Nima Rezaei; Saeed Mirtorabi
Abstract
Various governments around the world have put tough restrictive measures on the agenda to combat the outbreak of the Covid-19 virus. Actions that are unbearable for people under normal circumstances. These restrictive measures and extraordinary means have so far been accepted by the public (despite popular ...
Read More
Various governments around the world have put tough restrictive measures on the agenda to combat the outbreak of the Covid-19 virus. Actions that are unbearable for people under normal circumstances. These restrictive measures and extraordinary means have so far been accepted by the public (despite popular protests in some countries). This study seeks to answer the main question: "Which of theories can best explain or understand the restrictive actions of different states in the face of coronavirus?" It hypothesizes that "use extraordinary means such as the closure of universities, mosques, religious shrines, discos and nightclubs, etc. "Different governments use them in the face of the coronavirus, due to the “securitization' of public health from the risk of a viral pandemic by different governments." The theory of "securitization" is therefore used, because in "securitization", the a securitising actor defines a security issue as a threat to the survival of a referent object which is claimed to has a right to survive. Since a question of survival necessarily involves a point of no return at which it will be too late to act, it is not defensible to leave this issue to normal politics. The securitising actor therefore claims a right to use extraordinary means or break normal rules, for reasons of security; Tools that are normally unjustifiable and not tolerated. At the same time, the actions of a transnational actor such as the World Health Organization(WHO) in "securitization" the coronavirus are examined using the concept of " Macrosecuritization ".
saeed mirtorabi
Abstract
Iran’s revolution as a profound social change in which most part of population took part heavily changed the fundamental aspects of political order in the country and helped to set new institutions in power and state structures after revolution. These institutions were helpful in harnessing extreme ...
Read More
Iran’s revolution as a profound social change in which most part of population took part heavily changed the fundamental aspects of political order in the country and helped to set new institutions in power and state structures after revolution. These institutions were helpful in harnessing extreme domestic and foreign crisis that emerged soon after the revolution. Revolutionary elite in Iran in a rather short term between January 1979 and May 1981, succeeded in establishing new political order after revolution. The main claim of the article as its hypothesis is that “Iran revolutionary elite in three years after revolution (as critical juncture) in response to huge crises and necessities of building new order inclined to institution building from the bottom and as a result effective institutions for supporting new political regime and new political order were formed.The article studies making of some new governmental institutions and revolutionary organs and emergence of new political behavior in the first years after revolution and searches the causes of their successful functions in managing crisis and sustaining new emerged political order. The article uses historical institutionalism as its approach and historical-causal analysis as its methodology. The article shows that high capabilities of revolutionary system in managing crises originated from this mode of institution building.
