جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه « United Nations » در نشریات گروه « علوم سیاسی »

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.

According to the "doctrine of the responsibility to protect", every government must protect its population against genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. When a country loses its ability to protect its population against such crimes. This responsibility will be delegated to the international community. Due to the widespread lack of human rights in the Syrian crisis, the international community has considered itself to intervene in this country. However, the international community, especially the United Nations, has not been able to act effectively. Considering the current conditions, this article seeks to answer the question of how the "doctrine of the responsibility to protect" has caused the ineffectiveness of the United Nations in the Syrian crisis. To explain the ineffectiveness of "responsibility to support" in Syria, the deadlock puzzle in game theory has been used. Based on this theory, the interests and political considerations of the great powers in the Security Council as the main mechanism for applying the responsibility of protection have prevented the effective and desirable functioning of the doctrine of the responsibility of protection in the Syrian crisis. The hypothesis of the article is that the lack of specific criteria for the implementation of the responsibility to support on the one hand, and the conflicting and complex interests of the great powers in the Syrian crisis on the other hand have affected the performance of the UN Security Council and it faced inefficiency in the serious test phase in the case of the Syrian crisis.

One of the most severe crisis centers in the South Caucasus is the Nagorno-Karabakh region. The Nagorno-Karabakh crisis, as a fundamental challenge between the two countries of Azerbaijan and Armenia, has led to numerous armed conflicts during the past three decades. Since this crisis has regional and international dimensions, numerous international Unions, Regional Unions, and Regional Countries implemented various efforts and plans, but none of them has resulted in real solutions to create continuous and stable peace in the region. In this article, has been tried based on Clause 1 and other Clauses of the United Nations Charter to establish international peace and security and prevent international conflicts and hostilities as one of the fundamental goals of the United Nations while examining the efforts and measures taken. Above all, the performance of the United Nations and the European Union to stop conflicts in the region and the role of the peacekeeping forces sent to the Karabakh region will be evaluated by this study. In addition, this study will focus on the plans and proposals of organizations and countries in the region.

Ensuring the socio-political rights of citizens is one of the obligations of governments, which is clearly mentioned in the internal laws of countries. But guaranteeing these rights sometimes faces external obstacles. One of these obstacles is unilateral and multilateral sanctions. In spite of the fact that the states imposing sanctions always deny such an effect, but most of the researches conducted in this regard have rejected this proposition. One of the countries that has experienced the longest and most extensive unilateral and multilateral sanctions is Somalia. This article aims to answer the question: what effect did the sanctions have on the socio-political rights of Somali citizens? The hypothesis of the research points out that sanctions affect ordinary citizens more than the political system and its leaders. Therefore, they violate the socio-political rights of Somali citizens. To answer the research question; we used the global indicators of the right to life, the right to health, and the quality of governance during the period of sanctions against Somalia. The gathered data was evaluated with a documentary-descriptive method. The research findings empirically showed that the right to life and the right to health has been severely violated in Somalia during the years of sanctions, and the sanctions have not been able to bring about any improvement in governance indicators in this country. Also, from the theoretical dimension, the findings of other researchers regarding the negative effects of sanctions on human rights were confirmed.

One of the important topics that was raised in diplomatic and academic circles after the Cold War was the discussion of reforms in the UN Security Council. At that time, two general objections were brought to the Security Council: illegitimacy and inefficiency. One of the suggested ways to solve this problem was to increase the number of members and various plans were also presented in this regard. India has been one of the contending countries for permanent membership, and for this purpose, it proposed the "Group of Four" plan. Population, size, democracy, nuclear capability, and effective cooperation with the United Nations have been among the reasons for India's candidacy for a permanent seat in the Security Council. The question of this article is why New Delhi is seeking a permanent seat? The hypothesis of the article, which has been examined in a descriptive-analytical way, is that India is seeking international status by becoming a permanent member of the Security Council. A country that achieves international status is able to take advantage of this status to acquire and exercise power and influence and elevate its position to a position beyond the current rank. The findings of the article showed that the efforts that India has made so far are insufficient and a new strategy is needed to achieve the goal.

The terrorism events of September 11, 2001 were a turning point for the creation of extensive legal developments for the adoption of action regulations against terrorism. It should be noted that the common components in all anti-terrorism strategies and policies were based on expanding the limits of the duties and powers of the national legislative system and reducing their accountability in such a way that some cases related to the tension between individual freedoms and the actions of the national legislative system in European countries. He was taken to the Human Rights Court. Having said that, legislative responses to terrorism, known as "anti-terrorism legislation", confirm the quick response to these measures, which can indicate the level of preparation and activity of governments against this phenomenon. In addition, the aforementioned reactions show that there is no gap between the legislation of a country and the executive branches of that country.In addition, the aforementioned reactions show that there is no gap between the legislation of a country and the executive branches of that country.

Peace and security, development and welfare, human rights, environment, migration, terrorism, and health are now among the transnational challenges that have remained unchecked due to structural and normative problems of the world government system. These challenges have been identified as various cases (e.g., multiplicity of institutions, their poor collaboration and uncoordinated performance, insufficiency of conventional arrangements for transnational management of problems, instability of equilibrium in power, lack of integrity in administration of global governance, anarchic extremity, liberal bias, normative contradictions in execution of human rights, democratic legitimacy and violation, and adaptation to or negligence of global transformations). Due to its unique characteristics, the rights-based world government can integrate, coordinately manage, and develop a hierarchical collaboration system between the relevant activists in order to achieve integrity and unity in structures and procedures. Accordingly, this government is able to manage and tackle the foregoing challenges. This study aims to address a serious question: what major challenges does the global governance face now in the absence of the rights-based world government? Bibliographical references are used in this paper through a descriptive-analytical approach to identify the dimensions of unfavorable global governance and determine the necessity of establishing the rights-based world government to tackle the major challenges to this type of governance.  The research results indicated structural and normative challenges to global governance, something which necessitates the establishment of a universal state to solve these major challenges.

Human rights violations in the Islamic Republic of Iran are one of Iran's main challenges to the international system, and a wide range of human rights issues have been raised in the form of Special Rapporteurs' reports, UN Secretary-General's reports, and UN General Assembly resolutions. Therefore, considering the dominance of neoliberal institutionalism logic over the existing world order, and the central position of the United Nations in the established order, this study uses the method of documentary review, examines human rights claims against the Islamic Republic of Iran and proposes possible scenarios and operational strategies. To overcome the challenge situation, it deals with three levels: short-term, medium-term and long-term. The findings of this study indicate that although some aspects and contexts of the challenge are rooted in discourse elements as well as different metaphorical language of Iranian human rights discourse and the international system, however, there are several ways to minimize human rights tensions between Iran. And there is an international system and while preserving Islamic and Iranian values in the field of human rights, it is possible to prevent human rights claims and create international challenges for the country

Today, sanctions of varying types are employed by one or several states as the most practical means of applying pressure in the international system to protect human rights, fight terrorism, and prevent war, among others. It has always been controversial to investigate sanctions and human rights violations and the associated consequences, particularly the violation of the right to health. This article seeks to answer the question, "What is the international responsibility of states for violations of the right to health resulting from sanctions?" This analysis presumes that sanctions from various aspects, particularly economic ones, result in human rights violations, including the right to health. Building on the proposed hypothesis and legal documents and evidence, this study examines the legal basis and the effects of imposing sanctions on human rights standards, international legal documents, the prohibition of international sanctions, the concept of international responsibility of states in international law, and the foundations of creating international responsibility of states (caused by sanctions).

The findings of the research shows that the United Nations, during its 75-year lifespan, has been able to play an effective role in the performance of governments around the provision of security for the people of the world, especially their Societal security, while laying the groundwork and facilitating the platform for providing services to achieve Societal security., encourage or oblige them to comply with related matters.

The legal regime of military weapons  equipment control refers to the legal stands of states and international organizations on manufacturing, trading, and utilizing weapons. These legal stands can be realized by reviewing the relevant international documents. All of the international documents on the military weapons equipment control seek the common goal of maintaining international peace and security by setting certain regulations to control the production, trade, and use of weapons. However, since there are various theoretical foundations for the military weapons equipment control, international documents differ in the solutions that they offer for this international problem. This study aims to address the views of these theoretical foundations regarding the production, trade, and use of weapons in addition to determining the conflicts in the approaches adopted by the UN and the WTO to the conventional military weapons equipment trade. For this purpose, the authors used a descriptive-analytical method and they also employed a comparison method in some cases. The general research results explained and criticized the existing theoretical foundations for the military weaponry control. The results also emphasized the admirable activity of the UN and the condemnable stand of the WTO with regard to the conventional military weapons equipment trade.

The principle of the rule of law, as one of the modern concepts of international law, is one of the requirements of the international community. Some thinkers, with some ambiguities about it, believe that international law, unlike domestic law, lacks the necessary features to establish this principle. In order to establish the principle of the rule of law in international law, characteristics such as the existence of binding rules, accountability, participation, transparency of rules, guarantee of human rights, etc. are necessary. The present article examines the approaches and capacities of international law in the realization of the rule of law by descriptive-analytical method. Therefore, one of the most important findings of the study is that the rule of law in international law is inextricably linked to human rights and international peace and security, and international support for human rights and the establishment of institutions such as the Security Council And the fight against impunity through the establishment of international criminal authorities indicates the establishment of the principle of the rule of law in international law.

The purpose of this research is examination and analysis of the UN performance in settling the Afghanistan crisis from 1979 to the end of 2021 which has been conducted using the descriptive method based on collecting data through looking into the archived sources of the UN and with the Descriptive-Analytical method. The paper intends to answer the question, How has the UN performance been in solving the Afghanistan crisis? The thesis of the research is indicating that, though the UN as one of the most influential international governmental institutions, has made great efforts to resolve the Afghanistan Crisis using  its main institutions like the Security Council, the General assembly and the General Secretary , and by implementing and executing the legal measures, under the resolutions 6 and 7 of the UN Charter , as well as political measures by the general secretary and his special envoy , and Institution-Building through supervising the execution of the resolutions and measures for settling the Afghanistan crisis , in resolving the crisis in Afghanistan it has not been completely successful. The findings of this research have been examined using the Michael Brecher rules and principles of the analytical model of the international crises, and are indicative of the fact that the UN, despite enjoying high levels of independence and legitimacy on the international level, has not had a successful performance in resolving the Afghanistan crisis, and has acted passively and non-strategically, due to its structural weakness and substantive dependence.

The United Nations is one of the international organizations and the most important organization that consists of all countries of the world and its pillars play a key role in international relations. The Islamic Republic of Iran, like other countries in the world, is a member of this organization. Our country, Iran, as an ancient country and civilization, urgently needs a fundamental re-reading of its relations and attitude towards the United Nations and its pillars. The main purpose of this article is to analyze and recognize the behavior of the foreign policy of the Islamic Republic of Iran towards the United Nations in the period of 1392 (2013) to 1400 (2021); The main question is what was the attitude of the foreign policy of the Islamic Republic of Iran towards the United Nations in the years 1392 to 1400? The researcher tries to reach an appropriate answer to this question with a theoretical approach to defensive realism, and with a descriptive-analytical research method and data collection tools of libraries and Internet sites. The results of the research show that the main problem of Iran's foreign policy towards the United Nations is its sinusoidal nature. And the solution to this problem is that Iran can play a more effective role in the United Nations by changing its sinusoidal foreign policy towards the organization and trying to establish various consultations for its reform.

Some powerful countries, especially the United States, impose unilateral sanctions on other countries, which has nowadays become commonplace in their foreign policy. However, the problem is that although these sanctions are claimed to essentially have certain reasons and justifications, they sometimes face objections and their legality is questioned, contrary to many collective sanctions imposed by the UN Security Council. Hence the main question is, what is the rationale behind the U.S.'s unilateral sanctions, and what is the place of these sanctions in international law? This study is an attempt to analyze the reasons for and legality of unilateral sanctions from the perspective of international law based on the principles of the scientific-experimental method. The results show that despite the various claims as to the need to maintain national security and enact domestic rules in this regard, these sanctions do not have a clear legal basis in international law, and their imposition on other countries, except in special rare cases, is subject to approval by the United Nations, its subsidiaries, and the Security Council as the main international body responsible for international peace and security.

Torture is a clear violation of human rights and behavior against human dignity. Torture is one of the most serious crimes and is in fact an international crime. This crime, on the one hand, is of considerable importance and sensitivity due to its connection with government agents and, on the other hand, due to the desecration of human rights, especially in domestic and international law. The UN General Assembly has condemned the practice, and it has been banned by international law as well as domestic law. In addition, the Convention against Torture, which has been ratified in this regard, has been accepted by the domestic law of many countries. In this article, therefore, we seek to examine the legal, political, and judicial challenges to acceding to the Convention against Torture; this is while the prohibition of torture is accepted in the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran and there is a possibility of passing a law in this regard. In light of the above, the question that arises in this article is what challenges does the Iranian government face in acceding to the Convention against Torture? This descriptive-analytical article seeks to prove the hypothesis that differences in the views of legal authorities in agreeing in principle to accede to the Convention against Torture is one of the most important challenges. The findings indicate that the Iranian legal system, in accordance with Islamic law and with a glimpse at international conventions, has strictly prohibited the use of torture.

The present paper aimed to study Migrant workers occupy an uncertain position in the legal systems of nation-states. Even when these workers migrate legally, they have more limited rights than citizens. This paper applies a descriptive-analytical method to examine the UN Convention on Migrant Workers and the approach of the European Union to clarify how these two conventions affect the border between national legal systems in this regard. The library method was used to conduct this descriptive-analytical research. Originality of texts, honesty and confidentiality were preserved in this paper. Research shows that migrant workers have certain rights; The UN Convention on the Rights of Migrant Workers is more concerned with human rights than the civil rights of workers. Negative rights with a focus on protecting specific injuries. At the same time, the protection of official citizenship is at a higher level than the protection of migrant workers' rights, however, unresolved issues remain.

The environment is a place for human survival and development, and without a healthy environment, the human soul will not achieve growth and excellence. Unfortunately, in the process of development and industrialization, countries have not paid much attention to environmental protection and in the process of profitable economic and industrial activities, environmental protection has not had an acceptable position. In this context, the issue of waste and waste disposal management has become one of the serious environmental issues. Disposal of waste in the marine and non-marine environment has caused problems such as various diseases and the destruction of some ecosystems such as seas, wetlands and forests. These problems have prompted the international community to use all available means to address them. In this regard, the process of paying attention to environmental pollution caused by waste began in earnest in the 1970s, which led to the ratification of numerous international instruments and the cooperation of international governmental and non-governmental organizations to deal with waste. Governments also sought to work diligently with the international system to develop their domestic laws in this area, given the adverse effects of waste on their economic, social, political and cultural conditions. The method of the present research is descriptive-analytical.

With the end of the Cold War and the bipolar system of international relations and consequently the establishment of international peace, the international system has undergone profound changes and has experienced new features and variables. According to this paper, the concept of international peace has been in a very critical and deplorable state since the 1990s, and the mechanisms for achieving peace, including the United Nations' preventive diplomacy as the sole institution for the realization of international peace was both ineffective and inefficient in preventing bloody conflicts and large-scale genocides in comparison with the Cold War era. This article seeks to answer the question that how is the performance of UN preventive diplomacy assessed in the post-Cold War era? In response to this question, it is hypothesized that the performance of UN preventive diplomacy in the post-Cold War era has not been successful due to its weakness and inefficiency in resolving armed conflicts in order to achieve international peace.

In this research, using the descriptive-analytical method, we aimed to investigate the cyber attacks of terrorist groups from the perspective of international law and with a view to the performance of the United Nations. Due to the fact that cyber attacks are not mentioned in any of the international law documents, the need to investigate these attacks by terrorist groups as a new means and method of warfare in the current era is strongly felt. The importance of this becomes more apparent when the irreparable effects of these attacks on critical civilian infrastructure are examined. If terrorist groupsUsing the Internet to carry out cyber attacks and these attacks have a minimum level of severity and create effects in the form of injury, death, damage or destruction, it is considered as an armed conflict, so what measures should the United Nations take for Dealing with cyber attacks by terrorist groups? The United Nations, by issuing resolutions and the work of various groups, is trying to create security in the cyber space by not giving the internet to terrorist groups by governments and preventing cyber attacks by these groups.It is raised.