فهرست مطالب جواد جریده

Civil disobedience is political action that transfers citizens' extrajudicial demands peacefully to political decision-makers without challenging the generality of a political system. Civil disobedience seems to require cultural, political and social preconditions to make a difference. Political culture and citizenship are among the most important preconditions for effective civil disobedience; that is, a flexible and participatory political culture, as well as the institutionalization of the citizen's position, can prevent civil disobedience from being suppressed and transformative. At the same time, it seems that popular theories of civil disobedience (including Durkin, Rawls, Habermas, Arendt) cannot fully analyze the civil protests in post-Islamic Iran society. On the basis of this paper, the following paper has designed a three-dimensional model based on Almond political culture, Giddens-agent-structure interaction, and Durkin reading positive civil disobedience, which can be a precondition for disobedience as a right or responsibility. The results of this paper show that mixed political culture (mere subordinate and restricted-participatory), interdependent and fragmented civil society, passive citizenship and evasion of responsibility and the ideological attitude of the sovereign to any protest action on the other have led to civil disobedience. It should not be recognized as a right of responsibility by the GOA. The present paper uses a thematic principle to formulate a theory of civil disobedience in Iranian society.

Ibn Khaldun seems to be the first Muslim thinker to look at the phenomenon of war from the sociological-anthropological point of view. This article raises the following questions: 1- What explanation does Ibn Khaldun give of war? 2. What are the most important factors in the sociology-anthropology of Ibn Khaldun's beginning and end of the war? 3) What factors influence the outcome of the war?. The findings of this study show that Ibn Khaldun regards war as a natural phenomenon in human relations. He divides wars into legitimate and illegitimate on the basis of primitive or civilized; in Ibn Khaldun's view, wars based on primitive values are illegitimate and wars that order Are civil, legitimate. Ibn Khaldun considers the most important elements of sociology-anthropology as the initiator of illegitimate wars as the natural excess of mankind, the struggle for mere power, and the most important factors of sociology-anthropology as the initiation of war, tribal loyalty social order and the spread of religious beliefs. At the same time, he focuses on the sociological-anthropological factors of legitimate wars and illicit wars with realistic factors (such as military might) and extraneous factors (such as fortunes and secrecy);. The present paper uses text-based reading method.

The goal of this article is to analyze and criticize the different paradigms of the western philosophy in justice issue. From the start of political philosophy in the ancient Greek, the concept of justice has been paid attention. The result of the theoretical and gnostic debates over the justice category has been the formation of the different mental-historical paradigms in the western political thought. It can be classified in three major groups:classical, modern and postmodern paradigms. But there are similarities and dissimilarities inside these paradigms. It seems that these paradigms have been criticized less by the extropective discourse. The present article has shaped around these questions:1. What is the most important distinction between justice paradigms in the thinking of the western world? 2. What are the critiques of these paradigms from the point of the extropective discourse? According to the theoretical approach, the research findings indicate that the specific characteristic of the classic paradigm is justice as metaphysics type and the specific characteristic of the modern paradigm is contractual justice and humanism and the specific characteristic of the postmodern paradigm is relativism justice and essential pluralism 2)absolutism of justice in the classic paradigm, materialism of justice in the modern paradigm and category of justice having no basis(unfounded) and being anti-essentialism in the postmodern paradigm are of the most important extropective discursive critiques governing the west world.