mohammadjavad fathi

Climatic changes, especially in developing countries, during the past few decades, have caused large populations of people to migrate from arid areas to semi-arid and temperate areas, and this issue provides grounds for committing all kinds of crimes and violating human rights. has constructed . This is despite the fact that in various reports, including the report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, policymakers and decision-makers at domestic levels were requested to somehow manage climate change so that the temperature rises to less than 1.5 degrees by 2030. slow The management of climate change and its effect on reducing the commission of crimes becomes more noticeable when it is known that the lack of management of climate change has negative economic, social and security effects. The main question that is considered in this research is what are the effects of climate change management on committing crimes at the level of the United Nations and the Islamic Republic of Iran? The conclusion obtained from this research is that climate change management at the United Nations level is trying to function by emphasizing restorative justice and sharing responsibilities in the field of prevention and combating crimes affected by climate change. While at the level of the Islamic Republic, there is no special and necessary management in this area.

The purpose of the current research is to examine the Palestine issue in the intellectual system of Ayatollah Boroujerdi (RA) and Imam Khomeini (RA) using descriptive-analytical method. The research question is, what is the difference between the approach of Ayatollah Borujerdi and Imam Khomeini to Palestine? The Palestinian government was divided into two separate governments in 1948 by the vote of the United Nations and the influence of major world powers, the Palestinian government and the Israeli regime were the result of this decision. against this, widespread protests were formed, including seminaries and religious authorities, in different periods of time. During the Pahlavi II regime, Ayatollah Boroujerdi reacted to this tragic incident as stated in his declaration, and with the victory of the Islamic Revolution in Iran, the way of dealing with the Palestinian issue became stronger and There were much space for supporting Palestine. The findings of the research show that Ayatollah Boroujerdi and Imam Khomeini had different approaches in dealing with the Palestinian issue. Imam Khomeini's and Ayatollah Boroujerdi's view on the Palestinian issue is based on the view of two sources on the discussion of religion and politics and their activity in the religious and political spheres. The hypothesis of the article is that according to the intellectual foundations of Imam Khomeini and Ayatollah Boroujerdi regarding the relationship between religion and politics, Imam Khomeini believed in active activism and material and spiritual support for the Palestinian issue, but Ayatollah Boroujerdi, due to his protection of  the fledgling seminary, had chosen a passive activism approach in support of the Palestinians.

One of the divisions of jurisdiction of criminal courts is the division of these courts into Courts grade one and Courts grade two. Relative jurisdiction is studied as another kind of criminal courts jurisdiction beside local and inherent jurisdiction. In Relative jurisdiction, Courts grade one deal with more important crimes by multiple judges and Courts grade two deal with less important crimes by single judge. In Iranian law according to criminal procedure code 1392, Relative jurisdiction is accepted in both general and special courts. In English law, also, Relative jurisdiction of criminal courts accepted such a way that the crimes, based on importance, divided into three parts: Indictable offences, Summary offences and Offences triable and this will be heard either by Magistrates’ Court or crown court accordingly. In addition, in the law of both countries, relative jurisdiction in the retrial is also provided and these courts are divided into two categories.

The United States, as the most important trans-regional active state in West Asia, has gradually gained a great deal of influence in this area in order to achieve its goals, and has formed numerous military and security alliances with regional governments. However, emerging trends such as China's economic revolution and the shale oil boom in the United States, coupled with the deliberate decision of the country's political elite to temporarily withdraw from some parts of West Asia have led to the assumption of diminishing importance of the region and subsequent the U.S withdrawal. And the focus is on areas adjacent to China. The main issue of the present study is to analyze the concept of the U.S withdrawal from West Asia in the light of regional goals and strategies. The main question of the research is “whether the U.S intends to leave West Asia in the light of its regional strategic policy?”.

The research method is descriptive-analytic and it is a fundamental in terms of its nature. The method of data gathering is based upon library studies and the use of books, articles and online resources.

West Asia is of great importance to the U.S in terms of its geostrategic position, its vast fossil fuel resources, and its large consumer market. The course of the U.S foreign policy in West Asia shows an upward and intrusive trend. The U.S has set specific goals for itself in West Asia, the most important of which are Iran's influence, Israel's security, ensuring the free flow of oil, the trade in arms and arms sales, and China and Russia. Achieving such goals naturally requires the use of pivotal strategies that provide the basis for achieving the desired and optimal results. Strategies such as networking, alliances and coalition buildings with Arab allies, supra-regional balancing, the formation of the Arab NATO, Open Doors strategy in war, baiting, adding fuel to the fire, disintegration and conquest are the most prominent issues for the political and security elites of this country. The basis of all these strategies is several issues: one is that costly wars that damage the American economy and the image, on the other hand, the presence of this country will be smarter and the use of mobile naval forces as well as the use of the drone industry has become more important compared to deployed infantry. Threats to the economy including potential instability and challenges to energy exports as well as threats to the regime's military bases have not been exacerbated, but a more qualitative and cost-effective presence has emerged in recent years. Qualitative presence of this country is done in the form of utilization of the drone industry and rapid reaction forces, and cost-effective presence is also applied in the form of partial security and transfer of responsibility to allies such as Saudi Arabia and the UAE. The United States seeks to place the burden of security costs on its traditional allies and to intervene directly only when its vital interests are at stake.

The perception of the U.S withdrawal from the Middle East is an exaggerated fact, but the U.S influence in the region is certainly declining. Just as Eastern Europe is important for Russian Federation, East Asia is politically, security-wise, and economically important for China, West Asia is a strategic region for the U.S. However, there is a dichotomy over the U.S foreign policy in West Asia over whether to stay in or leave the region. Some argue that threats to the U.S interests are stronger today than ever, and this requires an increased the U.S presence, while others argue that over-investment by the U.S in the region has had devastating consequences, so it is first necessary to reduce the level of presence, and given the country's independence from regional energy, it should withdraw in the long run and focus more on controlling China. It must be said, however, that the U.S Middle East policy will not undergo a complete transformation in the future, and that the issue of the U.S withdrawal from West Asia will be ruled out. The strategic importance of West Asia and the field evidence do not support this claim; Statements such as the dangerous behavior of rivals and enemies, the security of Israel, the defense of Arab allies, the serious challenge of great powers such as China and Russia, energy security and the control of energy export corridors and maritime trade have caused the claim of the U.S withdrawal from West Asia not be documented with field facts in the current situation.

Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei (the Supreme Leader) in the dispute over the Islamic Republic of Iran's peaceful nuclear program and the long-term diplomatic engagement with the West, which eventually led to the formation of the so-called Borjam nuclear deal. They played an effective and decisive leadership role. The present study seeks to answer the main question, on what basis did the Supreme Leader of the Revolution manage the conflict over Iran's nuclear program and the processes leading to the nuclear deal - Borjam - and the so-called post-Borjam period? The hypothesis that has been tested in answer to this question is that His Holiness has guided the above process by combining the two models of hard leadership and soft leadership in the form of a new model of intelligent leadership style. He has implemented this process in two ways: institutional-structural (hard) and non-institutional (soft). The findings of the article show that institutional-structural management has been implemented through the Islamic Consultative Assembly, the Supreme National Security Council, the formation of the Borjam Supervision Team, and military institutions. The non-institutional management model also emphasizes the fundamental role of the people, avoiding excesses in the UN Security Council, clarifying the nature of the other side, encouraging negotiations, inviting national unity, emphasizing the need to fully lift sanctions, adopting strategic rationality and Ongoing monitoring of the other side's movements, resolving internal strategic weaknesses, determining the mission of the government and the negotiating team, and requiring the continuation of the nuclear industry have been implemented.

The invasion of the Arab-Western coalition (centered on Saudi Arabia) has made the Yemeni scene one of the most complex crises in the West Asian region. The final outcome of the Yemeni crisis, while having a significant impact on shaping the security order in the future of the West Asian region, will also determine the country's position in the future equations of the region. The main feature of this crisis is the multiplicity of actors involved and the conflict of stakeholders' demands.With due attention to the strategic position of Yemen in regional and world politics and the possession of the Bab el-Mandeb Strait, each of the actors is trying to steer Yemen in the direction of its desired scenarios. In fact, each of the influential actors in Yemen, based on their interests and values, considers a favorable situation (scenario) for Yemen, while this scenario can be considered for the other actor an unfavorable and threatening scenario. The present study seeks to answer the questions: What are the main uncertainties of the Yemeni crisis? And with regards to the uncertainties of the Yemeni crisis, what scenarios can be imagined for the Yemen's position in the future equations of the West Asian region? To answer this question, the scenario building method and the critical uncertainty approach have been used.Havingidentified the uncertainties based on the opinions of experts, from their interaction, four scenarios, which are the isolation of Yemen in the regional equations, the alliance with the Eastern-Islamic Front (enhancing Yemen's position in the regional equations), the alliance with the Salafi-Western Front (weakened and trusteeshipYemen) and strong Yemen (independent of the intervention of regional and supra-regional actors) have been presented.

In the new age of politics, culture and citizenship influenced by new media play a prominent role in the emergence of events.Traditional paradigms have generally been regarded by governments as major actors in the field of inter-nation relations, but in the modern era and in the cultural policy paradigm,by means of the media, the citizens theirelves act as an active participant in all everyday issues in the national and global arenas.The theoretical and practical foundations of the cultural belief paradigm are such that the functioning of the mass media has evolved more than any period in the history of their emersion.In this paradigm,cultural politics is signifying practices through which identities,relationships,and social rules are reinforced,transformed,or redefined. The present study,using the documentary-library method,seeks to answer the question of what are the cultural effects of modern media on the meaning and practice of new social movements? The research findings show that the media,in the age of the cultural policy paradigm,while changing and revolving around the citizens'cognitive foundations,has made public and universal issues a top priority and with decentralization of power and an increasing influence on the functioning of the political system and decision-makers,Citizens are more prominent in the political and social scene.

Syria and Yemen are now active focal points of unrest in the West Asian region, and Iran and Saudi Arabia are the most prominent actors in the crisis. An important issue for understanding and managing these two models. The country is in control of developments. The present study seeks to answer the question of how the crisis in Iran and Saudi Arabia is perceived in terms of the crisis in Syria and Yemen and how they have managed the developments in these countries. The region is Iran's influence and Yemen is Saudi Arabia's backyard, so according to the three main components of the crisis, namely threat, time and awareness, the two countries differ in their perceptions of these crises. Iran is in an acute and threatening situation at point 'A', but the Yemeni crisis is due to the geographical distance from the direct line. The axis of resistance and the lower threat level for Iran is at the "C" point of the cube. On the other hand, Saudi Arabia considers the Syrian crisis an opportunity, so it is at the "C" point, the Yemeni crisis One of the most acute and threatening issues for Saudi Arabia is at point "A". Research findings indicate that Saudi Arabia and Iran's foreign policy is in sharp conflict with the Syrian and Yemeni crises; .

The crises of Syria (in the Middle East region) and Ukraine (in Eastern Europe), which began with some internal, regional and global issues, have continued to threaten the interests of stakeholders such as the Russian Federation. There are many theoretical models for analyzing crises and how the reactions and reactions of stakeholder stakeholders and stakeholders are presented. The crisis model is one of the important theoretical models in this relation. The action and reaction of actors during the crisis stemmed from their perception of the severity of the defeat of the three elements. It should also be noted that actors often face three types of software, hardware, and intelligence management in crisis situations in order to control risky conditions and to deal with destabilizing elements. Russia is not averse to taking clever measures and avoiding a passive approach to manage the upheaval of Syria and Ukraine, as the length of the conflicts imposes more damages on Russia than anything else. It is worth noting that one of the important reasons that the author choose Russian Federation as a case study is its interest and influence in both crises, as well as many aspects of social-cultural contexts, political structure. The economic and geographic location of the two countries has been struck by the crisis, and there are some interesting and remarkable similarities about the bases and reasons for the onset and continuation of the crises. This paper is intended to find an answer this question that “How did the Russian Federation perceive the crises in Syria and Ukraine and how did it manage its transformation, according to the model of the crisis cube?
 

The research method is descriptive-analytic and it is a fundamental in terms of its nature. The method of data gathering is based upon library studies and the use of books, articles and online resources.

Considering the reasons for Syria's importance in political, security, military and economic areas and the occurrence of a crisis in Syria shows that perceptions of the Russian authorities are based on three indicators of the severity of the threat, the amount of time and the level of consciousness. Evidences suggest that in Syrian crisis, given that there was enough time available to the Kremlin decision makers which pave the way for engagement in bureaucratic and advisory actions, and because the threat is mild and with sufficient time to make decisions, bureaucratic actions have been turned up and many plans have been chosen to choose the best strategy, but due to the lack of detailed information about the plans and strategic options of the rivals of the time, the place and the type of possible actions of the enemies, the level of uncertainty Russian strategy has not been comprehensive.

The research findings shows that the perception of the authorities of the country was seriously threatened by the crisis as a result of the Ukrainian crisis in the strategic depth and the Russian Federation's secretion, hence the following high-risk crises or at the point A of the Cube on the other hand, the Russians face a lot of pressure for practical action, and the element of strategic surprise has put them under pressure. However, according to the Russian authorities, the Syrian crisis is in the midst of crises and stagnation, or at the C-point, and there is no direct threat to the vital values ​​of Russia, so there is little threat, and this is due to the presence of terrorist elements in the autonomous states of Chechnya and Dagestan, as well as fears from collapse of the balance of power in the Middle East. On the other hand, there is a great deal of opportunity for the Russian authorities and political authorities. Russia has placed a major emphasis on crisis intelligence management with the priority of leveraging hardware and software in crises such as Ukraine, so the scope of Russian actions is prioritized including using an invasive military force, an energy weapon, diplomatic political mechanisms (Geneva one and two, Minsk one and two, and Normandy four) and the media. On the other hand, in the Syrian crisis, due to the fact that there is no direct threat to the Russian land and is outside the country's security loop, it has made the crisis intelligent management model more effective, with a focus on the use of soft, optimal and less costly mechanisms. Hence, the line of Russia's actions in the Syrian crisis has been prioritized, with the urgency of aggressive behavior from diplomatic politicos, the ban on the Tunis Summit, the ban on the Paris Summit, the active participation in the Summit of Astana and Sochi, the alliance and coalition, financial and economic assistance, and information, military support Weapons and media are stretched.

The most prominent and important task of those in charge of the military-security sector of a country is to select and apply the desired strategy in order to give objectivity to border-territorial security.Iran is in the midst of crisis-ridden and challenging West Asia, and its western regions have long been threatened with existential and lasting threats.In addition to deploying experienced military-intelligence units in the border areas, Iranian political-defense decision-makers see the adoption of an extraterritorial strategy to keep threats from international borders as a leverage whose absence makes it difficult to ensure security in such a crisis-ridden region.The main question of the research is what is the position of the extraterritorial deterrence strategy in the system of Iran's defense-security policy in the West Asian region. Iran's foreign policy strategy has four layers of defense in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, and Yemen. In this strategy, the Quds Force has formed the axis of the network, and Hezbollah of Lebanon, Hashd al-Shaabi, Ansarullah, the Fatimid Brigade and Zeinabion have formed the network's linksThis strategy is not aggressive in nature, but aims to create a kind of deterrent and defensive system to deal with threatening resources.The research findings show that the desired consequences of the extraterritorial deterrence strategy, such as countering the threat of terrorism, asymmetric balance against enemies such as the United States and Israel, strengthening strategic depth, and ultimately maintaining territorial security, have caused it to have an important position in Iran's foreign policy.Iran has a very important position.

The developments in Yemen have become one of the most complex crises in the strategic region of West Asia due to the intervention of various actors, and therefore, reaching a point of equilibrium will be a long-term process. In the current situation, none of the actors intend to moderate their basic interests. Futuristic research on the crisis is a priority and important issue. The aim of the present study is to answer the question of what are the future scenarios of the Yemeni crisis?

Due to the multiplicity of actors and their different interests, the method of analyzing actors and explaining their interests will be suitable for presenting possible, probable and desirable scenarios. The study also used an expert panel and a Delphi interview.

The study shows that seven scenarios can be counted for the future of the crisis: periodic crisis (a situation between fire and war), the end of the crisis and the formation of a strong central government (the best possible situation), the continuation of the war and the disintegration of Yemen (worst case scenario), federalism and division Yemen's climate system, Ansarullah's superiority, the formation of a government and the failure of the Hebrew-Arab-Western coalition, the superiority of the Hebrew-Arab-Western front, and finally the defeat of Ansarullah and Lebanonization.

The main actors in the Yemeni crisis, including Iran, Ansarullah, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Israel, the United States, Russia, China, Britain and France, each considers one of the mentioned scenarios to be desirable/undesirable according to the interests and goals they have set for themselves. Therefore, the efforts of all actors are to direct the crisis towards their desired scenario.

The Syrian crisis has threatened the interests of the Russian Federation more than any other transregional actor; therefore, to protect its interests in the strategic region of the Middle East and the Mediterranean subsystem, it has sought to manage the developments. The central question of the research is what are the characteristics of the Russian model of crisis management in Syria? To answer this question, Charles Hermann’s Crisis Cube theoretical model and the three components of “threat”, “time”, and “awareness” have been used. The crisis has left Russia with a choice between three management models: peaceful and software, coercive and aggressive, and intelligent management. In the Syrian crisis, the threat to Russia's core values is insignificant and on the other hand, there is plenty of time to respond to threats, and of course, there is a lack of awareness of the events and where they occur; hence, according to the Crisis Cube model, the Russian Federation's interpretation of the developments in Syria is that the crisis is slow, so there is no urgency for aggressive and coercive actions. The findings show that the Russian officials, based on the type of inference and interpretation of the three main characteristics of the Crisis Cube, concluded that the model of intelligent crisis management with the priority of using software levers will bring about better results for them. This research has been done qualitatively using a descriptive-analytical approach and the method of data collection has been documentary-library method.

In the post-Cold War space, the geopolitical and practical model of US political and security officials has been formulated that there should be no room for the emergence of potential threats. Therefore, geopolitical discourse as a major tool in US foreign policy has become a reality, and Americans have labeled "political Islam" as a symbol of terrorism. In this regard, US geopolitical discourse was implemented by activating a pre-emptive war strategy to realize geopolitical interests: interventionism, counterterrorism, unilateralism, and ideological conflict, which can be referred to as geoterrorism strategy. . To put it another way, new post-Cold War semantic and discourse forms were introduced by the United States to antagonize and alienate them, which apparently put the fight against violence and terrorism at the forefront of its global geopolitical agenda. So the main question of this study is what is the relationship between geoterrorism and the US counterterrorism discourse in the post-Cold War order? The research hypothesis is that: "Geoterrorism is the bedrock of the discourse and the basis of US strategic policy in the post-Cold War space through which it fights against fundamentalist terrorism and the enemy of Western civilization (Islam) as its ideological counterpart after the fall of the Soviet Union. It has sought to fulfill its strategic demands, especially in the West Asian region."

The analytical and critical recognition of the place of Jihad's component in ISIS's intellectual and political behavior form the core of the paper. It has been attempted to answer the fundamental question based on the qualitative methodology of historical analysis and documentation and the means of pinpointing which component of jihad is in ISIS's intellectual and political behavior. The findings of the paper show that such as denial of defensive jihad and the emphasis on Jihad Fatah, placing jihad under the principles of religion, customary and individualizing jihad, expanding the scope of jihad inclusion, ignoring the rules of Jihad and emphasizing on total violence and new innovations in Jihad, such as jihad marriage, medicine, children, and cyber-media jihad constitute the basic components of the Islamic State's view of jihad. From the perspective of ISIL, jihad has become conceptualized and used as an instrumental means, and the result of their false and distorted religious views has been manifested in the form of a heinous and brutal act.

Yemen is now one of the critical centers of activity in Western Asia, and has launched many actors at the local, regional and transnational levels with a view to achieving the desired conclusion during the developments. An important issue regarding the developments in Yemen is the question of the roots of the emergence and continuation of this crisis and the main strategies and main reasons for the intervention of various actors. The present research seeks to answer this question from a critical geopolitical point of view, what are the main causes of the intervention of regional and transnational activists in the Yemeni crisis? The research hypothesis is that Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have looked at the strategic areas of Yemen such as Iran, the United States, China, and Israel, have acted in the wake of the importance of the Strait of Bab-el-Mandeb, the Gulf of Aden and other strategic Yemeni ports. Research findings suggest that the Yemeni crisis is more than the result of an ideological disagreement between the Houthis and SUnited States indirectly aim to dominate the strategic sectors of Yemen, reduce their dependence on the Strait of Hormuz, control the Strait, control the ports of Aden, Mukalla, Mocha, Al Hudaydah and Mion Island, Socotra, Zuqar and Hanish. On the other hand, stakeholders such as Iran and China have taken the strategy of undermining the goals of the invading countries. The research is descriptive and analytical, and the data collection method is also a library document.

]
The Personal liberty Right is not an absolute Rights. The ICCPR and The Iran and Afghanistan Law’s are Recognized Liberty as a Principle throughout of the Criminal Proceedings. and Ruled to Deprive of Liberty is and Exception as the Last Resort by According Law Unless the Period of Time should be Appropriate Short and with Sufficient Guarantee.
As Article 9 of the ICCPR permitted the Deprive Liberty of Suspect by Law. Human Rights Committee(HRC) are Required Member States to Obey the International Fair Trial Standards. The Afghan Legal System Considered; Suspect the Person who is in the Authority of Law Enforcement Officers and The Legla Conditions of Deprivetion Liberty In Afghanistan Criminal Procedure Code has been Limited to Important Evdent Crimes.
But In Iran legal System that Person Considered Accused and Law Enforcement Officers have Authority to Deprived the Accused Librty in the Police Detintion Center for a Maximum of 24 Hours into Evident and non-Obvious Crimes, whether Impotant or not Important.While According to the International Fair Trial Standard, For minor Cases the Law Enforcement Officers may impose suitable Non-Custodial Measures, as Appropriate.

Today, regionalism is one of the requirements of foreign policy and shape according to the surrounding areas andSpecific potential of each country, the government towards regional strategies to specific guidelines. Countries are trying to use the regional role and capacities available, to increase their international power increase. Iran and Turkey as two important countries in the Middle East region in terms of certain conditions that are always looking to increase its regional role. Accordingly, the question of this study is that developments in Syria and Iraq, Iran and Turkey have what effect on regionalism? Based on these findings, opportunities, political, economic, ideological, economic and security challenges and strengthen regional policy of the Islamic Republic of Iran and Turkey following the developments in the region.It is worth noting that the thesis of the Copenhagen School regional security challenges and opportunities in the form of three interdependent components: security inte Definitions of interdependent . This research using descriptive analysis and data collection as well as a library of document.

One of the objectives of the trial procedures in the criminal law is observing the citizen’s rights and freedom and providing the accused persons whit defending rights and to achieve a judgment , it looks necessary for the investigator to be independent from being chased by the prosecutor , however based on the article 92 of criminal law (2013) , approved in 1392 , the prosecutor is allowed to do the preliminary investigations ; including gathering information against the accused , issuance of the accused also commenting about the accused whether he is the guilty or innocence , along with being the responsible for pursuing and performing public litigation against the accused . So the prosecutor’s authority on doing preliminary investigations sometimes looks predominant while , based on the justly trial principles , like the equality of the opponent parties , the neutrality of the judge , disowning security and freedom , it necessitates the independency of the

Across six different streams of the literature (i.e., HRM; I/O psychology; educational psychology; vocational psychology; positive psychology; social psychology) we identify a number of discrepancies (i.e., between practitioner and academic interest; between talent management discourse and practice), theoretical perspectives (i.e., talent as capital; talent as individual difference; talent as giftedness; talent as identity; talent as strength; and talent as the perception of talent), tensions (i.e., object–subject; inclusive–exclusive; innate–acquired; input–output; transferable–context-dependent), and assumptions (i.e., about intuition versus data; about the effects of being labeled ‘talented’; about the effects of differential treatment) which we argue can serve as a basis for theory building, methodological advances, and new empirical work. With this review, we hope to join a growing group of talent management scholars pushing to make the transition from a growing into a mature field of study, characterized by widely accepted theoretical frameworks and research designs, and supported by the scholarly community.

India and China, as two great Asian powers, are going to gain dominance over their surrounding regions to secure their hegemony throughout all Asia. It has led the two states towards a fundamental competition in Asia, and has led to the formation of a series of economic and military tensions between them and in Asia. However, in their hegemonic approaches, the two countries have selected the south and southeast of Asia as their main priorities and are trying to gain control over them, as their surrounding regions. The strategic view of the two states to these regions has resulted in their severe competitions mainly in economic and political terms. The present study is going to show that India and China, as two great powers, are struggling to gain dominance over the south and southeast of Asia as a prelude to their further hegemony and dominance over the whole Asia; therefore, it is imperative for the statesmen and decision-makers of Islamic Republic of Iran to be well aware of these international realities and be able to develop an appropriate political orientation towards China and India, as two states contending for gaining hegemony over Asia. The question of this study is “how have the economic and military components affected competitions between India and China in the south and southeast of Asia?”
Research This study has used an analytic method. Accordingly, the authors compare and analyze the relations between the economic and military components and the hegemonic component to show what relationship exists between these components and the hegemonic competition of China and India in the south and southeast of Asia. Data analysis is also qualitative and the research hypothesis is analyzed according to empirical indicators and logical reasoning.
During recent decades, an interminable cycle of economic and military competitions has occurred between China and India in their regions. The Indians are, first of all, trying to gain control over the South Asian region, and continue to extend the scope of their dominance to China’s backyard – the southeast of Asia and China’s South Sea. The Chinese are also trying to both preserve their status in the South Sea and the southeast of Asia and develop their sea communications with South Asian states; in this way, they are going to challenge the presence of the Chinese in this geographical area.
Before the 1990s, India had overlooked the importance of communicating with the southeast of Asia, and the free-trade and market-economy-based communications had no place in the foreign-policy priorities of this state. Compared to India, Southeast Asian states were much less economically developed in the 1960s and were regarded as an unattractive area for economic planning and cooperation. The economic priorities of India’s foreign policy in those days were also supporting its own industries. As for Indians, the Chinese are focusing their attention towards the south and southeast of Asia and are looking at this geographical location as a strategic and specific economic zone. In fact, China’s extraordinary progress in the southeast of Asia are a result of its economic developments. In 2000, Philippines’ former President had expressly maintained that he thinks “China is going to overcome Asia.” (Kang and Cha, 2010: 88-89)
China and India’s efforts in developing their Asian hegemonies have instigated military competitions between them in the south and southeast of Asia. Both states are going to have military dominance over the region and, through this means, attain some of their hegemonic goals. China’s dominance over the south and southeast of Asia is a major cause of India’s concerns in the region. In China’s approach also, its military dominance over the south and southeast of Asia – especially its dominance over its own backyard, i.e. the Southeastern Asia and China’s South Sea – has a special place. After its successful economic reforms and turning into a great economic power, China has prioritized its military power and dominance over its neighbors.
India and China were under the spell of the socialist ideology during the Cold War, and thus they were engaged in the games of the two powers: the US and the USSR. End of the Cold War let the Chinese and Indian politicians to freely choose their development strategy and try to increase their power and influence in Asia. In 1979, China initiated its economic reforms and India started it one decade later. These reforms empowered the two states so much so that in the beginning of the twentieth century, both countries reached a considerable degree of economic growth and development. Increase in their economic power called for similar developments in the two countries’ military capacities; therefore, the two states tried to mobilize their military resources according to their economic capacities, so that by 2012 they came to become two large military powers of the world. In fact, developments in their internal capacities have inclined the two states towards trying to gain hegemony in Asia and have brought about a wave of competitions in various geographical zones in Asia. Not only are the competitions in economic and military fields between India and China increasing within their national borders, the hegemonic competition between them has also gone beyond the two countries to include the whole Asia. South Asia and Southeast Asia are backyards for India and China respectively which should be far from the influence of their competitors and remain safe from their ambitious goals. Both countries are trying to enter these areas into a free-trade zone as well as preserving their military superiority. Accordingly, India and China have been signing economic and defence treaties with the countries of the region. In this situation, with the continuation of current trends, one can expect to see a surge in competitions over economic resources and markets, as well as an increase in military competitions between the two continental powers of Asia. This will not only influence the political and diplomatic relations of the two states, but will considerably affect their relations with the countries in the south and southeast of Asia. Therefore, increased competitions in political, economic and military terms between India and China, both on the borders and in their surrounding regions, can instigate future insecurities in Asia.

Russia has tried to conceptualize its buffer zone as near abroad in post-Soviet era. Ukraine has am important position among the countries of this region because of numerous cultural and historical affinities. Therefore the security and political issues of this scope are important for Russian Federation. In 2013, Ukraine has faced to an erosive crisis and this issue has incited Russia to harsh reaction in order to manage the crisis automatically and immediately. The article intends to answer this question that how and by which tools and technics, Russia has managed the Ukraine crisis. The hypothesis is that based on Russia approach to international crisis management, crisis occurrence in near abroad usually followed by Russian military reaction. The results indicates that due to the geo-economics, geostrategic and geopolitical importance of Ukraine, Russia mange the Ukraine crisis by using hardware tools collection including military invasion of Crimea, dispatching army troops to the east of Ukraine, delivery loads of super heavy war equipment to oppositions and supplementary software tools such as holding political-diplomatic meetings, imposing energy sanction against European competitors and adopting advertising actions.

Sometimes using the concepts of science could be helpful in understanding political relations and international researchers. One of the conceptual interest in the geopolitical system is used, is the concept of "code" and "genome" in geopolitics. Geopolitical genome, the genetic map of each country's that affects domestic and especially foreign policy of the countries. Countries consider genomes of other actors as geopolitical codes. Interaction or confrontation of Code / genome of countries creates an atmosphere that can be aligned or inconsistent with national and regional interests. The authors of this paper attempt to identify factors affecting geopolitics of Iran and Saudi Arabia. To answer the question of "what impacts geopolitical tool in foreign policy with Iran and Saudi Arabia? The hypothesis of the paper is that the geopolitical genome and the heritability and geographic features of Saudi Arabia and the Islamic Republic of Iran are very influential in the formation of geopolitical codes, orientations and strategies of the two countries in the external arena, and both actors are trying to turn off its negative gene and power generating forces and activating the positive and powerful genes, while the geopolitical approach dominates the relationship between the two actors.

n this article understanding the cioncept of talent is examined. Also, many executed talent management ‎methods are examined and the opinions of 178 managers in Chinese and Indian companies - except Human ‎Resources managers -in relation to possible talent management challenges are studied. This article shows the ‎centrality of material values in the evolution of the developing employment relationships in both countries. ‎The findings show different needs for creating for human resources institute in both countries and also show ‎the need for accepting more special iewpoints (in opposition to the universal viewpoint) in order to present ‎and use talent management in international sense.‎