نشریه مطالعات بین المللی
سال دهم شماره 3 (پیاپی 39، Winter 2014)

US foreign policy toward the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) in the face of the 2011 Arab uprisings has encountered many and varied challenges: some manageable and others daunting and immensely difficult to meet. Given today’s regional changes and uncertain prospects, traditional US foreign policy tenets and practices need to be readjusted to better reflect US different and evolving interests, motivations, and capabilities. This paper examines the US reaction to the Arab Spring in an attempt to answer the following questions: (1) what effect have the democratic uprisings had on US foreign policy? (2) why has not the Arab Spring brought about a drastic adjustment in US foreign policy as a result; and (3) why, in spite of nearly a half century of US involvement in the region, do US policymakers still have limited understanding of—and even less ability to foresee—such uprisings there? These are profound questions worthy of addressing. Our central argument is that the 2011 democratic uprisings in the MENA region have become an alternative to civil war and authoritarianism, presenting new challenges not only to these regimes and but also to the broader US foreign policy toward the region.

Because of its special geo-strategic position in the Middle East, Iran has always been keen to assume a pivotal role in the region. However, as opposed to the old regime, the Islamic government while pursuing the same vision is facing unbearable challenges in its ambitions. Iran’s nuclear undertaking, if ever directed toward unconventional aims and objectives, should be viewed from this perspective. The main argument of this paper is that Iran’s endeavor to buildup a credible force structure is mainly devised to ensure its very existence and to deter any potential contender to encroach against its territorial integrity and the survival of the revolutionary regime, and to prove the capacity of Islamic governance to run effectively the business of a nation-state.

Arab-Iranian relations in their immediate region have never been devoid of controversy in the modern era. Historically these controversies emanated mostly from ideological differences (sectarian controversies within varying Islamic schools of thoughts). With the advent of Karbala calamity the foundation was laid for a millennial Shiite ascendency which in turn introduced new dimensions to the politics of the statehood of Sunnite Caliphate. With the rise in colonial geopolitics of the Great Games of the nineteenth and early twenties centuries, spread of British colonial rule in the geographical span of what can be described as contiguous Arab- Iranian region in West Asia caused some forms of political affinities between the two as co-sufferers from colonial rule, which in turn gave way to development of relations between Iran and its Arab neighbours more on the basis of natural regional interests. But withdrawal of the colonial rule from the region in early 1970s left new legacies of friction and conflicts resulting from territorial and border differences which in turn have been exploited by the new geopolitical players to drive apart the two sides.(1)

One of the controversial issues at the international courts, particularly at International Court of Justice (ICJ), is the relationship between State immunity and the norms of jus cogens nature. State, enjoying of immunity ratione materiae, is a legal person who has a binding legal obligation to respect jus cogens norms. State immunity is among the oldest rules of international law. It is the immunity that a State enjoys in respect of itself (jurisdictional immunity) and its property (enforcement immunity) from the jurisdiction of the courts of another State (Art. 5 United Nations Convention on State Immunity, 2004). This immunity concerns to the status of a State as an international legal entity. State immunity is based on the fundamental principles of equality of states and non-intervention. A State has to do her acts within the limitations of the jus Cogens norms. While the primarily beneficiary of the state immunity is the state itself, the beneficiary of the norms of jus Cogens nature is the international community as a whole. Jus Cogens norm, inthe words of the Vienna Convention on Law of Treaties (1969), “is a norm accepted and recognized by the international community of States as a whole as a norm from which no derogation is permitted and which can be modified only by a subsequent norm of general international law having the same character” (Art. 53). Accordingly, as to the jus cogens states are not permitted to depart under any circumstances. International Courts, regionally of globally, have dealt with the cases involving the notions of State immunity and jus cogens. The matter has been dealt with by the ICJ in International Jurisdictional Immunity case toward the relationship between these two concepts. Although it has reached, based on contemporary situation in international law, to sound result, some critiques in achieving to that conclusion are considerable.

In 2001, the Cambodian National Assembly adopted a law creating the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC), having jurisdiction to prosecute the authors of the crimes committed during the democratic Kampuchea from 1975 to 1979. After a long and difficult negotiation process between the United Nations and the Cambodian government, and the difficulty to come to an agreement, the Secretary General agreed, though his reticence, that the Chambers be implanted in Cambodia and fully integrated within the Cambodian culture. This adaptation could be a step forward and favor justice towards the victims. However, the government influence still weight heavily upon the tribunal, thus the reach of this adaptation is to be nuanced. Issues that came up during the negotiations preceding the creation of the tribunal, remain. The influence of the government on the functioning of the Chambers is very heavy, which questions the impartiality of the judicial decisions. However, what everywhere the motives, isn’t it essential that an international tribunal adapts itself to the country so as to able the victims to recognize the justice done?