نشریه پژوهش ملل
پیاپی 65 (تیر 1400)

The adoption of each of the different systems of political economy in different countries leads to different levels of economic achievements and development. Neighboring South Africa and Zimbabwe, located in southern Africa, have completely different positions in terms of economy and level of development despite their commonalities in various human and natural fields. An examination of the two countries' political economics shows that Zimbabwe has been a Marxist economy - led by Robert Mugabe - since 1980 and that the liberal economic system has prevailed in South Africa since the early 20th century. Using a descriptive-analytical method, the present article seeks to answer the question that “what is the main reason for the difference in the levels of development between these two neighboring African countries?” Based on this question, the hypothesis is that the difference between Zimbabwe and South Africa in terms of development is due to the adoption of different political economies. The findings show that continuing South Africa's economic development following the liberal economy, before apartheid and after 1994, with the implementation of the Seven Liberal Economic Programs - including increasing the supervisory role and reducing the role of government intervention, implementation of industrial production development programs, development of local economies and participation initiative - on the one hand, and significant differences and improvements in Zimbabwean economic and human parameters such as GDP, economic growth, unemployment, life expectancy, etc. due to the implementation of free market political economy compared to the Marxist economy (1980-2008) on the other hand, confirm the above hypothesis.

Abusing working children and street children is one of the most important and challenging issues around the world and in all human societies, which has also affected the Islamic Republic of Iran and can have many consequences. Therefore, the present article has tried to study the most important legal reasons for child abuse and legislative challenges in Iran. According to the thematic documents presented in this article, the research method is descriptive-analytical and the data collection method is library. The question is, what are the most important public and legal reasons for abusing working children in Iranian law? In response to this question, it is assumed that economic and livelihood problems of working children's families, family context and migration in general, lack of codified laws with strong enforcement guarantees, and the lack of child-centered laws are among the most important public and legal challenges is abusing working children. The findings of the study indicate that abusing working children is a social and serious problem for society, and that the establishment of laws with high enforcement guarantees and based on international norms is considered very important to deal with it. In addition, the efforts of the governments to create an educational culture and efforts to solve economic and livelihood problems and family education, are necessary as a complementary solution.

The stability of any society is based on the rule of law and the security of its people. Also, the law can be considered as the most important link between the people and sovereignty. Thus, throughout history, theorists have always had different views about the three elements of law, the ruler and the people. The main question and purpose of this article is: What are the similarities and differences between the political thought of Thomas Hobbes, the seventeenth-century English thinker, and the Khwaja Nizam al-Mulk al-Tusi? It can also be said that the most important origin of Hobbes's political thought is based on social contract. However, the origin of Khwaja Nizam al-Mulk's political thought was based on religion. The most important similarity between Hobbes and Khwaja Nizam al-Mulk al-Tusi's view is the priority of security on justice and equality, which is the main concept in justifying absolute sovereignty. The most important findings of this study are as follows: In the Hobbes theory, the law is more in favor of the ruler, and the people must obey the ruler. However, Khwaja Nizam al-Mulk emphasizes the divine right of the kingdom, recognizes the people as the ruling slave, and intensifies the policy of domination. Both Hobbes and Khwaja Nizam al-Mulk believe that the security of the community and the people depend on the ruler. However, in Hobbes's view, the ruler is elected by the people and the social contract, but in Khwaja Nizam al-Mulk's view, the ruler is God’s chosen one. In this article, using the historical analytical method and examining the political and social situation of both thinkers, it has been attempted to investigate and explain the issue.

In the political system of the Islamic Republic of Iran, the meaning of the principles and goals of foreign policy is the principles of foreign relations of the Islamic State, which considers religious references as the framework and basis for regulating foreign relations. Therefore, the foreign policy of the Islamic system, in order to grow and develop its influence, in addition to the conventional criteria of influence, needs to carefully consider efficient characteristics and mechanisms from religious resources and the perspectives of jurists such as Imam Khomeini, and to pay serious attention to them in order to solve the problems of the country in all eras. The purpose of this article is to explore and analyze the principles of power and foreign policy in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Using descriptive-analytical method, the article tries to study and analyze the principles of power and its impact on Iran's foreign policy. Findings show that in the foreign policy of the Islamic State, the role of the Islamic school and the existing views towards it are decisive. Just as cultural and ideological traits may influence the foreign policy of any country, so the Islamic State sees its scholastic values as governing the framework and goals of foreign policy. Therefore, many changes in theoretical and transtheoretical subjects in the field of international relations have occurred after the changes in government in Iran.

The goal of public diplomacy is to socialize the citizens of other countries in accordance with the norms of the socializing government. In fact, the indicator of the success or failure of a government's policies in the field of pu blic diplomacy is sociability, such a way that if a government's public diplomacy leads to the sociability of the citizens of the target country, it can be said that the government has successfully used public diplomacy, and vice versa. However, despite the importance of the concept of sociability in public diplomacy, to date no significant research has been done on its nature and dimensions. While examining sociological approaches and international relations of sociability, the present article tries to form a conceptual application of sociability in public diplomacy, define the main elements of the process of sociability in public diplomacy, and point out the differences between the concept of sociability in public diplomacy and other concepts of sociability. Finally, the present article attempts to cover part of the theoretical gap in the field of public diplomacy and sociability.