Sovereignty is a concept that has always been debated by the government because it justifies the power of the ruler and how it is exercised. This concept has always evolved and interpreted throughout history, and at one time or another, the concept of sovereignty and its interpretation has never been the same. The state's attitude towards elements such as the people, the economy, Ownership, taxation, the status of government and its views, the interpretation of sovereignty as justifying the exercise of government, the place of government structures and power including the three powers, the legislative attitude, and the legitimizing factor for the holder of this right are very important That need to be considered in examining the concept of sovereignty, in which Traditional and modern notions of these concepts lead us to the conclusion that it is impossible to provide a consistent and uniform interpretation of the concept of sovereignty, and thus this variation of the oscillation is the best way of explaining and presenting the concept, using hermeneutic interpretation and considering the circumstances., Shows the time, environment, and context for its review.

This study aims to achieve two objectives. Initially, it aims to elucidate the notion of national sovereignty as outlined in the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran through a historical-phenomenological approach. This analysis explores the socio-political processes of the revolutionary forces, specifically the Constitutional Assembly, which resulted in a document influenced by advocates of religious and hybrid ideological viewpoints. The analysis centers on dimensions that illustrate the preeminence of Sharia over modern law, wherein law is evaluated independently of its intrinsic substance and rationale. The legal notion of sovereignty represents a meticulously structured document that, through its brevity, effectively addresses a philosophical dilemma (the conflict between determinism and free will). Nevertheless, owing to its disparate objective, neglect of a systematic legal methodology, and absence of continuity within legal institutions, this refined formulation has not been integrated into the legal domain; rather than fostering unity, it has engendered duality (the legal form itself). This essay, as the concluding segment of a tripartite analysis on national sovereignty in Iran, aims to outline the historical development of this notion. The legal form is shaped by socio-political forces and their arrangement, and it is defined by ideas articulated in a cohesive linguistic structure. This relationship offers an inside viewpoint for comprehending the legal structure. An external perspective is essential to trace the evolution of the form across history and to comprehend its connection to its origin—specifically, the heritage that underlies the form and through which force and cognition reestablish their interplay. This foundation also elucidates the continuity or rupture of a thought. The legacy of the past holds significance within the context of the life-world (Lebenswelt) and imparts historicity to it. The life-world is a product of the ego's intentionality and the resulting intersubjectivity, which is defined within a framework of linguistic, cultural, and other traditions. This place is a sedimented reality that connects past and future generations; it is an encounter through which the formation of the new and the trajectory of communal transformations are established. The analysis of the relationship between legal forms and historical heritage involves initially evaluating each form individually and subsequently in connection to other forms (the relational legal form). In the Constitution of the Islamic Republic, referred to as The Aesthetic Sovereignty, the engagement with historical legacy is both antiquarian and selective. In the Constitutional Constitution, referred to as The Janusian Sovereignty (the second segment of the study), we see a fusion of critical and ecclesiastical (antiquarian) interaction. In the period of the legal treatises (Rasa’el) composed before and after the Constitutional Constitution—referred to as Sovereignty as Monarchy (the initial segment of the study)—a discernible thread of critical engagement with historical heritage emerges, wherein local contexts are examined through the lens of universal political theory. The historical development of national sovereignty is shaped by the interplay among these three kinds. The 1980 legislator inherited both forms; however, they continued the conflicts within Constitutional law and perpetuated them. They did not utilize the legal treatises (Rasa’el) from the Constitutional Revolution or their subsequent academic development, thus remaining disconnected from a systematic legal framework. This transpired because of the prevalence of Sharia arguments lacking a legal basis, which ultimately led to confusion. Ultimately, it may be emphasized that the legal form consistently has the capacity to extract purpose from one facet of the past to another and to facilitate renewal, thereby allowing for the revelation of something novel. This potential can consistently reveal history as a primary source and prompt the reexamination and evaluation of the legal framework. Contrary to this potential is the prioritization of a singular characteristic, reducing reality to that element, like to the bed of Procrustes, anticipating its Theseus.

The influential current of thought in political thought seeks to remove the concept of sovereignty and introduces several rulers as its replacement, so that this concept can be used instead in the field of public law. In this article, while explaining the sovereignty, the feeling of eliminating the existing shortcomings regarding the meaning of this widely used word and its necessity adds to the importance and necessity of this research more than ever. In this research, these questions are answered, whether the concept of sovereignty is declining and eliminated in the thought of modern public law? Does the sovereignty in the position of representation enjoy the independence of the political thing and explain the fundamental concept in the thought of modern public rights? However, the developments in the field of public law have made the necessity of the concept of sovereignty face new challenges, and some political researchers consider the concept of sovereignty to be unnecessary and perhaps eliminate it for the benefit of public law, and they believe that political power is a vacuum arising from It fills and compensates for the sovereignty. However, despite the aforementioned thought process, it seems that such a perception of sovereignty is caused by a lack of correct understanding of the relevant aspects of the concept of sovereignty (political and legal perception) and a misunderstanding of the term modern public law itself.

The majority of literature in studying the impact of advanced communication and information technology on the concept of sovereignty have concerned the challenges facing the sovereignty. The main focus of this study is to survey how new technologies have developed and brought changes into the concept of sovereignty. The concept has had different definitions: sometimes has been extended to include any subject, but at another time under the influence of certain phenomena viewed as limited. This study, explaining the concept of sovereignty, extends to information era and makes a hypothesis that the advanced communication and information technology , providing people with  free access to information and increased awareness and reducing the cost of process and transmission of information, Has paved the way  for the emergence of new actors in International Relations. With the empowerment of these new actors, the sovereignty lost its traditional sense (absolute, indivisible and permanent) and developed into responsibility. In regard to the impact of technologies on the concept of sovereignty, we can distinguish between two types of sovereignty:  legal and operational sovereignty. The paper concluded that the constitutional sovereignty has been challenged by the information revolution while the operational sovereignty has faced enormous technical and cost challenges.

The Renaissance era is a manifestation of contradictory and diverse thoughts. Philosophers, writers, artists, and politicians each represented a blend of classical and modern eras. In this transitional period, both the sovereignty of the Church and the sovereignty of the people were debated, alongside discussions of Christian theology and Greek philosophy. The thinkers of this era reflected this transition. Political philosophers from Machiavelli to Hobbes played a significant role in grounding the perspective on politics. While these philosophers were the pinnacle of political philosophy during this period, there were others recognized as the proverbial foothills of modern philosophy, whose insights enhance our understanding of the foundations of modern philosophy. Francisco Suárez was among those philosophers who stood at the intersection of Christian theology and Greek philosophy. His thoughts represent the transition of political thought from the celestial to the terrestrial. This paper aims to explore the concept of "law" in the political thought of this Spanish philosopher, as no research has been conducted on this topic in Persian so far. It seeks to answer the question of what definition of law exists in Suárez's thought and how this thinking has influenced the transition to popular sovereignty. The research method will be based on a contextual-textual approach.

The concept of "sovereignty" is one of the key concepts of modern political philosophy. This concept, systematically explained for the first time in the modern age by Jean Bodin and Thomas Hobbes, implies the meanings like absolute and legitimate power over the legislation process. The prevailing attitude in political thought, due to the very pioneering of Bodin and Hobbes in explaining the meaning of sovereignty, views this concept as an innovative concept which is discovered in the modern age. This article tries to demonstrate, however, the concept of sovereignty is raised from Christian theology and one of its main topics: The concept of "judgement". Therefore, the systematization of the term "sovereignty" by Bodin and Hobbes never means that they invented this concept as a wholly modern one. For this purpose, this article searches for the meaning of the term "judgement" in the Old Testament and the New Testament, and, on the basis of the prominent commentaries of the Scriptures, seeks to show that this concept has three relatively distinct but intertwined meanings. These three meanings are "Legislation", "Judgement in legal and judicial sense" and "Sovereignty", all of which accords with the features of the notion of sovereignty in the modern sense of the word. Consequently, it can be said that, the formation of modern sovereignty has not happened in discontinuity with Christian theology, but in continuity with it.

Over time, sovereignty as the supreme power of sovereign policy has been united in line with humanitarian rules. Accordingly, in the contemporary era, Westphalian sovereignty is far from its concept and it is no longer the absolute power and today is considered as responsibility. Human rights and globalization are two phenomena that have eroded national sovereignty. Human rights and the international focus on it has debilitated the principle of non-intervention in the internal affairs of States so that governments have been forced to adapt its sovereignty with human interests. Moreover, the phenomenon of globalization has taken the monopoly of States governance in an international sphere and leads to global governance. In this paper, it is tried to first discuss the concept of sovereignty and its transformation in international law, and then it is considered in the context of the next development in the framework of the principle of non-intervention and globalization.

In the 20th century, we witnessed multiple expropriations in the forms of nationalization, confiscation, or seizure of property. In the first half of the 20th century, the Government of the Soviet Union and its colonies made extensive confiscations, and in the west, the Mexican government nationalized its arable land and oil resources. The second half of the 20th century started with the nationalization of the Iranian oil industry, and subsequently, in multiple cases, Asian and African states nationalized their resources. The investor countries, that were present in the countries rich in natural resources primarily through multinational companies, considered themselves the main victims of this exercise of sovereignty, and this became the basis for disputes between the parties. The investors turned to international arbitration to restore the rights that they thought they have lost. Therefore, we witness multiple approaches by the arbitrators concerning the exercise of the principle of permanent sovereignty of states over natural resources. By looking at the history of changes in this matter, we find that this issue has always been a place of constant fight or flight of the parties, and the arbitrators did not give up turning to all kinds of arguments and theories to protect the interests of each party, which resulted in the transformation or adjustment in existing standards, and therefore, led to the exercise of the principle of permanent sovereignty of governments over their natural resources.

National sovereignty is one of the fundamental concepts in modern legal-political thought. The Introduction of this concept into the Iranian intellectual atmosphere became the intersection of an extraordinary conflict between tradition and modernity. By considering this, the present paper has analyzed the problem how it has been the initial encounters with the concept of national sovereignty in the legal treatises (Rasael) of the Constitutional Revolution, and scrutinized its transformation concerning modern juridical-political thought. Aimed to achieve this goal, we tried to describe and analyze legal treatises, specifically the constitutional law treaties on national sovereignty in that era. The theme of national sovereignty was proposed in the pre-constitutional intellectual space (Mirza Malkom Khan, Mostashar al-Dowleh) and then appeared in post-constitutional legal treatises in the form of the national monarchy (Saltanat-e Melli) and became the standard conception. The concept of sovereignty was first realized under the influence of Jean Bodin's thought in the works of Zoka-ol-Molk (Mohammad Ali Foroughi) and Manṣur-al-Salṭana (Mostafa Adl),thus the instance of sovereignty was used instead of its concept. Then, in Rousseau's intellectual horizon, this concept became more profound. The conflict between monarchy and national sovereignty was revealed in the treatises of Ebrahim Khan-e Oveisi and Mir Emad-e Naghibzadeh. Finally, among the treaties, in terms of methodology, it is possible to identify a theoretical trend that, benefiting from the universal, is preoccupied with the local and aims to explain it.

The present paper investigated the effectiveness of concept mapping as a learning strategy on EFL students’ self-regulation (metacognitive self-regulation, time and study environment, effort regulation, peer learning, and help seeking). Sixty university students participated in the study. They were randomly assigned to control and experimental groups, each including thirty students. They were at the intermediate level of English proficiency and studying English either Translation or Literature. Their language proficiency was determined by the Michigan Test of English Language Proficiency (MTELP) (Corrigan, 1979). The instrument to collect data on the students’ selfregulation was the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ) (Printrich et al., 1991). The findings revealed that students gained higher self-regulation in writing tasks as the result of the explicit instruction of the concept mapping strategy. The findings have implications for pedagogy as well as for research.