جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه « legitimacy » در نشریات گروه « علوم انسانی »

Failure to achieve the expected goals and consequences in the social society turns the issue of seeking the law and evasion of the law into a complex social issue influenced by legal and historical aspects. In this article, the tension between religious order and international law with regard to the application of religious sovereignty through the supervisory body of the Guardian Council and by using Weber's theory of religion and rights was shown in order to determine to what extent the political system can resolve this tension with the right of protection. Shariah supervision has been agreed upon. The findings show that there is a serious conflict between the rule of Sharia and modern laws in international law, on the one hand, the issue of the priority of government rulings over Sharia rulings has been a pretext for the expedient application of domestic and international laws, and on the other hand, the number of international treaties that despite being contradictory to the Shari'ah have been approved according to the needs of the day are not few. As a result, the function of Sharia supervision of the Guardian Council as an institution that legitimizes laws cannot be seen as effective, because this institution has caused the politicization of social and cultural rights by interfering with religious considerations on laws instead of benefiting from collective wisdom.

The goal of developing ethical values in the organization is to improve the ethical behavior of organizational employees; Ethical behavior occurs when the defined values can remove the obstacles to ethical behavior in the organization. Therefore, the aim of the current research is to present a model of legitimacy with an emphasis on the components of the ethical behavior of human resources (managers and employees) from the point of view of the stakeholders.

In the present study, a mixed-exploratory method was used. In the qualitative part of the statistical community of the research, there were university experts in the field of human resource management, 40 of whom were selected as a sample using the purposeful sampling method. The interview tool was semi-structured and the data was analyzed by coding method. In the quantitative part of the statistical population, there were managers and employees of human resources management, and 327 people were selected as a sample by random sampling. A questionnaire was used to collect information. Confirmatory factor analysis method and Amos software were used to analyze and measure and fit the models.

The findings of the present research can be divided into the two levels of ethical behavior of employees and ethical behavior of managers. The type of ethical behavior of managers can also be classified into two areas, which includes the ethical behavior of employees in 3 areas, 11 components and 34 sub-components. Ethical behavior of managers can be classified in two areas, 7 components and 30 sub-components. The factor loading of the items was calculated and considering that the factor loading of all the items was estimated to be higher than 0.3, the research model was approved.

The results of this study indicated that the task-oriented ethics approach for examining ethics and ethical behavior in organizations has a suitable theoretical framework and can correctly explain the ethical behavior of human resources.

The present study aims to structure the history of the eras of political theology in the period of the Islamic Republic, with an emphasis on the Qom Seminary. The research is based on the hypothesis that the historical periods of political theology can be observed within the general history of theological knowledge, divided into four main periods with possible sub-periods: from 1922 (the establishment of the Qom Seminary) to 1981, from 1981 to 1989, from 1989 to 2005, and from 2005 to the present. In the contemporary era, these periods have been heavily influenced by both subjective and objective transformations associated with the emergence of modernity. Since its inception, the Islamic Republic has played a pivotal role in political theological transformations, both actively and reactively. The evolution and comparison of these periods can be traced in two domains: the evolution of contested subjects and the evolution of political movements in relation to these contested subjects. In the evolution of contested subjects, certain topics have remained under discussion and theological debate across all four periods examined in the research, such as the role of the people in the legitimacy of government and the concept of the Guardianship of the Islamic Jurist (Velayat-e Faqih). Some subjects have been prominent in three periods, like the notion of freedom in Islam, which is discussed in the first, third, and fourth periods. Other topics have been contested in one or two periods, such as human rights, which received special attention in one period, although it is also noted in the subsequent period without the same intensity. The political dimensions of monotheism have unique literature primarily in the foundational period.

Today, stock markets are considered the pulse of the global economy. However, even minor disruptions can lead to turmoil in these markets and result in the movement of vast amounts of money and credit. Therefore, the use of various financial instruments to reduce and manage risk can play a crucial role in enhancing the efficiency of capital markets. One of the most important financial instruments for risk reduction and boosting capital markets is "options." Options were first officially and systematically used in the Chicago Stock Exchange and later adopted by most major and advanced exchanges worldwide. Given the legal and jurisprudential feasibility of these instruments within the framework of option contracts, examining the present contract is of particular importance. Although clarifying the legal nature of option contracts alleviates some concerns about their illegitimacy and thus their invalidity, it is not sufficient on its own for justification. Accordingly, this paper not only elucidates the legal nature of the mentioned contract but also critiques the viewpoints of those who argue for its invalidity, such as the belief that it is akin to gambling. Ultimately, we conclude that the contract is legitimate. Furthermore, we examine options within common law and find that, in English and American law, option contracts are viewed as conditional contracts and irrevocable offers. Options function as irrevocable offers based on the consent of both parties and become binding once accepted by one of the parties within the specified timeframe.

Every government needs authority in addition to force and power for its survival. Legitimacy is the guarantor of the government's authority and legitimizes the right to command and forbid the rulers and the necessity of obeying them. Relying solely on military power, without the support of legitimacy, is not possible in the long term. The political systems that rule Iran have also relied on the support of legitimacy and have relied on reasons to legitimize and justify their rule and rule. This article seeks to analyze the developments of legitimacy, find its turning points and the similarities and differences in the perception of legitimacy in Iranian governments from the Achaemenid Empire to the Islamic Revolution. Therefore, by referring to historical documents and using the method of qualitative content analysis, the main changes in the legitimacy of the political system and its ups and downs in Iran from the ancient period until now will be expressed. In the end, it becomes clear that the governments ruling Iran from the ancient times to the Islamic revolution - except for the Pahlavi dynasty - have relied on the divine theory of legitimacy, and despite all their differences, they have this in common.

The article proposes a transpersonal explanatory approach to explore the relationship between Muslim rulers and scholars of natural sciences in Islamic centuries in Iran. It emphasizes that legitimacy plays a central role in this relationship. This legitimacy serves as a structural framework for explaining the supportive relationship between rulers and scholars of non-religious sciences.   An analysis of the admonition literature from the Islamic era until the Mongol invasion reveals that the acquisition of knowledge, the support of scientists, and the promotion of science were considered essential moral virtues for those in power. These virtues were rooted in the Islamic worldview, where truth, ability, and knowledge were deeply intertwined. As a result, learning and supporting science not only became a moral obligation but also helped elevate the social and political standing of both scholars and rulers.   Thus, in Islamic political ethics, supporting science was seen as a virtue that strengthened the legitimacy of rulers, both among elites and the general populace. Muslim rulers supported the natural sciences and their scholars, viewing them as "beneficial and noble," sometimes in competition with religious (Sharia) sciences. This relationship between science and political legitimacy played a key role in shaping the cultural and intellectual landscape of the time.

Hossein Qoli Khan, Bakhtiari boss in the Nasrid era, tried to secure the security of the Bakhtiari areas and gain legitimacy for himself by using various political, police and judicial methods. By interacting properly with the government officials, he upgraded the position of his clan from a threat against the established government to a useful and effective element. Dismantling banditry, securing the roads and creating a simple judicial mechanism to maintain the existing security were among his other effective measures in providing social security. In this regard, the present article with a descriptive-analytical approach and posing the question: what was the effect of the security measures of Hossein Qali Khan Bakhtiari in the Bakhtiari-populated areas in the development of his political legitimacy and the formation of his authority in the opinion of the central government, people and Bakhtiari clans? It explains and analyzes the order and coherence of the region in the light of his security measures. The result of the research shows that the mentioned character, who had reached the position of Khan in the traditional way, was first appointed to the position of Nazmi Bakhtiari and then Ilkhani of all Bakhtiari clans in the light of constructive interaction with the center. While gaining political legitimacy, he institutionalized the power structure of the clan and established different conditions in the contemporary history of the Bakhtiari clan.

Arbitration is one of the important methods of dispute resolution in domestic and international law. The traces of this legal institution can also be found in Imamiyyah jurisprudence, known among jurists as the appointed judge (qadi tahkim). Imamiyyah jurists have resorted to religious evidence from the Quran, Sunnah, and consensus to legitimize arbitration under the title of appointed judge. The present research, using an analytical-descriptive method and library data collection tools, answers the question: What is the basis of arbitration in Imamiyyah jurisprudence? Should the appointed judge have all the conditions of an appointed judge, or is having some conditions of an appointed judge sufficient? The findings of this research show that the majority of jurists, citing verse 35 of Surah An-Nisa, consider the basis of arbitration to be appointment and have considered all conditions of an appointed judge necessary for the appointed judge as well. It should be said that the evidence of the majority of jurists does not have the power to prove all the conditions of an appointed judge, including ijtihad, for the appointed judge.

From the point of view of political science, legitimacy is the basis of consistency and durability in any political system, from the point of view of Islam, it is the source of legitimacy in the age of absence, and based on intellectual and narrative reasons, the right to rule is entrusted to the knowledgeable and competent mujtahid during the absence, legitimacy is one of the issues which has involved thinkers of social sciences and political sciences since ancient times Allameh Misbah and Ayatollah Sistani are among the experts who have expressed their views in this field. Allameh Misbah has fully developed the discussion of appointment and even criticized the theory of selection in detail, while Ayatollah Sistani He has only mentioned the topic in the beginning of his research and has not explained it fully. In this article, these two theories are discussed in a descriptive-analytical way, and the result of this research shows that despite the difference in the basis, both nobles have the same opinion (appointment) regarding the appointment and selection of the velayat faqih.

Today, one of the important issues that are raised in the domestic and international arena of governments is the issue of nationality, and every government tries to determine the nationality issues of its nationals by establishing specific rules. One of the things that can be effective in acquiring the nationality of a country is marriage which, depending on the conditions stipulated concerning it, can lead to either the granting or deprivation of nationality. In this regard, the Iranian legal system has distinguished between men and women and does not have the same view concerning them; while the Turkish legal system, does not recognize such a difference. This research, which is analytical and descriptive, has addressed the issue of nationality, the methods of its acquisition and the effect of marriage on the acquisition and loss of Iranian and Turkish nationality by either husband or wife.According to the statutory articles of these two countries governing the issue of nationality, it can be stated that in the Iranian legal system, the type of marriage and its legitimacy and legality can affect the national status of Iranian men and women and even in certain cases, may lead to deprivation of Iranian nationality from individuals, while the Turkish legal system adopts a different perspective on this matter. The Iranian legislator, while distinguishing between Iranian women and men who marry foreign nationals, has simultaneously accepted the principle of family unity and the principle of individual freedom. In such a way that, with regard to the Iranian woman, if she marries a foreign man whose national law imposes the husband’s nationality on the wife, then the principle of family unity is acknowledged. However, if an Iranian woman marries a foreign man whose national law does not impose the husband's nationality on the wife, then the principle of individual freedom is recognized. For a marriage that affects the nationality of the husband and wife to be valid, Article 1059 of the Civil Code must be observed. If a religious marriage has not been conducted between the man and woman, the nationality of individuals cannot be changed based on the marriage. In the Turkish legal system, merely marrying a Turkish citizen does not automatically grant Turkish citizenship to the individual. However, this person can acquire Turkish citizenship if legal conditions are met, without needing to apply for nationality and fulfilling the necessary requirements based on Article 11 of the Turkish nationality law. In other words, the accepted principle in this country regarding the relationship between husband and wife within the family is the principle of individual freedom and the non-necessity of the unity of nationality for husband and wife.

Replacement, as one of the neglected ways in the field of the revival of endowments, has long been the center of debate among the early and late jurists. Islamic jurisprudents, both popular and Imāmiyyah, have commented on this. In the authoritative sources of jurisprudence and civil law of Iran, in exceptional cases, the sale of the endowment property is allowed, including when the endowment property is damaged or there is a strong dispute between the endowments. The endowment property cannot be bought and sold, and it is not permissible to carry out any legal act that causes the same endowment to be transferred to others, but sometimes there are circumstances and conditions that are necessary to preserve the endowment institution and the interests of the endowment, the sale of the endowment property becomes necessary, therefore, in the reliable sources of jurisprudence and civil law of Iran, in exceptional cases, the exchange of the endowment property is allowed. The present research, which is practical in terms of its purpose and descriptive-analytical in terms of its method, has studied jurisprudence books and examined the opinions of jurisprudents collected, and based on the opinion of the proposed opinions and the rights, it comes to the conclusion that the replacement of the endowment property despite the opinion Some opponents believe that it is possible to revive endowments under certain conditions, and it can be inferred that the source of the argument for not replacing endowment property by jurists was due to the establishment of a tyrannical government, and currently such a category has no relevance. And it is possible to use them optimally by accepting substitution.

 Two of the most important philosophers who rejected the originality of modernity from a theological perspective, Karl Schmidt and Karl Levitt, benefited from the concept of secularisation in their critique. In political theology, Schmitt saw all the concepts of modern state theory as secular versions of theological concepts, and in the sense of history, Levitt saw the philosophy of progress and thus modernity as a grounded narrative of Christian-Jewish eschatology. Hans Blumenberg, first at the Montser Conference and then in a more extended way in The Legitimacy of Modernity, made the concept of secularisation the target of the most severe attacks and considered Levitt's book to have had a "condemnatory effect" on the German intellectual atmosphere of the second half of the 20th century - and especially the 1950s. In a paradoxical way, Blumenberg both defended modernity as an absolutely new beginning in history and saw the philosophy of modern progress as an attempt to answer an essentially theological problem - and in his own words a "residual" problem - that modernity would eventually lose. from that decade onwards, secularisation has generally been regarded as a concept used only in the critique and negation of modernity. To understand Levitt and Blumenberg's discussion, it is necessary to understand these different aspects and Levitt's powerful metaphorical use of it. In this article we will first try to provide some historical background to the concept of secularisation, then explain Levitt's secularisation thesis and Blumenberg's critique, and finally, by extending some of the views of Robert Pippin and Elizabeth Brint, raise critical considerations about the basis of Blumenberg's critique.

This article uses a descriptive, analytical and inferential approach to examine the issue of secularization: the dispute between Karl Levitt and Hans Blumenberg over the legitimacy of modernity. The article will first provide a historical background to the concept of secularization, then explain Levitt's secularization thesis and Blumenberg's critique, and finally, by extending some of the views of Robert Pippin and Elizabeth Brint, raise critical considerations about the basis of Blumenberg's critique.

two main findings of the article are the following:1 unsurpassiblity of Tradition in west
 As we will see, both the critics of the modern age, löwith and Schmidt, and the sole defender of the atuthencity of modernity, Hans Blumnbebrg, admit that the elemnts of the western tradition, Greco-Roman and Judaic-Christian ones, can not be surpassed. For example, even Blumenberg claims the modernity becomes unthinkable wihouth Chtirsitniaty.

2 locality of the legitimacy debate:

Following the first finding, if the elements of wsetern tradition are unsurpassable, so logically no universal claim can be made regarding the legtitimacy and the nuances of this debate are restricted to the western world and can have no realtion with e.g Islamic world.

Ananlysis::

Modern age is not an epoch in the strict sense, but a botched construct of reason and faith. First in Müntser Congress and the in an expanded way in the Legitimacy of the Modern Age, Hans Blumenberg attacked the secularization concept in the most severe way and remarked the Löwith's work has had a "dogmatizing effect" on the German intellectual milieu in the second half of the twentieth century and particularly of the 1950s.As has been said, Blumenberg considered the core of the secularisation thesis to be the negation of modernity's originality and self-righteousness. Thus, he made every effort to establish modernity's break with previous ages and to confirm its independence. On the other hand, he wanted to provide an explanation of modernity that would lead to the criticism of the historicists. They argued that no epoch could stand apart from context and time, and that the modern claim to be an absolute beginning in history, with no connection to the past, was a false and mistaken claim. Blumenberg accepted this criticism to some extent, seeing the lack of attention to historicity as one of the defects of modernity, which, according to the popular explanation, stems from Descartes' desire to break free from time and place and to prove the universal truths of mathematics. Blumenberg's clever response to the historicists was to leave their critique half-baked and use it only to reject modernity.

Concussion:

 Bulmenberg defends modernity as a quasi-absolute beginning in history and at the same time treats the philosophy of progress as an effort to answer the authentically theological –and in his own terms as a residue- question which will finally be abandoned by modernity. Following a phenomenological method, which is more devoted to Husserl instead of Heidegger, Blumenberg refused all versions of the secularization thesis as crypto-Platonic statements on modernity which presupposes some transcendent substance and treats all the subsequent forms as the pale copies of it, and therefore divesting all the other ages of authenticity. From the phenomenological-historical standpoint of Blumenberg, neither modernity nor christianity enjoys that so-called zero point of departure. He shows that even the allegedly properties of christianity, e.g. providence, is in fact borrowed ones from stoicism in the almost forgotten formative periods of christianity and presented from the middle ages on as the revelatory cache of christianity to create a façade of a-historicality. Moreover, Blumenbergs suggests that this transcendent substance is not available to theory and hence is an article of faith which cannot be properly examined in a scholarly way. And because of this unavailability, scholarly surveys have already been brought up to close.

In Shia political philosophy in general, the legitimacy of the government depends on the divine appointment, but considering that the influence of the will and opinion of the people in finding the legitimacy of a government can indicate the position of the people in that government, investigating the effect of popular acceptance in legitimizing the government in the beliefs Shia has been important in different eras and can indicate the relationship between Shia political philosophy and concepts such as democracy. Shia jurists have given different opinions about the legitimacy of the government during the absence. The present article, using the descriptive-analytical method and using library sources, has investigated the effect of popular acceptance in the falsification of legitimacy for the government and its continuation from the point of view of Mirza Nayini. Mirzai Nayini does not consider popular acceptance to be effective in falsifying legitimacy for the government because he considers the establishment of the Shura Majlis to be legitimate if this Majlis includes a number of jurists, who have general appointment, or persons authorized by the jurists. But people's acceptance can be considered effective in the continuation of the government's legitimacy; Because he considers it the right of the general public to be consulted and supervise the Majlis Shura. Considering that he considers the issuance of permission to intervene in political affairs for the members of the Shura Assembly to be subject to the existence of conditions in them that their enjoyment of these

Darius III (336-330 BC) is the last Achaemenid king whose reign coincided with the invasion of Alexander the Great. Darius could not stop the Macedonian-Greek army, and finally the Achaemenid dynasty became extinct during this reign. Darius himself, after repeated escapes from Alexander's army, was finally killed by Bessus Satrap Bactria (Balkh) and his Persian supporters. The research method in this research is descriptive, analytical and the use of valid historical sources and references. In this study, it is assumed that Darius made numerous political and military mistakes in confronting Alexander and his army, and instead of resisting to increase the morale of his army, he fled. So it lost its legitimacy among many Persians and they were thinking of a solution. Finally, in order to save the Achaemenid dynasty, Bessus and his allies first dethroned and arrested Darius, and when Darius tried to surrender to Alexander, he was forced to kill him in order to prevent Darius's captivity and the loss of the Achaemenid dynasty. Thus, according to Michel Foucault's cultural theory, Darius, who was initially elected to the kingdom because of his courage and merit, loses his legitimacy with his allies and is killed after numerous escapes in battle.

Islam’s concern with the "past," the central role it assigns itself in the history of the world, and the patterns it adopts from the Bible to document its own history are well-known aspects. This article aims to provide a detailed and precise examination of a specific aspect of Islam's perception of the past, namely the past as a source of legitimacy for authority. This topic has been discussed previously but only within the broader context of other instruments of legitimacy in Islam. Here, we will focus particularly on the Umayyad dynasty's use of the past to legitimize their rule.

The purpose of this study is to identify the link between artificial intelligence and public policy and its role in improving the quality of governance. Using review and comparative method, this paper studies the experience of countries that have used artificial intelligence in policy-making and public service delivery processes, and from this point of view, draw an initial analytical framework that can help explain the role of artificial intelligence in the quality of governance. The results show that artificial intelligence affects the quality of governance from two dimensions: 1) increasing the dynamics and interaction of the public policy cycle in different stages and 2) improving the quality of government services and the efficiency of the administrative apparatus.

The field of human rights studies is shaped by various ideas based on conceptual and theoretical developments. The issue of human rights has been of utmost significance for both Iran and Saudi Arabia in recent decades. Iran and Saudi Arabia, as Islamic nations, have different perspectives on human rights within the international context and the framework of human rights driven by Islamic principles. Such that this can be considered a major factor influencing their relations with each other and with entities such as the United Nations, the Human Rights Council, and national/international powers. Research question: In view of constructivism, what are the effects of human rights policies on governance in Iran and Saudi Arabia? Research hypothesis: The human rights policies and their monitoring mechanisms in Iran and Saudi Arabia have significantly influenced their behavior in adhering to and accepting human rights norms. Therefore, their similarities and differences in this regard can be identified by comparing the state of human rights in these two countries. Findings Research findings indicate that Iran demonstrates a more flexible stance on human rights issues compared to Saudi Arabia, which can be attributed to differences in their government type and civil society structure.

The Safavid era can be divided into two distinct periods. The first extends from the inception of the Safavid dynasty to the 1639 Peace Treaty of Zuhab, while the second period spans from the Peace Treaty of Zuhab to the fall of Isfahan at the hands of Afghans. During the first period, Safavid kings exhibited warlike tendencies, and religious authorities were not allowed to interfere in political matters. However, in the second period, Safavid kings embraced Sharia principles more openly, elevating clerics to top positions in the religious structure. The present research aimed to explore the impact of Sharia tendencies on the Safavid military spirit and army. The study addressed the following question: How did Sharia tendencies and the close relations between Safavid kings and clerics influence military responsibilities and duties?

The formative years of the Safavid state began with the establishment of the Safavid dynasty in 907 A.H. and reached it apex with the demise of Shah Abbas I in 1038 A.H. Throughout this period, the kings were prominently characterized by militarism and bellicose tendencies. The Safavids came out victorious or, at the very least, undefeated in their wars with the Uzbeks and Ottomans—except Shah Ismail’s defeat in the Battle of Ghazdewan and the Battle of Chaldiran. Even the defeat in the Battle of Ghazdewan (918 A.H.) occurred in Shah Ismail’s absence. By sword, the Shah or king could consolidate his godlike power and the authority of the Safavid king as a religious leader—a position embraced by his subjects. Consequently, during the first period (from the beginning to the end of the reign of Shah Abbas I in 1038 A.H.), the Safavid kings proved their legitimacy as religious leaders by relying on battlefield prowess and warfare, establishing themselves as figures with purely religious legitimacy who would staunchly uphold the Sharia. During this period, the clerics yielded to the sultan’s authority and power without dissent.Following the Peace Treaty of Zuhab with the Ottoman Empire in 1049 A.H. and the shift from confrontation to subjugation in dealings with the Uzbeks, the Safavid kings found themselves with ample free time as they withdrew from the battlefield, hence a limited space for engaging in warfare. The reigns of Shah Safi and Shah Abbas II, the two Safavid kings, mark a transition from militarism towards closer relations with clerics. A relationship existed between the decline of warfare and the increasing influence of clerical figures. The first notable change in the transition process was the withdrawal of the kings from participationin battles, ultimately resulting in the Peace Treaty of Zuhab. The king’s participation in wars had bolstered the Safavid authority, with religious leaders yielding to the conquering king. However, Shah Safi would not show any desire for war.Shah Abbas II stood out as the last warrior king, renowned for his ambition and valor in taking extraordinary measures. He was the last king to personally lead the Iranian army and capture Kandahar. Notably, during his reign, following the peace treaty withthe Ottomans and the decreased hostility from the Uzbeks, the number of wars significantly diminished compared to the early Safavid period. Consequently, even a king like Shah Abbas II could not fully demonstrate his royal and martial capabilities in a time characterized by relative peace.

During the first Safavid period, the active involvement of Shah Ismail, Shah Tahmasp, and Shah Abbas I in battles allowed them to assert their authority over military commanders, state officials, and clerics. However, this dynamic shifted following the Peace Treaty of Zuhab in 1049 A.H. and the subsequent withdrawal of kings from the battlefield. The diminished military preparedness along the eastern and western borders resulted in a void in the king’s responsibilities regarding military affairs, thus granting the kings more free time. As the kings withdrew from the battlefield, their relationships with military and state officials underwent transformation. The cessation of battlefield activities necessitated a redefinition of the king’s role and obligations, a process which took place during the long period of peace with the Ottomans. The last Safavid kings, namely Shah Suleiman and Sultan Hussein, openly embraced the Sharia by engaging in dialogue, consultations, and meetings with clerics and religious scholars. This approach resulted in the legitimization of the king and his court in the eyes of clerics and the broader religious community. However, this shift in focus left the kings unbalanced and significantly reduced their military efficacy and performance. Therefore, the king’s attention shifted away from military, political, and governmental duties, leading to neglect of the army, drastic reductions in troop numbers, and a decline in military training. This trajectory persisted for several decades and contributed to the eventual fall of the Safavid dynasty.

Establishing security in Iran is considered as strategic action necessities. Securitycan be considerde as “ strategic action shortfall” of many Middle East countries.Iran is also considered as one of the political entities which through 1970s,has always suffered from the challenge of instability and security shortfall.Under such conditions, it is necessary to pay attention to the mechanisms ofestablishing security in Iran. Moreover, conceptual security includes severalimpressive variables in the field of social and internal and regional policies.Each of the political security indexes is important because it creates “soliderityin the internal structure”. Countries which have unity, soliderity and empathy intheir internal domain, are entitled to have stronger approach and supposition fornational authority. Any poliotical authority can be considerd as part of a socialaction equation which leads to social soliderity and their accompaniment withthe priorities of political structure.The main question of this article is what is the “semiology of political securityin under-transfer Iran and how it can be achieved?” The hypothesis of thisarticle points to the issue that “semiology of political security in under-transferIran” will be achieved through the mechanisms relevant to unity, partnership,authority, social influence, efficiency and efficacy in the process of social crises.In the course of preparing this article, post holy war data analysis and socialobjectivity methodology were utilized.

Since the spread of COVID-19, the United Nations and the World Health Organization have become the focus of global attention. The WHO, in accordance with the International Health Regulations, declared that the disease outbreak aligns with the criteria of public health, identifying COVID-19 as a common global threat. With the widespread dissemination of COVID-19 and the resulting crises, various questions have arisen concerning the legitimacy and performance of the UN system and its capacity to address this global crisis. The present study employs a descriptive-analytical approach to examine the legitimacy of the actions and decisions of the UN and the WHO in confronting the COVID-19 crisis from the establishment of the Public Health Emergency to its resolution. This research seeks to answer the question of whether the UN system possessed the necessary legitimacy to manage and overcome the COVID-19 pandemic. This study argues that throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, despite initial criticisms of the validity of the procedures and actions of the UN and the WHO, there has been widespread support for the necessity and importance of these institutions. This support largely originates from a deep-seated belief in their instrumental legitimacy, emphasizing their essential and irreplaceable purpose. In fact, although the legitimacy of the UN faced challenges in the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic, the continuation of the crisis and the failure of unilateral approaches on one hand, and the performance of the UN and the WHO on the other hand, have led to the reinforcement of their legitimacy.