The “borderless solidarity” has led to the promotion of women’s rights across and within cultures, but it stands in a problematic relationship to broader, more complex social issues. On balance, however, women’s empowerment is seen throughout the Muslim world as the most effective antidote to extremism. This paper addresses three questions: (1) why have Muslim women become the agents of change, reform, and democratization in a globalizing world? (2) What impact has globalization on Muslim women and the rise of Islamic feminism? And (3) how could Muslim women maintain the integrity of their culture while at the same time remain receptive to universal values, ideas, and institutions?

During the period of time after the events of 11th September 2001, the world has witnessed lots of changes. These changes have taken place by forceful means and armed interventions. The main contentions of this paper are that: a) the U.S. armed interventions in the Middle East lack a credible legal basis; and b) the U.S. has so far failed to achieve its aims. The author believes that the failure of U.S. policy in the Middle East is not just because of its disregard of the basic principles of international Law. He concludes that the U.S. should aim its strategy toward the Middle East at three levels.

The Following main questions are considered: Is there historically an Islamic International Law? What is the nature of this Islamic perspective on war crimes? What protections does Islamic law offer to civilians, prisoners of war and others in time of war? Also, does it restrict the conduct of hostilities in some way? What is the Islamic perspective on the crime of Genocide? Is Islamic law consistent with modern criminal law? Finally, what is the position of Islamic law concerning the disposition of the International Criminal Court (ICC), especially on the matter of punishment? For these purposes, in the first section we study the Islamic contribution to the public international law, then, in the second section, we will present Islamic view on the matter of International crimes especially war crimes and crime of genocide. Finally in the last section we discuss the new challenges facing Islamic law.

The experience of the advanced countries demonstrates that the programs of simulation in the training of researchers and executors in international relations are very useful and efficient. Despite this fact, the holding of simulation models especially modeling in this regard has gained less attention in Iran. Considering the aforementioned fact, this article seeks to answer the question that how can modeling be made in the field of international relations and which models and programs of simulation make our academic community closer to instrumental rationality and scientific decision-making?

Since gaining success in foreign policy and international relations is contingent on scientific decision-making and planning, the author proposes the hypothesis that imagined modeling based on knowledge, research, expertise, and the country’s necessities will directly affect the capabilities and academic expertise of the country’s experts and specialists in the field of international relations. In order to test the hypothesis, a variety of simulation programs and models in international relations, their conceptual discussions and the author’s academic-research findings along with the experience drawn on the holding of simulation models in the country are taken into account.

The issue of Human Rights has become the focus of attention in International Relations. This issue is one of the most effective one in the field of international relations. In this essay the author looks into analyzing human rights norms rather than using an abstract approach. He believes that these norms have a special place and prospects for ethic and policy in international relations. In light of this, he asks that how can one speak about universal human rights?

To answer to this question the author has assessed two minimum and maximum approach in international system. Afterwards, he surveyes the basic concepts of ethic and culture and also the universality of human rights. He belives that the experience of the international actors shows that they have undermine human rights Law in contradiction with the principles, nature and practice of human rights’ norms. He suggests that there is the necessity to acquire the strategic method in the human rights field because the states in the world have. Although the states select the human rights norms to empower their position world-wide. This is what the non-western states are challenging too.

The main question of the present article is asking whether Iran must have political - diplomatic relations with the United States? If it must not, why? If it must, why, How and when? The writer refers to the very fact that Iran-U.S. relations have never been analytically - scientifically analysed and that the misunderstandings and the sour experiences of bilateral relations has led to a mistrust and lock of assurance on part of one another. The need is to analyse and deliberate on the relations from International Relations perspectives and theory, then to differentiate and divide the relations into past, present, and future. So that each can be scientifically - analytically reviewed and evaluated.

The subject of the limits of states authorities for committing grave breaches of international humanitarian law is a subject which has a great importance especially since the last decade of 20th century and starting very armed conflicts in various countries. In this respect some countries pass laws and establish courts which have jurisdiction for try serious crimes by anyone in any where. Issuance of an international arrest warrant for incumbent foreign ministers of the Congo by a Belgian investigating magistrate motivated a dispute between Belgium and Congo and gave an opportunity to International Court of Justice (ICJ) for explaining responsibility of states authorities in committing serious crimes. In this case the ICJ first declared its jurisdiction and then delivered judgment in merits at 14 February 2002.

In this judgment the Court declared that incumbent foreign affairs ministers have immunity in other states (not its national courts or certain international courts) but foreign affairs ministers will no longer enjoy this immunity after he/she ceases to hold the office of minister for foreign affairs. The courts of other states may try a former minister for foreign affairs of another states in respect of acts committed prior or subsequent to his/her period of office as well as in respect of acts committed during that period of office in a private capacity. However the Court confirms the separation between responsibility as a substantive question and immunity as a procedural question, but recognition of responsibility for foreign affairs ministers before courts of another states only when they have committed serious crimes in a private capacity is a problematic question in view of many international jurists.