محمدعلی عبدالله زاده

The discourse analysis method is one of the qualitative methods in political studies, employed to explain semantic systems that lead to the formation of a particular understanding regarding the role of individuals or actors within society or the international environment. The primary objective of employing this analytical method is to examine the ways and mechanisms through which a semantic system and discursive framework make a specific action or policy possible. To date, numerous studies in the field of political science have been conducted using the discourse analysis method. The main goal of this research is to apply discourse analysis to explain the security policies of the Islamic Republic of Iran in West Asia. Accordingly, the central research question is: how can Iran's security policies in West Asia be explained through the lens of discourse analysis? In response to this question, the hypothesis of the study posits that the Islamic Republic of Iran has sought to define its security policies in the West Asian region through the construction of a discursive articulation that transcends political and geographical boundaries. This articulation, in turn, has led Iran to play a more active role in the targeted region. The findings of the study indicate that the central signifier of this discourse revolves around the cessation of meaning-making with reference to the nodal point of liberating Jerusalem and the anti-Israeli stance, viewing Israel as a usurping regime. The research methodology employed in this study is descriptive-analytical, based on discourse analysis. Data collection has been carried out through documentary and library methods, utilizing both accessible and credible physical resources such as books and electronic resources, including academic books and articles published in scholarly journals.

The Islamic Republic of Iran has well understood the negative effects of war, its consequences such as the influx of refugees and migration flows, because for more than four decades in the absence of international support, under the dire conditions of the eight-year war, unilateral coercive measures and sanctions, He has generously welcomed millions of Afghan refugees. The burden of responsibility of Afghan refugees and the need for a practical approach based on Islamic human rights for sustainable protection of Afghan refugees is well felt in Iran.Based on this, the main question of this research is: "How can the division of responsibility with the approach of Islamic human rights reduce the burden of responsibility of Afghan refugees in Iran as a practical solution?"The research method is descriptive-analytical and collection of documentary and library informationThe findings of the research showed that the division of responsibility, from capacity-building measures at three international levels, non-governmental organizations and governmental organizations, in sync with the principles and provisions of Islamic human rights, can provide practical solutions to reduce the burden of responsibility of Afghan refugees in Iran.

Some states declare neutrality in conflicts of two or more countries. States that take a neutral position are entitled to some rights on the one hand, and obligated to some duties on the other. Given the increased use of sanctions and their effects on the human rights of the people of the target country, this study sought to answer whether a neutral state is legally allowed, based on international law, to impose sanctions against a belligerent country. Accordingly, the main question of this study was how neutrality can be explained in relation with sanctions against a belligerent side in a conflict. This descriptive-analytical study focused on Switzerland, a state with permanent neutrality, as a case study to examine the hypothesis that in the current era, the neutrality paradigm is mostly influenced by political, security, and economic necessities and interests of states, reducing the legal aspects of neutrality to a topic of secondary concern. Furthermore, international and regional pressures inevitably force even permanently neutral states to participate in enforcing sanctions. Therefore, with the continuation of this trend, neutrality can be expected to distance itself from its traditional description in the future, arriving at a more extensive domain of definition.

There is a growing stream of critics who see investment arbitration in favor of foreign investors and as a negative force as opposed to sustainable development. The phenomenon of third-party funding and its use in investment arbitration has increased such concerns. Third-party funding is basically the payment of all or a part of the arbitration costs of one of the parties of dispute by a third party funder which in return, the funder receives a percentage of the output of the award if successful. The purpose of this article is to explain and analyze the theoretical differences between pros and cons of third-party funding regarding the access to justice, screening mechanism for the claims, and the financial consequences on the host state. In this article, the advocates see third-party funding as a means of access to justice for aggrieved investors in investment claims, while the adversaries refering on the profitability of third-party funding, see this method in arbitration a form of wealth transfer from public sector to private corporations and also refer to the asymmetric structure of the investment arbitration regime as well as the risks arising from the transfer of management and control of arbitration process to the third party funders.

The Middle East and West Asia region are known as sensitive regions with global effects. This importance is not unique to the contemporary era; Rather, since ancient times, this region has been the crossroads of the interests of the great powers, and the developments in this region have always had irreversible effects on global dynamics. After the 9/11 attacks, the United States first invaded Afghanistan militarily to include the concept of counter-terrorism in its defense and security policies, and in 2003 overthrew Saddam Hussein's regime in Iraq. Apart from the collapse of the Taliban in Afghanistan and the Ba'athist regime in Iraq, these two military strikes had another consequence: the growing presence of the United States in the Middle East in general and West Asia in particular. The purpose of this study is to investigate the effects of the US presence in the West Asian region on the strategies and policies of the regions of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Accordingly, the main question in this study is what effect has the presence of the United States in the West Asian region had on the regional strategies of the Islamic Republic? To answer this question, a review of the strategies and actions of the Islamic Republic shows that by interpreting this presence as a security threat, the country has tried to strike a balance of power with the United States at three levels: political, military and economic.

Security challenges in West Asia have been defined by the significant deterioration of the security structure since 2003. Political and security developments following a political and security vacuum, along with a shift in the balance of power in the region, h. In many cases, security challenges have been maintained by trans-regional powers. The biggest and longest recent intervention in the Bishkek region has been the US intervention in Iraq since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, and most recently the presence of the US coalition in Syria. In both cases, the security regime did not guarantee the security of the region and the security dilemma became more complicated ... Also, the realistic approach and the military view have not been able to provide an answer to the security crisis. The best and clearest explanation of this can be seen in the military interventions in Iraq and Syria, which not only did not lead to long-term stability, but also opened up new tensions and practically turned them into fragmented countries. On the other hand, supra-regional powers in the field of military affairs have tried to secure their arms market among the Taliban, which has always been in the region. In realist discourse, the hypothesis that a state's security problem will be solved by maximizing military power is faced with the problem that not all countries can grow equally, and if one country's security is provided to the detriment of another, the result is It will have no security except crisis.