Alireza Ali Soufi; Mohammad Reza Sadeghi
Abstract
Reza Shah's policies regarding the judiciary system can be evaluated in the direction of The Realization of Modern Absolute Government which was as a kind of reconstruction and redefinition of the traditional order at pre-constitutional period. Therefore, the direct intervention of the executive branch ...
Read More
Reza Shah's policies regarding the judiciary system can be evaluated in the direction of The Realization of Modern Absolute Government which was as a kind of reconstruction and redefinition of the traditional order at pre-constitutional period. Therefore, the direct intervention of the executive branch in matters of justice and the neglect of principles 81 and 82 should be considered as the continuation of the controversy between traditional tyranny and the democratic order and constitutionalism. This Principles were widely violated at the earlier of this year. and continued and led to the presentation of an interpretation of principle 82. This interpretation, which disaffected the two principles in the same time, provided an apparently legal solution to the Minister of Justice in order to ignore the independence and defection of the justice and attempt to change the intervention of the judges. This research is done with the goal of considering the effective factors in Legitimize Government Domination in Courts, it has been conducted by descriptive- analytical approach, by documentary and library method and seeking to answer this fundamental question that, which are the main factors in the interpretation of principle 82 by the regime. The findings of the research presents that the authoritarian nature of the government was a source of pressure on the courts to issue voter sentences, and since some of the judges were not willing to cooperate within the framework of power, so to eliminate the legal barriers to their removal, the rule of interpretation of Article 82 Was drafted and approved.
Seyed Ali Mahmoudi
Abstract
Civil disobedience in John Rawls’ theory of justice is protesting actions of citizens against some unjust laws and policy making in a democratic governments. The objective of such actions is reform and change on the basis of a constitution through rational and peaceful manners. Rawls relied on civil ...
Read More
Civil disobedience in John Rawls’ theory of justice is protesting actions of citizens against some unjust laws and policy making in a democratic governments. The objective of such actions is reform and change on the basis of a constitution through rational and peaceful manners. Rawls relied on civil disobedience on the philosophical and moral foundation and, while justifying it on the basis of two principles of justice, discusses the role of this non-violent civil action. In his assessment, civil disobedience is justifiable as a legal and moral action, for this treatment confronts unjust, no efficient other lawful acts, and acceptance of some inevitable limitations. It is forming on the basis of expansion of liberties, rationality, and overlapping consensus. Hence Civil disobedience is a democratic movement and its objective is reform of some laws and structures; therefore it cannot be considered as militant actions. This research uses conceptual analysis and critical evaluation based upon analytic philosophy to explain and criticize the issue of civil disobedience in Rawls political philosophy. The outcome of this study is that Rawls’ thoughts as a means of defining and explaining the philosophical and ethical principles, as well as the precise drawing of civil disobedience boundaries from militant practices have the rational consistency and theoretical strength. Against this observation, his objective guidance and action in this regard are in some cases subject to ambiguities and shortcomings. Rawls does not follow a same method regarding such guidance.
nayere dalir
Abstract
The views of Khadjeh Nezam al-Mulk have always been significant among the intellectual experts of political schools of thought, particularly the views in relation to organizing governmental relationship with people, all of which considerably affected the formation of the beliefs of future scholars. The ...
Read More
The views of Khadjeh Nezam al-Mulk have always been significant among the intellectual experts of political schools of thought, particularly the views in relation to organizing governmental relationship with people, all of which considerably affected the formation of the beliefs of future scholars. The question is how and at which level Khadje Nezam al-Mulk has categorized these mutual relations of the governors and people? In response, this theory has been brought forward by the author of Seyr al-Muluk, using the “justice seeking” approach in three different levels explaining the relations of the governor and people. This categorization has taken into consideration their encounter with the Almighty God as the paradigm of Islamic ideology. First categorization is “choosing based on destiny decided by God” or “taghdiraat” in Arabic. The 2nd one is pragmatism, which relates to worldly responsibilities, and finally the 3rd categorization is accountability approach in regard to hereafter. In this research, through using the methods of “historical explanations” and the “textual interpretation” approaches, there will be a systematic review of the characteristics of each level of the categorization. The biggest challenge to all the levels will be the deep reliance of Khadjeh Nizam al-Mulk on the theory of “distribution of justice”, disregarding the theoretical lacuna of “power” on his writings most of which can be justified by the concepts of “requirements of the time” and the “authoritative power” of kings/governors.
Mehdi Nasr
Abstract
Nowadays, 'justice' has almost become a forgotten concept. Global inequalities as a received contemporary neoliberal order is taken for granted. As a political concept, 'State', however, has a better situation. Using genealogy as a method, this article tries to show the concomitance of these two concepts ...
Read More
Nowadays, 'justice' has almost become a forgotten concept. Global inequalities as a received contemporary neoliberal order is taken for granted. As a political concept, 'State', however, has a better situation. Using genealogy as a method, this article tries to show the concomitance of these two concepts in their origin. The classical principles of justice, namely political freedom and the principles of distributive justice as well as respect for equality of the nature are the existing principles in thinking of state, both the ancient and the modern ones. In its origin, state presupposes the principles of justice to engender political identity of human being. This is beyond a moral preaching. Relativism, however, is going to be criticized. Instead, it emphasizes on the common origin and source of these two political concepts. Of course our narration of political situations is different from the modern subjectivist ones. So we try to separate and distinguish justice and state from subjectivist concepts, the very concepts which have been criticized very much. Instead, we try to prove that even with the presuppositions of those philosophies critical of modernity also the principles of justice and state remain in their place and we should vindicate them in the contemporary political spheres.
