HIV-AIDS has become the greatest threat to global public health and now presents one of the most formidable challenges to human rights. This paper is an attempt to demonstrate that the right to health is so fundamental that individuals are unable to exercise any other rights if they cannot maintain their health. Human rights paradigm, we submit, provides a potent method of discourse and assessment to get at the root causes of this epidemic. We argue the need for the right to health by focusing on “structural interventions” aimed at changing the social determinants of risk. Without denying the importance of the individually-focused “behavioral interventions,” we contend that social justice is the foundation of public health. As such, income and class inequality, gender inequality, discrimination, and social stigmatization must be seen in this context. Any serious attempt to address public health issues must take into account structural interventions.

This articles investigates 9th Presidential election of Iran from the perspective of political science and particularly public policy – making. It focuses on the impact of presidential election on Iranian foreign policy. To this end, the author studies these indications in detail: the overall trends in contemporary world, foreign policy, the variables of foreign policy, the role of role, the need to recongnition, president, the advisors of foreign policy, the contradiction of foreign policy goals, the goals of foreign policy of I. R. of Iran, the decision-making structure in I.R. of Iran, the implementation of foreign policy and finally the decision-making process in Iranian foreign policy. Beside discussion of the roles of peoples, president and presidential election, the author emphasizes that the common wisdom will decide in next election. In this context, the evidences and concepts related people’s attitudes and foreign policy are studied.

The nation and territory of Iraq encountered the issue of national sovereignty and then its consequences in the early years of 20th century. Protectorate, independence, coup d’etat, integration and Pan-Arabism are among the most important factors which have shaped the history of Iraq in 20th century. Beside these, Iraq has had different fluctuations in relations with its neighbours. The advent of two wars and invading Iran and then Kuwait is the product of Ba’thist government of Iraq. Disconformity between demands of Iraqi nation and its government during the last century and ignoring the international norms by Ba’this regime resulted in collapse of this regime by attack of U.S-led international coalition in March 2003 and it created a looming for democracy for Iraq. In this context, this article studies the issue of future of Iraq, democracy in Iraq, Iraqi constitution, political, social, economic and bureaurocratic system and also federalist system. This study attempts to present a political analysis of present and future of Iraq.

This essay reviews the articles on the invocation of state responsibility, and notes where they represent progressive development of international Law. It then surveys a wide range of contemporary situations where individuals, other non-state entities, and international organizations involve state responsibility by initiating judicial or other formal complaint proceedings. The essay concludes that, in light of this contemporary practice, the articles usefully advance the codification and development of international Law but do not deal sufficiently with the right of individuals and non-state entities to invoke the responsibility of states.

Since the U.S. and its allies attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq which lead to dissolving their regimes, the questions surrounding the legitimacy of these attacks is still under consideration. International Lawyers specially those from developing countries believe that the legal basis of the use of force against these countries in the name of “American Leadership in cooperation on terrorism combat” is in contradiction to article 4(2) of the U.N. charter and specially the fundamental principle of prohibition on the use of force. On the other side, many of the western theoreticians like those of American neo-conservatives, british governors and also coalition forces involved in this attacks are convinced that the right of self-defense would justify the use of force against Afghanistan and carrying out a pre-emptive strike in self-defense against Iraq for its stores of weapons of mass destruction as a dictatorship regime. Given this views which are in accordance with the principles of morality, the author considers that clear terms must be required to authorise the use of force on a international legal basis.