فصلنامه دولت پژوهی
پیاپی 14 (تابستان 1397)

It is safe to say that over the past decade, no region in the world as much as the Middle East and North Africa has been involved with rapid political developments, unrest and instability. The beginning of a cycle of mass protests and instability in the aftermath of the Arab Spring is just one of those cases. The main purpose of the present research is to explain the conditions of the Arab Spring formation. The main question of the present research is what caused the Arab Spring to begin with Tunisia and Egypt?
In this research, it is attempted to explain the conditions of development and the beginning of the Arab Spring based on the multilevel and multidimensional approach. The main hypothesis of the study is that there were similarities between Tunisia and Egypt, which caused the Arab Spring to begin from these two countries. In the method, the present study is a case-oriented historical comparative study. The research process has been completed in three phases. In the first stage, the similarities between the two countries of Tunisia and Egypt were extracted. In the second stage, the causal relationship of the similarities extracted between Tunisia and Egypt was described in the form of nine variables, with the conditions of the development and occurrence of the Arab Spring. In the third phase, there was a general explanation of the conditions of the Arab Spring development, and it was shown why the Arab Spring started from Tunisia and Egypt

It was expected in the light of Arab Uprisings that the authoritarian regimes gave way to the democratic ones and this changing had led to raising the potent states. But, it was resulted in forming the incapable state within the Arab republics and consolidating regime of the oil-rich monarchies. On the one hand, shaping failed states in Syria and Yemen put the Middle East regional system on the verge of collapsing. On the other hand, quelling protests by Saudi and Bahrain regimes showed that in these societies there is not any organic relation between authorities and crowd. By and large, the modern state not only bears central authority in the home but is the first actor in the international milieu. It has a significant role in keeping order within the country and forming the balance of power in the international realm. Therefore, by taking more information about the quality of relationship between the Arab uprisings and state as an entity one makes more perception over the Middle East international relations. This essay seeks to comprehend the impressions of Arab uprisings on the state that went through changes. Again, this work is tried to study this relation through the Historical Sociology of International Relations (HSIR)' lenses.

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.

The theory of progress of constitutionality(Mashroutiat) which was aptly named “the new threshold” was aimed to lay the basis for constitutionalism by limiting the State. But the constitutionality didn’t last long and “the great misfortune” of the King Reza was formed out of it. Our question in the present research is the reason why all the great hopes of the constitutionalists and the intellectuals ran to waste and the historical reality that brought the country to the verge of destruction convinced the people that a central authoritarian state should be created. The explanation of the failure of the theory of progress is possible through the study of the relation between this era’s thought system, the thought tradition in Iran and the thought of the European Modernity. The fact that what eventually was the end of this thought system of constitutionalism in relation to the historical reality and consequences it had for Iran is the main aim of this article. The theory of progress-modernization in Iran had totally new epistemic foundations in comparison with the traditional “narratives” in Europe tried to constitute the Modernity on the basis of the western thought’s appearances. By reducing “the Metanarrative of Emancipation” in the thought of the European intellectuals they reduced that to freedom from despotism. Trying to find the legitimacy of these new institutions in tradition led to the formation of a returning model of the logic of transformation of the structure of political thought in Iran with which the political events conformed necessarily.

Nowadays, many wrongful acts have been committed in the international community that multiple states play role in its commission. In spite of recognizing Independent Responsibility as the cornerstone basis for allocating international law of responsibility, International Law Commissions (hereinafter ILC) draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts (2001) (hereinafter ARSIWA) and its draft Articles on Responsibility of International Organizations (2011) (hereinafter ARIO) have recognized that attribution of acts to one actor does not exclude possible attribution of the same act to another state which is called Derivative Responsibility. Aid or Assistance, Direction and Control, Force and Circumvention of an International Obligation are the only four situations in the scope of derivative responsibility. Despite recognizing these, it is not expressly clarified what kind of relationship exists between them, or how to allocate these two responsibilities as secondary obligation and or how the related contribution is. In the situation of aid or assistance, each one is just responsible of its aid or assistance, so if the wrongdoer commits more internationally wrongful acts, the state in question is just responsible for the aid or assistance and not more; in the situation of direction or control, joint responsibility is applicable; in the situation of force, the forcing party is responsible; so the forced party is not responsible at all; And in the last one, circumvention is not justifiable at all; so the state in question cannot and must not escape from its primary obligation.

"University autonomy" is considered as the cornerstone of the university system and it means that universities are to be free in the setting of their goals and priorities and implementation of them. University autonomy is significantly dependent on the university overall perspective and the degree of political interference. Despite the fact that securing the independence of universities in higher education is relative, it has not been fully realized in any higher education institution. But this concept in its lifetime, has always been faced with two major problems; misunderstanding of dimensions and indicators, and particularly, the different obstacles and barriers to it especially those that are affected by government interference. Thus, this study is aimed to assess different aspects of university autonomy and the role of government in achieving its obstacles and barriers and qualitative approach based on structuralism method and used the documentary analysis as the means for data collection. The findings suggest experts on the four dimensions of organizational autonomy, financial, academic and staffing as the main dimensions of independence, most opinions are, Political processes of countries, the rule of political thought, decision making centralized system of government, financial constraints and recruitment, particular bias or sectarian factions of the most important obstacles and barriers on the path to achieve university autonomy which in formation of all these obstacles and barriers, governments play an essential role.