Seyed Mohammad Tabatabaei
Abstract
Following the national revolutions which caused the creation of a new formation of state known as nation-state, we have witnessed the practical implementation of Theories of Separation of Powers. Ever since, the functional principles of organizing power in the modern state were based on the new theories ...
Read More
Following the national revolutions which caused the creation of a new formation of state known as nation-state, we have witnessed the practical implementation of Theories of Separation of Powers. Ever since, the functional principles of organizing power in the modern state were based on the new theories about the separation of powers and their different perceptions. As a matter of fact, in order to prevent the centralization of power and to build a better organization of political affairs on the basis of Theory of Separation of Powers, the nation-states tried to the divide political power into three branches: the executive, the legislative and the judicial powers and separate them on the basis of their structures and functions. The present paper will attempt to identify the cause and the extent of remoteness or closeness of the ternary shapes of the combination of powers, relative or complete separation of powers of the known principles of democracy. The basic argument of the present research is based on the point that the true and complete implementation of the principle of “check and balance” among the ternary branches has caused more limitation on the power and constructive interactions; as a result, in a lenient system of the contribution of powers we witness the creation of a kind of “power equation” and “democratic balance” through the relative separation of powers.
Hossien Salimi
Abstract
Purpose: Since the time that all social phenomena and political interactions of man formed in the framework of new nation-states and social and cultural identities defined in this new framework, notwithstanding much emphasis on the idea of peace and its value and significance, indeed the bloodiest and ...
Read More
Purpose: Since the time that all social phenomena and political interactions of man formed in the framework of new nation-states and social and cultural identities defined in this new framework, notwithstanding much emphasis on the idea of peace and its value and significance, indeed the bloodiest and the most widespread wars of history takes place in this era and by modern nation-states. This paper seeks to answer this fundamental question that, has violence and conflict been an essential element of modern nation-state? Answering this question is important because if violence and conflict in international politics rooted in nature and foundation of modern nation-state then achieving stability and peace is possible only through changing the function of this institution or replacing it with alternative institutions.Design/Methodology/Approach: Method of this research is explanatory. In order to answering this question in the format of a theoretical research, at first classical definitions of concept of nation-state will be discussed; then historical context and basis of formation of nation-state will be elucidated and in the end the fundamental dimensions of violence and conflict in modern nation-state will be discussed in the thought of five great thinkers in this field (Bodin, Hobbs, Rousseau, Hegel and Weber). This is a theoretical research that both attempts to survey classical theories in the field of studies on state and conflict and also historical studies on international relations. Also this research is based on a normative and critical approach regarding mainstream theories and those which defend status quo.Findings: This research concludes that despite of pervasive known ideas and values about peace in modern era, nation-state as a modern institution of political power contains a kind of organized violence which in its classical form reproduces it. In other words widespread violence in contemporary history of humanity somehow rooted in this modern institution. Monopoly in use of force, military power and exerting organized violence in the context of conceptualization of sovereignty alongside not recognizing an upper authority in international level and rejection of ethical commitments in modern culture of international relations as a general norm, made out breaking violent conflicts in the face of sharp conflicts and disagreements inevitable. Therefore it seems that in the course of global upheavals, establishing peace is possible only through fundamental change in the functions of modern state.Originality/Value: Hitherto peace studies have always paid particular attention to the category of state and sovereignty. But through combining theoretical and historical approaches this research presents a new attitude to this category. Also explicit results of this research is that maintaining present conditions of modern institution of nation-state made realization of peace impossible; therefore conclusions of this research can be a new window in literature of peace studies specially in the context of Iranian peace studies.
