A Three-Dimensional Analysis of the Role of Popular Resistance in Strengthening National Sovereignty in Light of Imami Jurisprudence and the International Legal Order: Proposing a Novel Conceptual Model

Abstract

This study aims to provide a three-dimensional analysis of the role of popular resistance in strengthening national sovereignty, with a focus on Imami jurisprudence, the domestic legal system of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and international law. The research methodology is descriptive–analytical and is based on documentary and library research. In the jurisprudential dimension, the foundations of the legitimacy of popular resistance are examined on the basis of Qur’anic verses, the conduct of the Infallibles (peace be upon them), and rational principles such as the obligation to avert harm and the principle of the reprehensibility of punishment without prior declaration. Defensive jihad, as an obligation of collective duty (wājib kifāʾī) even during the Occultation, occupies a central position in conferring legitimacy. In the domestic legal dimension, Articles 150 and 151 of the Constitution and the Law on the Basij of the Oppressed demonstrate that the individual jurisprudential duty has been integrated with a collective institutional mechanism. In the international dimension, capacities such as Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations (the right of self-defense) and the right of peoples to self-determination, on the one hand, and constraints arising from the principle of the state’s monopoly over the use of coercive force and the requirements of international humanitarian law, on the other hand, are analyzed. The findings indicate that despite logical–normative differences among Imami jurisprudence (individual-oriented), domestic law (a hybrid individual–state-oriented system), and international law (state-oriented), it is possible to establish a linkage among these three domains. The proposed conceptual model of “general popular agency” explains this linkage by conceptualizing the delegation of defense by the people to the state as a general agent, while simultaneously emphasizing active popular participation and public oversight of the execution of the defensive duty. This model, while enjoying jurisprudential and political support at the domestic level, also possesses the capacity for legal defensibility within the framework of international law. In addition to its theoretical contribution, the present study has practical implications, including the enhancement of military deterrence, the strengthening of social cohesion, and the promotion of governmental legitimacy. The limitations of the study include the lack of quantitative data, the difficulty of aligning jurisprudential concepts with international law, and the challenges of comparative studies. Accordingly, it is recommended that future research pursue field-based approaches, the design of quantitative indicators, and the expansion of comparative analyses.