals. This demarcation of territories is not exclusive to Iran; numerous countries worldwide have embraced this division, leading to significant substantive and procedural implications.Notably, in recent years, Iran has witnessed a notable expansion of the public law domain within its legal system, which has raised concerns about its extent. This expansion can be attributed to several underlying reasons. One primary factor is the inadequacy and limitations of existing private law regulations in resolving societal issues. Consequently, legislators are compelled to address private law matters by formulating solutions based on public law principles, inadvertently diverting the core problem into the realm of public law. This practice, however, fails to address the root causes and restricts the available solutions to those provided by public law. As a result, the practical scope of public law expands beyond its intended boundaries. The excessive and multifaceted growth of public law can have far-reaching detrimental effects.Thus, the central question emerges: What potential harm can the development of public law inflict on citizens' rights, and what are the driving forces behind this expansion in Iran? This research posits that the government's inclination towards exercising authority, excessive interventions in social and economic matters, undervaluing of liberal principles, a tendency to resort to public law in ambiguous cases, and the adaptable nature of public law methods are among the contributing factors to the widening scope of public law. Moreover, the duality of influences on Iran's public law system—Western legal traditions and Shia jurisprudence—has led to its distinct development. Some facets of Iran's public law draw inspiration from Western legal systems, while others find their origins in Shia legal doctrines.It is worth noting that Iran's legal system is bound by Article 4 of the Constitution, which mandates the utilization of Sharia rulings and adherence to Islamic standards in all laws and regulations. This requirement, however, diverges from Western legal systems where such a mandate is not observed.The realm of public law has undergone extensive development, permeating even the most intimate legal issues. Notable examples of this expansion include the broadening of public law in labor law, characterized by significant government interventions in the field. Similarly, the realm of public law has made significant strides in business law, and its influence has extended to matters concerning property rights. The objective of this research is to contribute to the advancement of public law in Iran by conducting a comprehensive analysis of its benefits and drawbacks through a systematic examination of its expansion.To fulfill this objective, we delve into the causes and factors behind the development of the public law realm, providing noteworthy examples that illustrate its expansion. The research findings establish the undeniable separation of the realms of private and public rights, despite ongoing debates regarding their differentiation. In practice, even legal systems that advocate for the unity of public and private law demonstrate a distinct educational system for public law. By acknowledging the distinction between public law and private law, while acknowledging the inherent difficulty in delineating these realms in certain cases, each legal field can be allocated its designated sphere.In recent years, there has been a notable surge in the expansion and growth of the public law realm. Numerous issues that were traditionally and conventionally within the purview of private law have now either entirely or to a significant extent fallen under the domain of public law.

PurposeChanging from "People" to "society" requires a unity of interests and a nation that connects the building blocks of the Iranian people. The present paper concerns the relationship between social changes and public law. The sociological approach to law by deepening the social roots of laws, links "theories" to "facts". Therefore, this article can be classified under interdisciplinary studies of law and sociology. This study goes beyond the traditional classification of public law in the areas of constitutional law, administrative law, financial law, and labor law and can be categorized under the field of  socio-legal Studies.The purpose of the paper is to show how the sociology of law affects the theory of state, as a multidisciplinary field of study.Design, Methodology, and ApproachThis article is a library-oriented study in terms of the method of data collection, and descriptive-explanatory-prescriptive in terms of research method.The method of data collection in this research is library research, and the data obtained has been studied through descriptive and explanatory methods with an interdisciplinary approach. Interdisciplinary studies are currently a hot topic in legal academia and we must differentiate between the four types in which the sociological approach to law has been classified as disciplinary, interdisciplinary, multidisciplinary, and Transdisciplinary studies. In the author’s view, public law and sociology are strongly interconnected but we can speak about the possibility of the sociology of law being multidisciplinary. In our paper, we illustrate that different methods can be used in the research of law and legal concepts, and how the methodology of controversial issues and debates in sociology is relevant to the study of law.Therefore, the article can be classified under interdisciplinary studies of law and communication.FindingsBased on the results of this article, the most important characteristic of a co-benefit society for citizens is that a sense of belonging and membership in the society is created and the main legal advantage of a government overseeing it is in its capacity and ability to solve problems. we must first appreciate that law does not generally influence individual behavior in a vacuum, devoid of social context. Instead, how people interact with the law is usually shown in their social life. Evidence from different studies demonstrates that, if we insist on the systematic imposition of values in a diverse society, we create dualities, numerous conflicts, and contradictions, and we will produce many social problems. Consequently, we will send a message to society which indicates the incompetence and inefficiency of the government. In fact, the value of the government is in its ability to efficiently manage conflicts that result from contrasting moral plans.The understanding of the state and theories of state should be firmly grounded in their social context. The state, being an artificial construct, has emerged from a complex interplay of diverse attitudes, beliefs, and values held by individuals. By recognizing the state as a product of human society, we can unveil a profound connection between its "man-made nature" and the underlying "theory of state."Against this background, in this article, I will try to use a socio-legal approach to explain “Pluralistic Society” as the social context of the formation of the democratic state. The use of the sociology of law is because it describes social changes and explains relationships with legal structures, norms, and mechanisms in the search of achieving utopia.this study finds that changes in social values and attitudes inevitably lead to irreversible plurality which is just the situation in the Contemporary Iran. Iran is so diverse in different aspects, meaning that, it has a society that gives different answers to similar questions. The desirable reaction to this cultural diversity should be tolerance and respect for different values because the changes in “citizens' beliefs” form sociocultural forces that shape democracy. Just as many social evolutions in Iran after the Islamic Revolution have arisen from changes in the social forces shaped by the public opinion. Therefore, as long as social changes gravitate toward diversity, we can hope that the best is yet to come.Originality and ValueThis article has reviewed some of the empirical and theoretical research on social norms and law and is one of the first attempts to address the role of social change in the formation of law in contemporary Iran. it has tried to provide a basic understanding as it examines the interplay between social norms and the enforcement of laws.

International investment law is facing a legitimacy crisis, in which to tackle, substantial efforts are being made in structural and procedural areas. The first step to overcoming this crisis is identifying the roots of it. The lack of a dynamic balance between public and private interests is one of the main factors creating this legitimacy crisis in this legal system.[1] This paper focuses on the changes in the investment arbitration jurisprudence to create this balance. The findings of this paper can explain one of the convergence points of international trade and investment law. Such a claim is based on the evolution of international trade law in facing a similar legitimacy issue and the structural-procedural approach of this legal system in balancing public and private interests as an ultimate solution to the crisis.[2] From this perspective, one of the major factors in creating a legitimacy crisis in both legal systems is the dominance of the paradigm for preference of private interests; and one of the convergence points of international trade and investment law has been to replace it by accepting the paradigm of creating a dynamic balance between competing goals.[3] This paper examines this convergence in arbitral jurisprudence.IntroductionIn recent years, the legitimacy crisis of the regime of international investment law and, as a result, the investor-state dispute settlement system has been one of the most important and controversial topics in the academic environment and the practice of states consequently, serious efforts in various fields to tackle this crisis have begun. According to this paper, choosing an arbitration mechanism modeled on international commercial arbitration to resolve disputes between host states and foreign investors can be evaluated as a wrong and hasty action that, regardless of its factors and contexts, has changed the nature and function of this system over time.[4] It should be noted that the main factor in such consequences is how this dispute resolution system is used which, contrary to the accepted model, always puts the host states in a "respondent" position in possible future disputes and, as a result, disrupts the balance expected in any international dispute settlement system. On this basis, the confrontation of the host state's sovereign competence in ensuring public interests with the foreign investors’ ability to challenge this competence is brought into the spotlight: currently, within the regime of international investment law, host states have only responsibilities and obligations in contrast to extensive and exclusive rights and privileges recognized for foreign investors, and this can be considered as the most important factor disturbing the said balance. The main issue in this field is to analyze the role of the investment arbitral tribunals in creating such a balance. In this regard, the authors, by focusing on the nature of investment treaties, and the relations between the parties in investment disputes and with emphasis on the general legal regime governing international investment, consider creating a dynamic balance between public and private interests to be the key to solving the crisis. They emphasize that; As long as the rights and obligations of the parties to the dispute are based on imbalanced grounds, the change in nature of the disputes and the function of the system -as the main roots of this legitimacy crisis - will remain. In this remark, it is very important to focus on the two-sided nature (public-private) of the relationships established in the framework of investment treaties. The relationship between the host state and the foreign investor is created within the framework of investment treaties and in light of fundamental differences from purely private relationships in international commercial arbitration.[5] Note that any dispute arising from this relationship is affected by its inherently public nature governed by public international law.[6] Thus, a purely private attitude towards these relations does not seem viable. As Ian Brownlie has stated in the case of SME v. the Czech Republic, it can lead to ignoring some of the basic elements of the relevant investment treaty.[7] In other words, the right and duty of the host state in protecting and promoting public interests is a fundamental part of this relationship, and any indulgence of it leads to a serious disruption of the mentioned balance through which the system's legitimacy will be the first victim.It is clear that the main task of any dispute resolution system is to create such a balance, and on this basis, and compared to the WTO dispute resolution system, the role of the investment tribunals in this process is discussed. This jurisprudential convergence is in line with the goal of strengthening the legitimacy of the international investment law system as a whole.Based on the above, the first part of this paper focuses on the process of establishing the ISDS in international investment law and its characteristics, the factors of the crisis of legitimacy are analyzed with an analytical approach, while also explaining the nature of investment treaties and explaining the general legal regime governing international investment. Furthermore, the lack of a dynamic balance between public and private interests is emphasized as the main cause of the crisis. In the second part, while comparing the two legal systems of international trade and investment with a similar crisis of legitimacy, we will examine the interaction of investment arbitration with the WTO's jurisprudence in facing this crisis through a case study of several investment arbitral awards. [1]. David Gaukrodger, “The Balance between Investor Protection and the Right to Regulate in Investment Treaties: A Scooping Paperˮ, OECD Working Paper on International Investment 2017/02, at 4.[2]. Nicholas DiMascio & Joost Pauwelyn, “Non-Discrimination in Trade and Investment Treaties: Worlds apart or Two Sides of the Same Coin?”, AJIL, Vol. 102, No.1, (2008), at 89.[3]. Jurgen Kurtz and Sungioon Cho, “Convergence and Divergence in International Economic Law and Politics”, EJIL, Vol. 20, No. 1, (2018), at 187.[4]. Benedict Kingsbury & Stephan W. Schill, “Public Law Concepts to Balance Investor's Rights with State Regulatory Actions in the Public Interest - The Concept of Proportionalityˮ, In Schill Stephan W., International Investment Law and Comparative Public Law (UK: Oxford University Press, 2010) at 76. [5]. Crina Baltag, “Reforming The ISDS System: In Search of a Balanced Approach?ˮ, Contemporary Asia Arbitration Journal, Vol. 22, No. 2, (2019), at 285.[6]. Ibid.[7]. Andreas Kulick, “Sneaking Through Backdoor – Reflections on Public Interest in International Investment Arbitrationˮ, Arbitration International, Vol. 29, No. 3, (2013), at 438.

Linguistic minorities often have their own unique lifestyle, culture, and traditions, and they have distinct demands based on their culture. In short, this demand pertains to their right to use their mother tongue, which is different from the right of each member of these groups to use their mother tongue individually. They demand the right to use their mother tongue collectively and as a third-generation right. However, sometimes the demand for this right conflicts with national security and territorial unity. Some governments, based on their approach to the issue of rights, the conflict between them and the public interest and their own security policies limit the right to the mother tongue and take a confrontational and restrictive stance on both the general right and the specific right to the mother tongue, in consideration of the issue of territorial unity. This study aims to explore and explain the theoretical framework of this conflict and its reasons, and to provide strategies for solving this problem by describing and expanding on various theoretical discourses related to the subject. Another goal of this study is to explore some of the concepts involved in this subject and to examine an appropriate theoretical approach to related concepts, which also aids to answer the main research problem. As research backgrounds, reference can be made to the book "Language Rights and Political Theory" by Will Kymlicka, published by Oxford University Press in 2007, and the book "National Security, Human Rights, Political Legitimacy in Fragile Democracies: An Introduction to the Foundations of National Security Law" by Mehdi Rezaei, published by Khorsandi Publishing in 2018.The main purpose of this research is to explain the relationship between the right of linguistic minorities to use their mother tongue and national security and territorial unity? Within this framework, the present study, while reviewing and analyzing all the concepts involved in the subject, by adopting a reductionist approach towards the rights of minority groups and emphasizing the individual nature of rights, and with attention to the requirements of positive discrimination in insuring group rights, explains and defends the rights of minority groups to the mother tongue and the necessity of ensuring those rights. It also examines and analyzes the relationship between the right to the mother tongue and national security, and territorial unity. It shows that the closer a state's security discourse is to a negative and commodity-based interpretation, the more threatened national security and territorial unity will be, and the more it will be in conflict with the right to the mother tongue. The choice of a political-legal system to adopt a security theoretical manifest has a direct impact on the definition and boundaries of national security in that country, and the degree of its democracy and human rights also has a complete impact on the model and approach of its security discourse. Non-democratic and non-human rights systems that adopt traditional discourse in national security not only refuse to tolerate any objections and opposition by the people but also, based on various security pretexts and through "securitization", initiate suppression and threatening of public freedoms and citizens' rights. However, the modern discourse, with a focus on the citizens' demands, internal vulnerabilities, and socio-economic issues, and with regard to pluralism, democracy, and human rights, seeks security through creating national convergence and synergy. The postmodern discourse, on another hand, looks at national security with a focus on global security centered on human beings and from the perspective of fundamental human rights, culture, and cultural issues. Therefore, the two modern and postmodern discourses not only recognize the right to the mother tongue, but also guarantee it and consider guaranteeing it as a booster of national security. Regarding the right to the mother tongue, political regimes with a traditional security approach see this right and its enforcement in conflict with national security, and thus restrict the freedom of linguistic minorities. Non-democratic and non-human rights regimes, with a security-oriented approach, always label linguistic minorities as secessionist forces and with various titles, including labeling them as threats to national security and unity, and territorial unity, and they restrict the freedom to use their mother tongue. It seems that the democratic or non-democratic and human rights or non-human rights nature of a political system determines which security approach and discourse that system has, and it is this discourse that shapes the government's position on the basic freedoms and rights of the people and following that, the path of that political system will become apparent. In the face of the duality of “the existence of linguistic diversity and minorities increases threats and insecurity”, or conversely, “confronting the linguistic freedoms of minorities leads to their dissatisfaction and desire for secession", the proposition of the authors is the second approach; especially since governments that seek security only outside their borders with a traditional security perspective, naturally overlook internal security threats or even consider their source as foreign, and over time, people’s dissatisfaction with the deprivation of their fundamental freedoms such as linguistic freedom will only be one of the problems and dissatisfactions, and economic and social problems will also prevail. at that time, the centrifugal forces due to injustice, economic deprivation, and restrictions on fundamental freedoms will become more apparent. Therefore, in a general proposition, the less democratic a government is and the less commitment it has to human rights, the more traditional and outward-looking its security policies and approaches will become. It will also restrict domestic rights and freedoms, resulting in an increase in centrifugal forces and threats to national security and territorial unity. Regarding linguistic minorities Specifically, the more the governments disregard democracy and human rights, the more probable that they view national security negatively so as to consider threats only from external or foreign roots. By closing these outlets and making the phenomenon of linguistic diversity and minority mother tongues a security issue, they threaten the freedom of using the mother tongue in many aspects. On the other hand, focusing on militarization to gain security at exorbitant costs, neglecting human rights and freedoms, and the absence of a monitoring and desirable balance system for a democratic system will lead to a "crisis of efficiency" and a "crisis of legitimacy" of that political system, which will result in deep economic and social crises and dissatisfaction, especially among minorities. This economic pressure, coupled with severe repression of the freedom to use the mother tongue, will plant the seed of anomie and subsequently, the revival of separatist movements and threats to national security. Thus, the unity of the land and territorial unity will be compromised.

Relations between state and ethics or religion is one of the important subjects in political philosophy and public law and there are several approaches about it. In this meantime, Professor Naser Katouzian refers to three kind of Relations between state and ethics or religion and points out the theory of stipulated state to ethics, state that is beside of ethics or religion and the governor state on   ethics or religion. This paper has considered the doctrine of professor and with utilization from other sources in public and constitutional law, has completed this issue .The author has considered the concepts of perfectionist and neutral state as related concepts to stipulated state to ethics, state that is beside of ethics or religion and with conceptual analysis about them, has remarked the necessity of obstruction the line from perfectionism to despotism.Naser Katouzian is undoubtedly one of the most influential figures of Iranian law in the contemporary era. An unforgettable and moral teacher whose works and school of thought every professor and student of law in Iran is indebted to and rereading his doctrine can be considered a solution to most legal problems of the society. Despite the professor's specialized entry into private and civil law and dedicating the major part of his works to this field, his concern about the relationship between the state and the nation and public law had him write in this important field and take part in preparing the draft of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran and setting up the foundations of Iran’s political-legal system.In this article, the author has turned to one of the important views of Professor Naser Katouzian regarding the relationship between the government, ethics, and religion and tries to evaluate the professor's doctrine in this field as much as possible. Reexamining this point of view was not only necessary at the beginning of the Islamic revolution, but also nowadays. It can be very effective in explaining the foundations of the Islamic Republic of Iran's constitution and governing political system. Therefore, the main Point of this research is the relationship between state, ethics, and religion in the thinking of Professor Naser Katouzian and formats and forms in which this relationship will appear.In analyzing the relationship between the state, ethics, and religion and in a basic classification, Katouzian points to the state that is bounded to ethics and religion, the state that is beside ethics and religion and is neutral, and the state that rules on ethics and religion. The professor considered religious governments, such as Islamic or Christian governments, as examples of the states that are bounded to a certain religion and considers the constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran and some of its fundamental principles, such as Article IV, as the pledge that has bounded the state to a certain religion and ethics.In the second category, he refers to the governments that are beside ethics and religion and are neutral. In these states, the government is separated from any common philosophical and religious beliefs among the people and ethics, and religion has a personal and private feature next to the government and is ineffective in policymaking and legislation.In the third category, professor Katouzian points to the states that rule on ethics and religion in which the government takes an authoritarian approach. The government has the authority to validate and create rights, good, and even morality and it is under the government’s will that the moral progress and evolution of citizens is pursued.This paper considers the doctrine of Professor Katouzian and by looking at other sources in public and constitutional law, has developed this issue. The author has considered the concepts of perfectionist and neutral states as related concepts to states that are bound to ethics and states that are beside ethics or religion and by conceptual analysis of them has remarked the necessity of preventing the progression of perfectionism to despotism. Professor Katouzian's concern about the pure sovereignty of the government over the right and good is commendable in the author’s view. This research intends to talk about the limitations and restraints of the government's power and its lack of sovereignty over the rights and morals with reference to the professor's doctrine.Professor Katouzian criticizes authoritarian governments that rule on ethics and religion and in practice, examples of these outlooks in government such as Nazism and fascism have left bitter experiences for humanity and history. consequently, the author expresses his concern about the transition from perfectionism to authoritarianism and considers understanding the basis of modern public law as the mechanism to prevent this transition.Therefore, the legal system in a government that is bounded to ethics and religion must recognize and guarantee the values of the public such as the rule of law, separation of powers, accountability, supervision and balance, transparency, fundamental rights and freedoms for the citizens, etc. In this way, It will help to spread morality in the society. we propose that the achievement of a virtuous society is directly linked with good governance, correct management of public resources and their optimal allocation to public needs, and efficient management of conflict of interests among members of the political society. These will give the citizens the opportunity to live a dignified life and the opportunity to think about moral virtues and the meaning of life and will reduce immorality and vices in society.

The phrase “rule of law” is made up of two legal words, rule and law. Regardless of the broad meaning of both words in the legal literature -with each of them having a long history in the science of law- perhaps agreeably, it can be considered as the subordination of all political institutions to the law in order to regulate the relations between citizens and the government.  The root of the rule of law can be found in the theoretical foundations of Western thinkers, in concepts such as power is corrupt. This is why, to achieve a good governance system in Western political philosophy and prevent chaos and establish public order and security, and establish the balance between the conflicting interests of social life through the exercise of governance, the idea of the rule of law has been proposed. It functions as a means to regulate the power of the rulers, negate the tyranny and arbitrariness of the rulers, and also to provide the requirements for the administration of public affairs.This particular interpretation of the concept of power and leadership was proposed in Germany and then in France during the Renaissance. It is the product of legalism and fundamentalism thinking and has three concepts of order; negation of autocracy, libertarianism which are crystallized in the external activities of the government (legislation) and its internal activities (organizational structure of the government).The political school of Shia jurisprudence presents the idea of monotheistic government based on divine law, and does not accept the secularization of government like it is in the age of modernity, and not only it does not consider the nature of power as corrupt, but accepts it as an excellent and admirable basis. Therefore, the nature of power in monotheistic thought is not corrupt, and it is its application and way of usage that turns it into a divine rule or tyrannical rule. On this basis and to establish the divine sovereignty of the Holy Sharia in the Age of Absence, Infallible Imam appoints the jurist Jame al-Sharia as his successor in all affairs of the administration of the Islamic Society.The essence of the idea behind the rule of law, which is the controlling of rulers and regulating the means of exercising government power over citizens, has been formed and evolved mainly based on liberalism and humanism in a country's political system. The liberal view of the rule of law has been formed in two ways: the first concept of the rule of law, which has a right-oriented nature, especially focusing on the right of expression, was formed in contrast with authoritarian rulers and its purpose is to limit the power of the government and protect the rights of individuals.. Another concept of the rule of law is a form that, through the law, emphasizes that the actions and decisions of government officials be rational concerning the citizens.After understanding the rule of law, it is possible to differentiate the formal (organization-oriented) and substantive (right-oriented) rule of law from each other, and by combining the two mentioned dimensions of the rule of law, a more complete model has been achieved in the system of the Islamic Republic of Iran.However, According to the political jurisprudence of Shia and consequently, in its complete model, i.e., the system of the Islamic Republic of Iran, simply examining the idea of the rule of law in each of these forms will lead to incorrect results, In order to achieve this goal, according to the foundations and principles of each political system, the position of the rule of law should be determined as an unchangeable principle or a criterion for guaranteeing other principles.From this point of view, there are fundamental differences between the principles of the rule of law in liberalism and the political system of Shia jurisprudence:1-The concept of lawIn the political system of authentic Shia jurisprudence, the concept of law has also been explained under the concept of monotheism, in such a way that law is an intrinsic matter that is rooted in the origin of the Shia political Jurisprudence. However, the law in the Western political system, are empirical laws that are established under secularism and are based solely on the consensus and opinion of the majority.2- Rule of law modelThe political system of liberalism distinguishes between two concepts of the rule of law: formal rule of law (organization-oriented) and substantive rule of law (right-oriented).The implemented model of the rule of law in the system of the Islamic Republic of Iran is obtained from the combination and synergy of the two mentioned models and is a more complete model.The Islamic legal system is established by the original belief and the basic political system of Shia jurisprudence in obedience to all individuals, even the leadership of the Muslim community. On the other hand, the essence of power is not corrupt in monotheistic thought but how it is applied can turn into either a divine government or a tyranny. The Unique legal system of the Islamic Republic of Iran has a diagnostic and monitoring mechanism that fully complies with the rule of law. This paper discusses the theoretical approaches to the concept and the formal and substantive aspects of the Rule of law in the common law vs. the Islamic Republic of Iran.