Democratization is a new concept with old origin, because it inevitably relates to the ancient notion of democracy. This article argues that democracies despite their similarity are native and particular experiences, thereby Democratization should be studied from this standpoint. Every democratic experience should be logically understood in its own specifities.After that, we can present comprehensive and theoretical thoughts about them.The contents of democratic experiences (Democratization) in the world in general and in Iran in particular, are independent of general definitions of democracy and the first could not be known through the latter. Because, democracy in its essence tends to expand individual potentialities in the framework of its own historical society and this involves particular and individual contents rather than universal and human ones.

Web logs, weblogistan and blogtopia have become the main subject of study in social sciences. Why weblogs are important? There are many approaches that could address this question one of which is the role of weblogs in achieving materialization of Democratization program and Democratization process. In this article, author on the base of critical theory, capabilities of weblogs for Democratization, test the effect of multidimensional and extra territory situation in internet age. The main aim of this article is to provide explanation about abilities of weblogs and internet in public sphere. Author believes that weblog create multidimensional abilities. So, these expand new colony or new public sphere. The focal point in this article is on democracy, human right and political development.

This paper attempts to explain a question which is variability in degree of changes occurring within Democratization Iran. On the basis of such a question, the research question was formed as "How changes occurring within the Democratization of Iran can be explained?" In order to answer the question, and from a standpoint to solve it, a theoretical framework containing the following conceptual structure was formulated: modernization is developed under the condition of an extant civil society, and it would result in Democratization. In the next step, a theoretical solution as to the question was deduced from the theoretical framework. Continuing the procedure, scientific hypotheses were assessed through experimentation. The data gathering method is empirical/historical (referral to the original documents). For empirical arbitration of the hypotheses, we have used regression analysis. The empirical findings show that Democratization bears a coefficient ratio of 72 with modernization and of 52 with civil society's development. On the other hand, the coefficient ratio of Democratization with linear figuration of modernization variables and civil society's development is equal to 71.  

Extended Abstract1. Introduction As the third millennium begins, humanity grapples with a complex web of problems such as poverty, unemployment, increasing inequality within and between States, increasing weapons, war and militarism, terrorism and fundamentalism, financial and environmental crises, refuge and immigration, violation of human rights and democracy, discrimination along lines such as sex/gender, ethnicity, and race, widespread violence, etc. What is important is to understand the relationship of these problems with each other and with the order based on domination, injustice, and systematic inequality ruling the world. All of the above issues can be seen as the result of the order based on the relations of domination and power at various levels, which, in the final analysis, create limitations in the realization of the autonomy of individuals. In the contemporary globalized and interconnected world, these issues, some of which were controllable by States, transcend the capabilities of individual ones, demanding global solutions outside the State-centric order in the form of a global legal order that can effectively bind States and Non-State Actors in the international sphere to guarantee the autonomy of individuals. In avoiding idealism in this field, which leads to proposals such as the creation of a centralized global government, international law is an available option to do the aforementioned function; However, the realization of this matter, considering the limited success of international law in this regard, requires overcoming the obstacles to the effective functioning of international law in carrying out this mission. This article considers the reason for the necessity of Democratization of the international legal order as its central question in addressing these issues and facilitating a transition from the current state of affairs, and to improve the feasibility and effectiveness of this solution, conceptualizes it as a gradual, dynamic and multidimensional process centeredon the United Nations system, which relying on the democratic defects of the existing order, makes changes at different levels to guarantee autonomy of individuals. By overcoming the shortcomings of international law, the mentioned process can help strengthen it to act as a global law capable of establishing the rule of law at the global level.2. Research Gap and Objective It is impossible to solve, control, and contain the above issues except through a set of regulations and norms with a global scope. However, the success of international law in realizing this goal has been scant. The limited success of international law in this regard can be attributed to two factors: First, the nature and characteristics of international society, and second, the structural weaknesses and deficiencies within international law, as well as its lack of objectivity and neutrality, which raises international law as part of the problem. Nevertheless, acknowledging the role of politics in international law, its lack of objectivity and neutrality, and its close ties to politics does not negate the potential of international law as a solution. International law possesses a distinct identity and playes a crucial guiding role in maintaining global order. Therefore, while international law is part of the problem, it is also part of the solution to overcome the existing situation and manage the current issues. To effectively serve as part of the solution, international law must undergo a process of Democratization.3. MethodologyThe present text adopts a critical approach and emphasizes the connection between law and politics, and the need for legal analysis within its social context on the one hand, and emphasizes the structure, logic, and internal dynamics of the law on the other. An interdisciplinary methodology is employed within the text, and the analytical tools of social sciences are used to study, critique, and reconstruct international law. Moreover, by emphasizingthe normative nature of international law, the authors have utilized its research methods such as analytical and descriptive means in the related areas.4. Key FindingsThe article argues that addressing the above challenges which often restrict autonomy of individuals, necessitates the reform and Democratization of the current international legal order and emphasizes that democratizing the international legal order, with a focus on autonomy can, inter alia, overcome the cross structures of rejection and domination, as well as the tension between objectivism and subjectivism, and help to increase legitimacy and compliance with international law, and as a result, strengthen the rule of international law.5. Contribution to the FieldStudies addressing the need for Democratization of the international legal order, have primarily progressed in two directions within political theory and international law. In political theory, the focus lies mainly on the core democratic values challenged by globalization within the traditional political societies' framework. As a result, international law's reform and Democratizationare suggested as a pragmatic solution to overcome these challenges. On the international legal-studies side, democracy is usually assumed as the preferred form of governance and concentrate on a set of democratic institutional requirements. Thus, the need for international law Democratizationemerges as a consequence of deficiencies within these mechanisms. In an effort to respond to this question, this article starts from the concept of autonomy as a non-instrumental and central value of democracy, and by avoiding a formal or procedural approach to the Democratization of the international legal order, considers its necessity due to the challenges of realizing autonomy in the State-oriented perception of it in the present era.Additionally, by analyzing the issue from the international law perspective, it demonstrates how this process can help overcome the limitations and barriers hindering international law's effectiveness as a key factor in shaping the global order.6. ConclusionIn the current globalized community, overcoming the forces and structures that threaten the autonomy of individuals can no longer be guaranteed within the framework of traditional political communities. Protecting autonomy requires the expansion of democracy on a global scale, enabling citizens to participate in all decisions affecting their lives. Establishing a global democracy does not necessitate a centralized global government; changes can be implemented at various levels to uphold democratic values and guarantee individual autonomy. Given the undesirability and impossibility of a global government, or a less centralized model, and contemporary political and social realities, international law emerges as the most viable option for creating a global democratic order. This requires the Democratization of the international legal order around the United Nations system under a gradual and multidimensional process; In such a way that relying on the democratic defects of the existing order, it applies changes at its different levels to manifest democratic values and guarantee autonomy of the people. Democratizing the international legal order presents an opportunity for international law to transcend its inherent structural limitations. By embracing diverse subjectivities, the aforementioned process can help international law to act as a space in which an intersubjective consensus can be provided to achieve objectivity. Also, the Democratization of the international legal order to ensure the autonomy of citizens is a pragmatic solution to simultaneously overcome the multiple and intersecting structures of domination and inequality to avoid focusing on a specific feature of it. Strengthening the objectivity and overcoming the existing inequalities from the above channels will ultimately lead to an increase in the objectivity and universality of international law, and as a result, increase the legitimacy and compliance with the rules of international law, and strengthen its position to act as an effective global or transnational law.

This paper problematizes the value and impact of social elements of democracy and Democratization. In the first part, I will examine the limits of the liberal and republican paradigms of democracy; I will propose that two social elements of democracy – societal empowerment and social justice are central to the success and consolidation of a substantive democracy. I shall examine Jurgen Habermas’s concept of “deliberative democracy” to explore the social aspects of democracy. In the second part, I will examine two major theoretical trends in the Democratization literature: structural theories and the actor-centred theories. I will argue that a third alternative approach better acknowledges the social elements of Democratization. This integrative approach keeps an equal distance from vulgar voluntarism and structural determinism; it successfully synthesizes dialectical relations between structure and agency, “causes” and “causers,” and social and political factors/actors. It underlines the value and impact of social movements in Democratization. The conclusion argues that why and how the social is essential in the origin and success of democracy and Democratization.

The subject of this paper is analysis of the process of Democratization in Afghanistan within the time period of 1907-2008 AD. The article claims that over the past one hundred years (1907-2008 AD), the Afghans in four historical periods of "Constitutionalist Movement" (1907-1928 AD) , "The Democracy Period" (1946-1953AD) , "The Decade of Constitution" (1963-1973 AD) and " The Interim Government , The Transitional Government, and The Islamic Republic" ( 2001-2008 AD), have made efforts towards the Democratization of their society’s political and social relations. However, "democracy" has not been established in Afghanistan yet. To prove this claim, the question of “Why Democratization process in Afghanistan has not led to democracy?” has been presented. Later, after a critical argument about democratic theory, the causal provisions of “socio-economic development", "civil society", "a model of democratic political elite" and "the role of international or external factors" have been proposed to explain the problem of the historical period. Historical comparative and historical narrative agreement methods have been used in this research. The experimental findings imply that in case of socio-economic development, establishment of civil society and democratic relations between political elites and positive role of external and international agents in Afghanistan, Democratization will be established in this country.

In addition to being a method for choosing elite in society, Democratization can also have a cultural meaning. Generally, Democratization is based on three fundamental dimensions: ontological equality, personal autonomy (freedom) and the particular method for choosing elite. The concept of Democratization of culture has been generated by emphasis on the two first dimensions. From this view of point pre-democratic society can be distinguished from the democratic on through its cultural content. By offering the indexes of democratic culture, Karl Mannheim presents an Ideal Type of such a culture. The Iranian Constitutional Revolution is a model to introduce the cultural change of Iranian society which presents the social changes beginning from Naser-al Din Sah's kingdom age, although the priority is often given to its political aspects.This paper attempted to answer to this question "besides to the starting point of political Democratization can we also find the indications of Democratization of culture in Iranian Constitutional Revolution? To answer to this question, based on using the Mannheim's Theory, a study on Democratization of culture's indications in Constitutional age has been conducted. The results showed that social and cultural changes in this historical period have important implications in the beginning the process of Democratization of culture.

In the past decades, different regions of Africa, particularly West African countries, witnessed intense regional crises and disputes. Several mechanisms including crisis management have been used in order to reduce the intensity of these crises. This article examines the impacts and the consequences of Democratization in security sectors. It maintains that providing opportunities for democratic spaces and transition of failed states to governments based upon democratic elections could enhance an avenue for reform in security sectors. But the Democratization procedures have not led to a democratic management of security sectors in all of the West African countries.In this research, West African countries were categorized based upon their achievements in reforming the security sectors. In fact, the efforts to integrate different regional rules and the activities of non-governmental sectors could lead to good governance even in security sectors both in national and regional levels. But the interesting point is that this would not necessarily bring fundamental changes in these countries. Therefore, it is necessary that a comprehensive program should be implemented in both national and sub-regional levels to bring democratic reform in managing the security sectors in West Africa. Despite slow progress in Democratization in some Western American countries, there has been some success. In this article, the status of each country, the nature of their regimes, their capabilities and the level of reform in security sectors were discussed in details.