ভূমিকা

Shiavault - a Vault of Shia Islamic Books Islamic Views On Human Rights: Viewpoints of Iranian Scholars International Human Rights Regime: A Theoretical Approach To Regime Formation And Persistence Dr. Abumuhammad ‘Asgarkhani It is of man that I have to speak: and the question that I am investigating shows me that it is to men that I must address myself: for questions of this sort are not asked by those who are afraid to honour the truth ...

I conceive that there are two kinds of inequity among the human species: one, which I call natural or physical because it is established by nature and consists in a difference of age, health, bodily strength and the qualities of the mind or of the soul: and another which may be called moral or political inequality, because it depends on a kind of convention and is established or at least authorised by the consent of men.

This latter consists of the different privileges, which some men enjoy to the prejudices of others. Such as that of being more rich, more honoured, more powerful, or even in a position to exact obedience.[^1] Jean-Jacque Rousseau Introduction Inequality among the human species arises from unequal distribution of power. Power is primarily in service of particular interests. Secondly, it is in service of the common good. Two categories of variables can account for the development of any regime.

A first category involves general laws of cause and effect that can be categorised as principle factors. A second group of variables concerns subsidiary elements, which can be classified as peripheral or supplementary factors. The former consists of the actors’ economic interests/incentives, sources of power, norms/principles and diffuse values, the latter comprising practice or usage, custom, and knowledge.

The theoretical approach adopted here is a confluence of three clusters of theories: modified structuralism, neo-liberal institutionalism and the theory of cosmopolitanism. At the outset, I shall give a brief study of the main streams of thought on regime theories. Then, I shall survey the theory of hegemonic stability.

The reason for this is this that first there is almost a consensus among the scholars that international relations in the post Second World War period were dominated by American hegemony and that this hegemony established several international regimes that were either benevolent or coercive [^2] basically supporting the hegemony’s interests.