عنوان مقاله [English]
نویسنده [English]چکیده [English]
Despite “Jack Goldestone” claims on strong tendencies among sociological and political scholars in order to study and explain revolutions, most of them consider “Revolution” as a kind of violation of domestic and international norms and principles rulling internal and international society and since, as a phenomenon against stability,order and security. This approach rooted in conservatisit view in the favour of controlling any revolution against great powers interest, occurring all over the world especially in third world. Accordingly, this article tries to answer this important question: Why international studies suffer theoretical poverty in order to explain Iranian Islamic Revolution (IRR) and which of main paradigms could offer more capabale theories explaining IRR? Main hypothesis of the article is that “Relaism” has the least capability and “consrtructivism” has the most capability to explain IRR. Liberalism and English School are in the middle range of this spectrum.