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.

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.

Information Technology (IT), on the one hand, as "freedom technologies", expands people's capabilities to achieve datas and to communicate with other people, and on the other hand makes it possible for government to filter Internet sites and, upon the covering of confronting with non-ethical materials, block the path to considerable numbers of sites to confront with political moves add views, and to control them. "Social context" is a special matrix of social, including political, relations. The society in which existing relationships have characteristics of respect for democracy and human rights has different "social context" in comparison with the one in which characteristics of dictatorship and fascism governs. In the latter case IT would be. deployed to control social relations, and people, and in the former one legitima9' of government would be based on people's consent. Better understanding of aforementioned points needs to consider, in the present article, the concept of Sovereignty, IT and its social impacts, IT's relationship with Sovereignty, and the impact of globalization on this relationship.

Should one juristic proof enjoy primacy over another without any contradiction between those two, the former would be preferred to the latter straight away.This state which is called Sovereignty (hukuma)is thouroughly deIt with in this essay.

The national Sovereignty is one of the words that can not be presented as a unit definition. Most of researchers approved that it is an ambiguous and subjective concept. This is a fact that today’s Sovereignty finds increasingly main importance in geopolitical arguments. In this way, it can be said that territory is spatial extract of government that defines the realm of the Sovereignty with spatial extent. Therefore, states can apply the low and order of the government by Sovereignty. Although, the character of Sovereignty is its continuity and permanence but, it seems that this concept changes in the different periods of time. In the present article, with this question of: what are the effective factors in the geopolitical changes of Sovereignty? the basic relations between Sovereignty and political boundaries, democracy and globalization process will be analyzed.

AbstractNational Sovereignty manifested in an inconsistent way in the Iranian Constitution of 1906-07. This paper aims to find the causes of mentioned inconsistency and considers the process of foundation (constitution-making) and integration within the related legal form. Foundation manifested in the guise of socio-political forces (the material) and ideas would be the grounds of the legal form's integrity (the theoretical). By applying the phenomenological-historical-linguistic method in the field of concrete law, this historical study, first of all, started from the illustration of the determined language in the form and observed linguistic resemblances in the material and the theoretical levels. The material level is a trend toward creating an institutionalized and collaborative language; However, double-hatting of the First Parliament as the constituent and the constituted power, and the existing imbalance between the social forces in the political institution, has caused fluctuation in that language and reduced the concept of Sovereignty to its diverse characteristics. Concerning the theoretical, the lack of ideas as the unifying element of the legal form in that historical period is certain (the local) and, as a result, its breaking from the universal in the construction process of the legal form has also made this issue more problematic. In this absence, the post-form doctrine has relied on the place of ideas and sought to fix or renounce the legal form in the future. Finally, as a matter of fact, by the lack of thinking, the material forces created a form without constructing the integration of its elements.

National Sovereignty in the context of globalization has assumed a special character which is neither weakened nor strengthened, but despite the pressures from above and below, states have also gained particular functions which we call post- Westphalia Sovereignty. Though a world Sovereignty which looms over states has not taken shape yet, one can witness its preliminaries that have put states under pressure.The Islamic Republic of Iran, due to its dual characteristics i.e belonging to "the south" and having an "ideological and religious system", is facing special pressures from post – Westphalia Sovereignty and the way it treats this situation would determine its future in economic, political and cultural areas. The author believes that under these circumstances neither a confrontation nor total conformity would be to the benefit of the Islamic Republic (or any other states). Mere confrontation makes the country run the risk of being marginalized and passive conformity would be at the risk of the crumbling of transnational movements. The Islamic Republic of Iran should only adopt an interactive approach in order to attenuate the pressures and at the same time to exploit its potentialities in the process of transnational Sovereignty. The article discusses ways of Iran's treatment in different political, economic, and cultural fields.

Sovereignty over natural resources as one of the fundamental principles of international public law has been repeatedly recognized in the resolutions of the General Assembly and other organs of the United Nations since the 1950s, especially in Para 1 under Article 2 of the Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of the Nations. The principle is mentioned precisely as "the full permanent Sovereignty [of a state] including possession, use and disposal, over all its wealth, natural resources and economic activities", and expresses the issue of the Sovereignty of states over their natural resources, so that they have a direct impact on decision-making and economic measures adopted by the states and in relation to other states, to the effect that no other state has priority over the host state with regard to exercising this right. Adopting Resolution 1803 in 1962, the United Nations General Assembly recognized the permanent Sovereignty of States over their natural resources to be subject only to compensation. However, as to the compensation, it adopted a moderate solution which was almost close to the views of the capital exporting states. This resolution establishes the appropriate compensation criterion as the prevailing norm of international law. Therefore, the evolution of the notion of Sovereignty over natural resources and the exercise of this right by states, which was deemed illegitimate at the beginning of the twentieth century, was ultimately recognized as legitimate but subject to some restrictions.