مجله رهیافت های سیاسی و بین المللی
سال ششم شماره 4 (پیاپی 42، تابستان 1394)

Since the beginning of the third millennium, a new dialogue has been emerged between IR theorists especially those who are interested in the social creation of identity and who focus attention on the role of norms in international politics and international law scholars for whom normative evolution is highly significant. Constructivists have emphasized more on the social creation of norms. However, because international law is, of its nature, norm-focused, it is a fascination with norm creation, evolution, and destruction that has proven to be the strongest bridging point between some international law scholars and the constructivists. This bridge will form the core of this article. Constructivism has made a lot of contributions to understanding the operation of international law by demonstrating constitute or even trump interests. In fact, somehow norms may many international lawyers appear to have both rationalist and constructivist intuition. The most significant contributions of constructivist scholarship in both IR and IL are related to the insights it offers into social processes that drive the creation and the operation of international law. Constructivism hassuch potential to provide a more coherent account of customary international law than other IR theories and even than international law itself. In order to pursue such dialogue between the two fields, international lawyers will have to open their minds to conceptions of international politics that do not assume the latter field confine itself only to power and material interests.

Among other analyses addressing the collapse of Mubarak regime in Egypt, the present study attempts to explain the Egyptian 2011 revolution on the basis of the state’s structure in the country. Indeed, the focal point of the study is to reveal “why” Mubarak’s regime was so vulnerable towards the social turbulency. It seems that a three-pillar approach can lead to a proper answer, whose pillars consist of: 1. The patrimonial structure of the state; 2. The nature of the political economy in authoritarian states (which leads to vulnerability towards the changes in socio-political behavior); and 3. The economic and political dependency of the authoritarian regimes on the super-powers (which makes them more vulnerable). On the basis of the historical data on the Mubarak regime (1981- 2011), the present study attempts to credit this three-pillar approach towards the regime change in Egypt.

Archeology as a description of the conditions of intellectual systems’ possibility, made it possible for us, on the one hand, to write a history other than “the history of privation” by the preference of debate in the field of “ intellectual history” to “thought history” and, on the other hand, to investigate conditions of its possibility by epistemic analysis of contemporary intellectual systems; The conditions established during the experience of “Iranian Modernity and has made it feasible for a specific configuration of knowledge system to emerge. After the dissection about archeological view, the following article has put this issue under the spotlight that confrontation with western modernity results in the loss of integration and unity of knowledge foundation in Iran. Over this period, the introduction of the elements of modernity to the Iranian episteme, along with the stability of traditional knowledge system in the opposite direction. This led to the creation of special configuration of episteme whose characteristic is “the intertwining of the heterogeneous nature”. These conditions are context of possibility of the intellectual contemporary system; an inter-episteme situation which is inconsistent with the integrated episteme presented by Foucault; because it was built based on the by-rooted epistemological foundation. And this has led to the birth of consciousness divided and many cognitive disorders and distortions in “Iranian Modernity”.

despite of its occasional instability and at the confluence of East and West, these days is going through one of the worst political crises and unrests in recent decades. Some analysts consider what happening in Yemen, a competition or a sense “Cold War” between Iran and Saudi Arabia. In this context, the question that arises according to Aggressive Realism Theory is that “what’s the relationship between the aggressive attitude of Saudi Arabia towards the developments in Yemen and Islamic Republic of Iran’s regional role?” In response to this question, the hypothesis that puts to the test will be: “Saudi Arabia’s behavior on Yemen’s developments, in four levels of analysis [that is] international, regional, sub-regional and bilateral, is affected by the threat of Iran’s regional hegemony of the maturing of the Shiite thought in these areas.” The findings suggest that what lead Yemen into civil war, is competence of Sunni Saudi Arabia with Shi’ite Iran and its thread for maintaining and expanding influence and control as the key player in the region. But, Yemen’s complex crisis rooted in politics, ethnicity and tribalism in this country, which has the potential to inject more tension to bilateral relations of the major oil producers in the Middle East, Iran and Saudi Arabia.

If we consider the understanding of human affairs, politics and community, with existentialist approach, as the foundation of Arendt’s philosophical and political thinking, so this paper tries to understand the meaning of understanding in Arendt’s thought and its relation to her philosophical hermeneutics. In this regard, we consider her interpretative approach in the text of tradition of hermeneutics, especially in Heidegger’s and Gadamer’s hermeneutics. The most similarities of Arendt, Heidegger and Gadamer about understanding, are their Emphasize on the uniqueness, newness and beginning every human being. They, also criticize essentialism, reductionism, scientism and historicism and emphasizing the importance of pre-assumptions in understanding. In their belief, understanding is circular, situated and worldly. Of course the most important similarity between their hermeneutics, is the will to deal with phenomenon. Above all, story-telling, showing the researcher as a unbiasesd viewer, use of differentiation and discrimination, functioning of paradoxes and analyzing them to achieve the understanding, and also use of taste and imagination, all are the special characteristics of Arendt’s phenomenological hermeneutics.

After World War II and with political theory’s direction into Spinoza’s and Nietzsche’s philosophies, we see the consistency of the late radical political theory in Europe. Radical critique of concepts that were associated with modernity and capitalism, was raised by radical thinkers, especially due to the extension of the Globalization after the 1990s. Besides Foucault, Rancière, Agamben, Deleuze and Guattari, Antonio Negri likewise has an important role in the development of that theory. Negri considers biopolitical production for articulation of radicalized concept of power. That transformed mode of production is located in an global Empire, where it is the space of the governance by late capitalism. For Negri, biopolitical production can create the possibility of the immanent passing over Empire. Due to this event, the constituent side of power will be realized. The constituent power is leaven of labors and productions that are combined with the desires of individuals and, that is requisite for realization of absolute democracy. This article asks the formation of Negri’s thought and the modality of the articulation of the concept of power through a text-context-based manner. The constituent power has been articulated through radical interpretation of the Spinoza’s philosophy, a concept that encounters with the modern and Hobbesian concept of sovereignty.