نشریه مطالعات بین المللی
سال دوازدهم شماره 3 (پیاپی 47، Winter 2016)

This paper argues spiral arms race in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) is spurious and highly unlikely to lead to further stability. There is substantial evidence to suggest that the threat of arms race and the so-called “proliferation cascade” is a bogus excuse to thwart Iran’s nuclear deal with the “P5” group. Our central argument is that the notion that arms race intensifies regional rivalries may seem reasonable on its face, but it fails to match reality.Arguably, an arms race does not currently exist between Saudi Arabia and Iran. The situation can be more accurately described as a onesided arms buildup where Saudi Arabia has out-spent Iran by colossal amounts while Iran has worked to compete with Saudi Arabia without a corresponding increase in military spending. While it is possible in theory that improved efficiency in the procurement of arms could result in real military capability gains—often disguised by stable military expenditure—there isn’t ample evidence to support the idea that this is indeed the case.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the US and Russian Federation relations have been experienced ups and downs. The period of believing the end of long-lasting competition between the two countries after the cold war was too short enough to approve the optimistic analysis ofWesterners politicians. The next developments showed quickly the distance between Moscow and Washington’s views on issues of international peace and security. On the one hand, Russia’s growing concerns about the former republics on its own periphery were intensified by the increasing effects of the Global War on Terrorism. On the other hand, the US growing presence in West Asia, Afghanistan and Iraq, and then Syrian crisis, Iranian nuclear program and deployment of the US Missile Defense System in Europe, prepared the ground for creating more confrontation between them. A decade after the independence of the former Soviet Republics, Russian president, Vladimir Putin, crafted and fixed a pragmatic foreign policy. Dmitry Medvedev, the next President of Russia, put this policy on the path of “reset”, which is now facing with complicated problems. However, the question raised by this article is: “What internal, regional or international factors changed the Russian and US relations during Medvedev's presidency? This paper is based on a descriptive-analytic method, and to examine the mechanisms of this change from the Russian point of view, it studies the positions of its experts.

Persian Gulf analyst, Nato Defense College Foundation, Aspen Institute Italy. This research paper investigates the complex relation between United Arab Emirates (UAE) and their armed forces. While in the Seventies the process of state-making was primarily rent-driven, deeper federationbuilding efforts has now been focusing on modern integration among the seven armed forces. From a domestic perspective, this strategy has enhanced Abu Dhabi’s neo-patrimonial supremacy on the military system. Armed forces play also a crescent role in the new UAE foreign policy, oriented towards "ambitious engagement" through defense expenditure, cooperative security with Western powers and Nato, regional military assertiveness in the Middle East. Moreover, UAE armed forces and the domestic arena have a circular relation, since pilots and soldiers, due to their commitment abroad, have been gradually becoming vectors for UAE federal consciousness, fostering collective identity and so contributing to enhance Abu Dhabi’s political weight within Persian Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC). Through qualitative analysis, this paper problematizes the role and evolution of UAE armed forces, in a framework of complex realism.

The Dialogue of Civilizations and Alliance of Civilizations initiatives, launched by the former Iranian president Mohammad Khatami and the former Spanish head of government Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero are analysed in this paper. By comparing the two cases we will try to address the question of the objectives both governments had in mind when proposing such initiatives to the international forums, as well as the success or failure of both initiatives in regards to those objectives. The paper argues that both projects failed to prevent the eruption of violent conflicts since their launching, mainly because they focused in governmental institutions rather than civil society organizations.

The article sketches a nexus between philosophy, art (poetry) and critique with a particular emphasis on the contribution of classical Muslim philosophers. At the same time, it demonstrates how luminaries such as Omar Khayyam and Ibn Sina, contributed to the renewal of philosophy as a freedom seeking exercise and as a means to pursue happiness through knowledge. In the second part of the article this discussion is geographically de-located to include critical theories from mainland Europe. The conclusion focuses on the comparability of these contemporary critical theories with the philosophies of the “east”.

Les comparaisons réalisées dans cet article sont un oeuvre personnel du rédacteur. Le droit américain et le droit européen de la responsabilité du fait des produits sont les droits les plus développés dans le monde. La notion de produit dans la directive communautaire de 1985 sur la responsabilité du fait des produits défectueux ainsi qu’en droit français est plus protectrice pour les consommateurs que celle de the third restatement of torts aux Etats-Unis d’Amérique et que le droit iranien. The third restatement of torts aux Etats-Unis est plus protectrice pour les consommateurs que la directive communautaire, le droit français et le droit iranien quant aux personnes responsables puisqu’elle a prévu certaines obligations à la charge des personnes responsables qui n’ont été prévues ni par la directive communautaire, ni par le droit français ni par le droit iranien. Le régime de la responsabilité du fait des produits instauré par la directive communautaire et le droit français est plus protecteur pour les consommateurs que celui de la troisième restatement of torts aux Etats-Unis et que le droit iranien. La directive communautaire, le droit français et le droit américain sont plus développées et plus protecteurs pour les consommateurs que le droit iranien.