فصلنامه سیاست
سال پنجاه و دوم شماره 1 (پیاپی 61، بهار 1401)

Before the French Revolution of 1789, the Catholic Church had close relations with the absolutist state for several centuries. The church and the priests had remarkable privileges, and were part of the higher class in the society. One of the functions of this religious institution was to provide legitimacy for the new regime and making a holy halo around it and the ruling dynasties. This was the cause of the overspread dissatisfactions with such institutions in the eighteenth century, and during the French revolution. The authors’ main objective is to explain the relationship between the Catholic Church and the state before the French Revolution of 1789, as well as analyzing the religious policies of different post-revolution political regimes and the institutionalization of secularism (laicite) in France from the Third Republics to the 1980s. In the post-revolutionary secularization process, the Church became deformalized. The religious pluralism was recognized and concepts such as religious freedom, tolerance and the conscientious freedom were reflected in the legal documents of this period. The secularization was performed in a deficient and inadequate manner during those years. It was the same deficient process which became the basis of a historical tradition for complete secularization in modern France. Nevertheless, this process faced important challenges in the nineteenth century, because of the opposition of the Church, conservatives and the pro-Catholic monarchies. There was an intensive rivalry between the political and intellectual forces supporting the values of secularism and its opponents. Such rivalries finally led to the consolidation of the secularism in the Third Republic. Both the reforms and the secular-centered laws, including the Law of 1905, became the causes of widespread controversies in the French political sphere and in public domain.
In this conjuncture and even later on, the 1905 Law became the subject of contradictory interpretations based on different ideological and political intentions. While there were different forms of resistance to secularization, it could not be as effective as it seemed in the nineteenth century. The reason for this was the change in the balance of power in the realm@ of politics to the advantage of the secular forces. For this reason, the process of secularization witnessed remarkable progress in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. It was only during the Vichy regime and its Catholic-centered policies that the secular values were challenged by the specific religious policies in the twentieth century. After the collapse of the Vichy regime, the interim government and the Fourth Republic terminated the financial aid to the Catholic religious schools. Only in the short period of the Vichy regime this supportive policy was pursued, in contrast to the policy of the Third Republic. The portraits of the crucified Jesus and other religious symbols were taken from the public places.
For the first time, the concept of laique was put in the article first of the first chapter of the Fourth Republic constitution. This procedure was continued in the Fifth Republic and the process of the institutionalization of the secularization (laicite) was completed. De-formalization of religions, religious neutrality, ensuring freedom of conscience and religious liberty, the absence of religious prayers in the public schools, the restrictive financial aid to private religious schools, the ban on religious symbols in schools and state institutions were part of the French secularism (Laicite) until the 1980s. Later, these policies resurfaced with some limited changes.
The basic research question here is as follow: Which factors played the most important role in the formation and the institutionalization of the French secularism (Laicite)? The main finding of the article is that though the French Revolution developments provided a legal, ideological and historical background for the process of secularization, the change in political regimes and the Catholic-centered religious policies of the nineteenth century created challenges for this process. The prolonged political and ideological conflicts between the secular republicans, the Catholic Church and the Catholic-oriented conservatives played an important role in this process. Given the dominance of the republicans in the political space, such conflicts led to the institutionalization of secularism through a series of reforms and the 1905 Law in the Third Republic.

Holding elections in democratic societies is the most obvious symbol of popular participation in the right to self-determination. According to Article 6 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran (IRI), the affairs of the country must be governed by citizen participation in the election of the President, members of the Islamic Consultative Assembly (Majles-e shorā-ye eslāmī, the Parliament) deputies and the like. In 2016, the current Supreme Leader (Rahbar), Ayatollah Khamenei announced the general policies of the elections and signaled the implementation of paragraph 1 of Article 110 of the Constitution that were determined after consultation with the Expediency Discernment Council of the System (Majma-e tashkhis-e maslehat-e nezām), which was established in 1988 to resolve conflicts between the Guardian Council (Shorā-ye negahbān) and the Parliament. These efforts show the importance of the elections in the IRI’s political system to ensure the rights of the electors and citizens involvement in politics by providing them with opportunities to influence public policy by their votes.The Guardian Council is one of the IRI’s supervisory bodies, which was created on 20 February 1980 by the decree of Imam Khomeini, the founder of the IRI and its first Supreme Leader.The Guardian Council consists of six jurists appointed by the Supreme Leader, and six jurists who are appointed through the nomination of the head of the Judiciary and the approval of the Islamic Consultative Assembly (ICA). According to Article 99 of the IRI’s Constitution, the Guardian Council is given the responsibility of monitoring referendums and the elections for the Assembly of Experts of the Leadership (Majles-e khobregān-e rahbari), the presidency, and the Islamic Consultative Assembly. The GuardianCouncil’s crucial task is to oversee the entire election process including scrutinizingthe qualifications of the candidates, and so on.The electionmonitoring authority must have the appropriate characteristics required for rigorously and utmostly safeguarding the integrity of the election, and the rights of voters and candidates. The principles of the independence of a supervisory authority from the executive branch, and its impartiality are among the essential features that the Guardian Council as the main election monitoring authority should possess. The twin objectives of this research are to contribute to the discussions of constitutional rights and the issue of election supervision in the IRI, and to evaluate one of the fundamental ambiguities or doubts in the country's electoral system. One of the issues raised is that according to the clarity of the principles of the constitution, especially Article 60, which describes the key officials of the executive branch and the mechanism of appointing the members of the Guardian Council, the degree of the independence of the election monitoring authority from the main components of the executive branch is insufficient and flawed. The Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Iran does not provide a clear definition of the executive branch. However, the issue of executive authorities in the country has been mentioned and explained in Articles 57, 60, 110 and 113 of the Constitution. According to Article 60, "the functions of the executive, except in the matters that are directly placed under the jurisdiction of the Leadership by the Constitution, are to be exercised by the president and the ministers." Thus, Article 60 explicitly states that the exercise of executive power through the Supreme Leader is more effective than the powers of the president and the ministers. From this point of view, the IRI’s executive branch has two pillars, one of which is its leadership position led by the president and the cabinet. Article 113 declares that "after the office of Leadership, the President is the highest official in the country. His is the responsibility for implementing the Constitution and acting as the head of the executive, except in matters directly concerned with (the office of) the Leadership." Article 113 twice explicitly mentions the position of the Supreme Leader as an important pillar of the executive branch in the country, once when it stipulates "after the Supreme Leader" and for the second time when it specifies, "except in matters directly related to the Supreme Leader". It is clear that the IRI’s election monitoring authority is independent only from one pillar of the executive branch (i.e., the president and the cabinet), but it is not independent from the other important and influential pillar of the executive branch. The impartiality of the supervisory authority could not be assured in all circumstances because of the fact that it somehow owes its existence to the second powerful pillar of the executive branch. The research questions to be addressed in this article are: 1. To what extent is the Guardian Council, as the main authority for monitoring elections in the country, independent from the executive branch? 2. What are the effective solutions to eliminate the shortcomings of the process of monitoring electoral system in Iran? In the hypothesis, it is asserted that the integrity of the election and the observance of the rights of the voters and candidates are influenced by the nature of the election monitoring authority, particularly its independence from the executive branch and its  impartiality. For hypothesis testing, the authors use the method of qualitative conceptual content analysis to study official documents such as the Constitution, and opinions of different legal experts as well as the views expressed by researchers who have analyzed the shortcomings of the country’s election process. The findings of the present study will contribute to the discussions of some of the inadequacies of the country's electoral system, and the efforts aimed at the reform of the electoral process needed for political development in the country.

The impact of French colonization in Africa has been subject to scholarly debates for a long time. Some have cast light on the advantages of colonization by emphasizing the transfer of civic and technology improvements as well as the improvement in living standards. In contrast, critics have been concerned with the occurrence of cultural assimilation with the West and its effects on the colonies’ social structures. The contradictions of modernism over the non-occidental countries, particularly the ones that have been colonized, are akin to what one can find in today’s controversy over the implications of globalization on the developing countries ‘cultural patterns and structures. Hence, the contradictions of colonialization vis-à-vis globalization, as well as the interaction between the two, are chosen as the core concepts of this article. In order to expand the discussion, the impacts of the globalization process on two former parts of France, i.e., Morocco (as a protectorate) and Algeria (as a colony), are compared in detail. By this comparison, this research demonstrates the different consequences of colonization considering the domestic elements such as geography and social structures which provided different conditions for the mentioned countries in confronting the French colonization. These conditions will be investigated within the framework of globalization, modernism and post-colonialism, followed by adopting a comparative analysis and implementing the content analysis method. This aims to underscore French colonization’s influence on shaping the current understanding concerning modernism and globalism.

Although most of Japan's security threats are traditional and come from close neighbors (i.e., China and North Korea), the post-Cold War structural changes in the international system created new national security threats for Japan. These changes led to the transformation of the security environment and the  nature of the threats, which were completely incompatible with the security structure imposed on Japan after World War II, particularly the prohibition of the use of armed forces in maintaining security, and its security dependence on the United States. The main objective of the present study is to find answers to the following two research questions: 1. How has the new security threats changed Japan's defense and security structure? 2. What had been Japan's response to these new threats? Due to the complexity of the issue, and the descriptive-analytical approach used by the authors, the method of research is conceptual analysis of the selected Japan’s official documents. The theoretical framework is the Copenhagen School of security studies, which together with its propositions are utilized in several contexts to analyze Japan’s security developments. First, contrary to the realist approach that emphasizes the role of states as major actors in international politics, the Copenhagen approach recognizes the importance of the non-state entities. This proposition allowed the authors to evaluate the activities of terrorist groups and pirates as sources of security threat. Second, the Copenhagen School’s attention to social processes, as well as the intersubjectivity of security and threat provided the opportunity for authors to explain the threats not only from the perspective of politicians and government elites but also from the different perspectives of the people’s views on security issues affecting them. Third, military factors in international relations (e.g., the intensified competition between regional and international powers in Asia-Pacific) were not considered as the as central, focus. Rather, adopting a multidimensional and comprehensive perspective, the authors examined the non-traditional dimensions of security such as terrorism, cyber threats, piracy, environmental issues, and the failed governments. All of these non-conventional threats had common characteristics such as being high-impact, extraterritorial, large-scale, high-speed. Furthermore, effective non-military measures are needed to counter and overcome them.In response to the first question, the authors argue that threats that directly endanger Japan's national security had the greatest impact on Japan's security policy changes. These threats are as follows: a) piracy that directly threaten the maritime security, freedom of navigation, energy security, and trade lines of the country; b) cyber security threats that directly endanger both the government and Japanese society; c) ultimately, the consequences of environmental issues such as the increased likelihood of conflicts over joint management of natural resources, economic displacement, migration and asylum, and border conflicts which directly threaten Japan's territorial integrity and its environment. The threats of piracy, cyber-attacks, and environmental issues had a greater impact on the reorientation of Japanese security strategy than the threats of the failed governments and terrorism.In response to the second question concerning the reasons for the use of military instruments, five points should be considered: 1. The need to deal decisively with new security threats and economic problems; 2. The ineffectiveness of Japan's existing policies of focusing on the use of non-military tools to avert and respond to threats; 3. The need to acquire a appropriate level of military power to have the ability to quickly and unrestrictedly respond to security threats; 4. Global expectations from Japan for its greater military participation because of its high economic and technological capability; 5. The U.S.-Japan strategic alliance, and Washington's demand for burden-sharing through Tokyo’s military involvement. These points explain why a fundamental change in the nature of Japan's national security strategies has taken placed.

The fundamental question in the two Roman and Greek traditions of the philosophy of law is whether law is based on practice or idea. In the present study, we look at this question from the points of view of the following three thinkers: Thomas Hobbes who is considered to be a realist in the political science literature, Immanuel Kant who is known as an idealist, and Hugo Grotius who is regarded to be a rational and moderate philosopher. These three well-known scholars had a place in the Age of Enlightenment, which was preceded by the Scientific Revolution, and has been extolled as the foundation of modern Western political thought and ideals such as free speech, liberty and advancement. “Natural rights” is a concept in the philosophy of law, which initially was the subject of resistance and enmity of the two groups of clerks and administrative officials.  Natural rights are given to all humans; and they are presumed to be inalienable rights, which cannot be controlled and taken away by church and/or state. They are universal and enjoyed by all human beings regardless of their dissimilarities. Accordingly, all the theological and non-theological systems of law need to be defined with no abuse of natural rights. In the dominant viewpoints in the Age of Enlightenment, it is assumed that if natural rights are unchallengeable and seemingly definite, they initially lead to a natural state of interstate relations in the international system, in which the entities are equal and not subjected to control by an overruling authority. This means that universal and unrestrained law exist for all the parties involved. The main differences between Hobbes, Grotius and Kant concerning the link between natural rights and international law pertains to the shadow of the former over the latter. According to Hobbes, the international system is best described as the “state of nature” where life is “nasty, brutish, and short”. The rights of states are similar to natural rights of  human beings, which are unconditional or not subjected to anyone’s approval. Hobbes believes that the international society is not a civilized or lawful one. From Grotius’s standpoint, the international system is based on a long-term view of human rights. Because of the consideration of the future, some parts of the recognized rights are sacrificed in order to guarantee security and other common interests in the long-term. This is very similar to what Hobbes describes as the “civilized state”. The difference is that instead of defining a civilized system as the type which is based on the authority of one entity (e.g., a dominant and controlling power), Grotius describes it as a system characterized by dynamism. In contrast to Hobbes who calls the inter-state relations “natural”, Grotius suggests that a civilized system is the one based on substantive law. It is a system, which is not based on authority and an assured guarantee; and in fact, it is based on the long-term interest of the players (i.e., governments). Thus, the Grotius system is a legal system, particularly under the umbrella of natural rights. Kant, as an idealist philosopher, originally presents the international system with an ultimate solution (i.e., a global government with military power and viable guarantee for its decisions). Subsequently, he makes a compromise by suggesting a more concrete and realistic plan which is closer to what Grotius had introduced. The difference is that Kant offers some regulations for the international system; and his views which are strongly influenced by natural rights are closer to the current human rights debates. In the movement from realism to idealism, the international system becomes more legal, civilized, sensitive and loyal to natural rights. Grotius offers a more moderated and systematic solution in this spectrum. The authors concluded that the natural state of individuals lead to the civilized state, and in a similar manner, the natural state for the entities (e.g., states) in the international environment culminates in a legal state because of interests and requirements. By analyzing the writings and arguments of Grotius, Kant and Hobbes, the main differences and similarities in their points of view on the nature of the international law and relations are explained. Grotius’ solution is found to be the middle ground and realistic one, which is applicable to the contemporary international system.

On March 2021, Iran and China signed an agreement as part of the Chinese Grand strategy, best known as Belt and Road Initiatives (BRI), which is a long-term plan to enable the Chinese government to project its power in the three continents of Asia, Africa and Europe by the 100th anniversary of the founding of the Communist Party of China, and its revolution in 2049. A qualitative content analysis of the unofficially published agreement shows that it goes beyond the perceived position of Iran in the BRI and echoes Iran’s national development plans.  If it means that China would become an engine of growth for Iran, there might be strategic reasons for the Chinese side to accept such a commitment. Thereupon, the main research question is as follows: Given the unequal power position of the two countries in the international system, what would be the primary challenges facing Iran as they relate to the Iran-China 25-year Comprehensive Cooperation Plan? It is widely argued that the main challenge of alliance is its security dilemma which include the two dimensions of autonomy/security and entrapment/abandonment paradoxes. In the research hypothشesis, it is postulated that the creation of a balance of power and strengthening common interest is likely to lead to a kind of interdependence between the two superior and weaker countries, and will prevent the emergence of the  security dilemmas of alliances. The method used in the paper is the qualitative content analysis by which the researcher is able to objectively and systematically explain the content of any document such as the Sino-Iran Agreement. This method of analysis will be used to reveal the potential challenges facing the Iranian side as a result of signing the agreement. In general, states’ primary interest inherent in their objectives to form an alliance might be classified as follows: a) to restore the balance of power, from a realist perspective; and b) to counterbalance against a perceived balance of threat. There are two issues  that are associate with the alliance security dilemma; the first one is that in the absence of power parity, maintaining the security of the inferior state by the superior one would be at the expense of the autonomy of the inferior partner, particularly in its security decision-making process. The second one is that if the superior state strives to provide a security umbrella for the inferior state, it might be entrapped into an unwanted conflict with other Great Powers. Of course, if the powerful state fails to protect its ally against other influential states, the inferior partner consequently may decide not to stay in the alliance, and choose the abandonment as its best option. The issues that threaten all alliances are security dilemmas or predicament situation for the states which are in the alliance. These are daunting challenges for the main decision-makers who must decide when, in what situations, how, and with what outcomes to enter an alliance or withdraw from it. In general, three factors should be considered: what are the needs for the formation of an alliance, to what extent the alliance partners would meet those needs, and what are the actual terms and conditions of the contract forming the alliance. In the conclusion, it is argued that since one of the guiding principles of IRI’s foreign policy is the rejection of all forms of domination, it is of paramount importance not to rely on the East (e.g., China) in an attempt to avoid impressive pressures of the West.  By considering the costs and benefits of the challenges posed by the agreement, Iran can avoid the alliance security dilemma, lower the likelihood of one-sided dependency by emphasizing dual deterrence from the West and East in accordance with the principles of Iran’s foreign policy. Accordingly, Iran urgently needs to re-evaluate all factors involved in the alliance-formation process, particularly  the alliance needs, and the expected outcomes of the terms specified in the text of the bilateral agreement.

Khajeh Nasir al-Din Tusi is regarded as both a philosopher and a theologian, although theological themes and arguments are dominant in his work. The main objective of the present study is to focus on Khajeh Nasir's theological works in order to reveal the essence and nature of his political thought. A comprehensive understanding of Khajeh Nasir 's political and social thoughts could be gained by examining his philosophical views in his writings, particularly in Akhlāq-e Naseri as his most important work in the political-social domain. The following research question is posed in this article: What are the basic characteristics of the theological-political thought of Khajeh Nasir-al-Din Tusi? Since Islamic theology is the realm that considers the principles of religious creeds called Kalām; we shall pay special attention to this topic. Our approach is descriptive-analytical, and thus we conduct a text-oriented analysis of basic concepts such as taklif, grace, prophecy and Imamate in Khajeh Nasir's theological works.    Theologians generally begin their discussions with seemingly self-evident and rational principles,  and then deduce the theological doctrines from those principles. What is ultimately elucidated in the epistemology and methodology of Islamic theology or Kalām is the intellect bounded by the revelation. The doctrinal and theological principles are fundamentally present as axioms and presuppositions in the Islamic-political thoughts. In certain and principal ways, there has always been a conflict between philosophy and theology, reason and revelation. In other words, philosophers had to defend the legitimacy of philosophy and wisdom before the court of Sharia. Therefore, a kind of epistemological fluctuations and uncertainties would be seen in their works. Khajeh Nasir al-Din al-Tusi, as a  distinguished scholar, is no exception. On the one hand, he is the author of philosophical works in defense of philosophers against the attacks of theologians and on the other hand, he is one of the prominent Shiite  theologians with the great works that address issues like prophecy, Imamate and the relation between society and religious faith. It is asserted that the ‘Grace of God’ is essential for happiness and prosperity of the human beings. The greatest example of this grace is to dispatch the holy instructors, prophets and Imams, to guide and purify the human beings, their communities or societies. It is clear in Khajeh Nasir’s works that taklif is assumed to be the foundation of the human being’s ultimate and supreme destiny. The human being needs ‘divine grace’ through revelation and prophecy, because his reason alone is inadequate for finding a way to prosperity and achieving perfection. As a Shi'ite theologian, Khajeh Nasir describes Imamate along the prophecies, and believes the principles of faith, religious creeds and jurisprudence or Sharia are inseparable from politics. The benefits and blessings of revelation and religion would not be excluded and confined to the hereafter world. The human being in his very origin is related to God. He is created by God’s absolute wisdom and surrounded by his omnipotence and omnipresence. According to these facts, the God better knows the ways of happiness of the human being. In this system of knowledge, the ultimate goal of the politics is to be at the service of the revelation and religion; here is the point of connection between religious creeds, jurisprudence and politics. Theology is the knowledge of the principles of Shari'a; and Shari'a is a set of individual and social laws that every person is obliged to obey in order to ensure both the good of this world and the good of the hereafter. The findings of the study demonstrate that the fundamental relation between religion and politics, the centrality of taklif and worship with all its requirements in approach to the human beings and human society, together with transcendent politics as the goal of the politics, are among the main characteristics of Khajeh Nasir’s political thought.

The development challenges of Iran in the years after the victory of the Islamic Revolution are related to two fundamental issues: First, Iran is trying to gain an advantageous economic, political and strategic position in the region far more than its allocated share in the international division of labor. Such an approach challenges the balance of power in the global economic order and the western-dominated world. Second, Iran has decided to follow a political path in opposition to the structure, institutions and norms of the international system because it considers the current system to be unjust and untenable. Historical experience has shown that the global capitalist system has worked against the actors which have attempted to oppose and undermine its foundations. Therefore, the main obstacle to Iran's development in the post-revolution era has been the non-compromising orientation of Iran's foreign policy. The behavioral pattern of Iran (as an agent)’s interactions with the structure of the international system has worked against its development plans. The main purpose of this article is to answer two questions: 1. How has Iran interacted with the international system since 1979? 2. What are the consequences of the confrontational agent-structure interaction which have characterized Iran’s foreign relations during 1979-2021 time period? 3. To what extent has this type of interaction with the international system affected Iran’s development? In the research hypothesis, the authors assert that confrontational agent-structure interaction between Iran and the international system has adversely affected Iran’s development. Using Baskar’s theory of critical realism, the nature of Iran’s domestic system (e.g., the nature of its political elites and their worldviews, type of political system, and foreign policy orientation) as well as Iran’s interactions with the components of the international system (i.e., structure, institutions and norms) are discussed. Then, the implications of such interactions are analyzed by the use of a qualitative content analysis of documents and texts of speeches and comments made by key Iranian decisionmakers. The results indicate the negative impact of the ideological inconsistency and contradiction between Iran’s domestic agents and their interaction with the structure, institution and normative dimensions of the international system; and this has in turn led to the slow-down of the country’s development.

There is no doubt nowadays about the attractiveness of democracy as an accepted model of government, and concurrently there is an awareness of its shortcomings and drawbacks. Consequently, many scholars including political philosophers are trying to use different approaches in order to develop proper and more efficient models of democracy. From a post-structuralist point of view, Habermas, Laclau, and Mouffe seek to provide models of democratic politics and government that are more successful in establishing a good democratic order. Considering the conflictive and clashing political and social interests, ideas, and tendencies, it is not an easy task to address the inadequacies of previous models of democracy. By comparing Jürgen Habermas's deliberative theory with the agonistic democratic approach of Laclau and Mouffe, the authors’ objective is to study the two models of democracy proposed by these three thinkers, and find suitable answer to the following key research question: Which of these two post-Marxist theories has more democratic and realistic possibilities? They use qualitative content analysis of written texts to examine the two models of democracy in dealing with the pluralism of values ​​and sources of political and social power. The strengths and weaknesses of each of the two theories are explained, and the democratic possibilities, specifically in terms of the underlying factors of feasibility and achievement are discussed. The conclusion is that Habermas post-structuralist theory of deliberative democracy will not be able to pave the way for inclusive, adequate and long-lasting democratic rule by bridging the gap between opposing views and interests of a plurality of groups in the social sphere, and overcoming power struggles and conflict of interests through deliberation. In contrast, Laclau and Mouffe's model of democracy is based on the acceptance of dissent and antagonisms, and the idea that oppressive power relations in the societies must be challenged through agonistic contestation. The authors argue that Laclau and Mouffe's model of democracy is more realistic than Habermasian model due to its emphasis on the impossibility of ignoring or removing power struggles, hegemony, antagonisms and conflicts from the society. By recognizing the relations of power in societies and the need to change them, it is more effective for establishing a proper political order.

As Russia's only navigable port in the Baltic Sea, Kaliningrad has a prominent geostrategic position. Kaliningrad Oblast as an exclave region is miles away from Russian mainland, and is actually situated closer to some European member states of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). Kaliningrad's militarization and Russia's policy of defending itself against NATO's Eastward Expansion have heightened the tensions among regional countries. Since 2008, Russia has activated the so-called ‘Iskander diplomacy’, redesigned its weapons of mass destruction, and launched large-scale military maneuvers. The 2014 Ukraine crisis showed that Russia has no intention to leave Eastern Europe. Moreover, Kremlin withdrew from the Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe in 2015. The combination of these measures led to the revival of militarism in the Kaliningrad region, and created a security dilemma in the Baltic Sea, when NATO member countries in the region reacted by emphasizing deterrence. In this paper, to make sense of the new developments in the region, the author attempts to answer two key questions:  1. What had been the most significant effects of the geostrategic position of Kaliningrad as Russia's external guardhouse in the Baltic Sea on the Russia-NATO security integral in the region?; and 2. What will be the most likely defense models of the Baltic countries given Russia's power preponderance in the region? In the hypothesis, it is asserted that the geographical location, resources, and re-militarization of Kaliningrad have led to the formation of a security dilemma in the Baltic region in the form of an arms race, which has in turn fueled the rival states' fear of each other and  has increased the probability of a threatening confrontation between military forces of Russia and NATO allies.The research hypothesis will be tested within the framework of defensive realism theory, since the security dilemma is perhaps the theoretical cornerstone of defensive realism. The security dilemma theory and the broader spiral model constitute a persuasive theory of war between states, and explain the outbreak of war and the maintenance of peace. The advocates of the security dilemma theory argue that an increase in security of one state might make other states less secure, not because of misperceptions or imagined hostility, but because of the anarchic situation of international relations. The method of research is conceptual analysis, which is useful for examining concepts for their semantic structure. The main uses of conceptual analysis include refining and clarifying concepts in theory, practice, and research as well as arriving at precise theoretical and operational definitions for research. Conceptual analysis evaluates concepts, terms, variables, constructs, definitions, assertions, hypotheses and theories, by examining them for clarity and coherence, and critically scrutinizing their logical relations in order to identify assumptions and implications. Conceptual analysis, which is occasionally called theoretical research and closely related to critical thinking, is not merely a matter of language or language use. The conceptual analysis exposes (typically unconsciously) practical inconsistency, such as when someone rejects logic by employing a valid deductive argument or adopts a realist approach in their research while explicitly claiming allegiance to antirealist perspectives.According to the conceptual analysis method derived from the rational positivism approach, the relationship between NATO and Russia is considered an integral game with the typical function of fear. The findings show that the current security spiral between Russia and NATO lies at the top of the defensive-offensive approach. However, this international game of power is one in which direct conflict is unlikely, at least in the short-run. The reliance on NATO’s nuclear weapon capabilities to provide a tangible assurance of the success of the Alliance’s credible deterrence has not been an ultimately reliable guarantee against Russia's regional ambitions. This failure is due to both morality and rationality because of the arguments made on the basis of practical and rational reasons, such as the territorial proximity of Russia and the Baltic counties, the difference in opinions and priorities within NATO, and potential for the escalation of conflict. Russia is justifiably considered to have conventional power preponderance in the Baltic region. The creation of a conventional balance of power in the Baltic region is not feasible for the Baltic countries either individually or collectively even with the provision of additional forward-positioned allied battalions. The defense models of the Baltic countries are by necessity fully nonaggressive, because there is no room for them to use pre-emptive initiatives, extraterritoriality, or hybrid instruments of defense policy.

Modern Sport has a significant role and position in current international system, and can be considered a multi-faceted phenomenon with political, economic, cultural and geopolitical aspects and clear consequences for domestic and foreign policy of most states. In spite of the claim made by international  sport organizations about the separation of  sport and politics and the lack of political manipulation of sport events, one should acknowledge the substantial impact of internal-external politics on sport. Accordingly, modern sport has gradually played a significant role in all sorts of interactions among states. In fact, sport has become an international and global phenomenon which can be a large part of foreign policy agenda of most states. There has been a large number of studies, primarily conducted by sociologists regarding the nature and extent of relationship between sport and politics. In fact, there is a specific sub-discipline called sociology of sport, which aims at studying the social aspects of sport. However, a review of literature covering books and articles written by scholars concerning theories of international relations in the academia reveal that scant attention has been paid to the linkage between sport and foreign policy. In general, there has been a degree of inattention and neglect of the political aspect of the phenomenon of sport in the theories of international relations. Since a theoretical and conceptual framework is needed to better understand the importance of the role of sport in foreign policy, the authors design a conceptual model inspired by Bourdieu's field theory in their quest to describe and explain the nature of foreign policy-sport linkage. The main research questions are: 1. What is the nature of the relationship between sport and foreign policy? 2. To what extent can sport influence diplomatic relations, and the advancement of peace in the international system? In the research hypothesis, it is  postulated that international sport, as an effective instrument of foreign policy, contributes to goodwill and the advancement of peace in international system by creating opportunities for public diplomacy and shaping soft power of countries. For hypothesis-testing, the authors adopt a qualitative approach, and focus on sports as a political phenomenon. Based on a careful analysis of available evidence and written material, and the use of the two elements of "field and capital" in Bourdieu's theory, they explain how various governments may use sport diplomacy and soft power to achieve their foreign policy goals. The main conclusion of the research show that international sport has been used by states to fulfil their foreign policy objectives. The more successful countries are the ones which have endeavored to invest more in national capacity-building in order to become more competitive in international sports events, instead of stressing the use of force and coercion in their interactions with other international actors. They have reaped the benefit of increasing ‘capital’ (in the form of prestige, dignity, acceptability, attractiveness, influence and economic benefits), and then using the ‘capital’ to attain their goals and secure their national interests in an increasingly competitive international arena. No country should ignore the issue of sport, particularly international sport as a useful source of soft power. Furthermore, international relations scholar should be more attentive to the role of international sport in national foreign policy agenda settings, and international power politics.

Over the past two decades, the Russian military has upgraded certain categories of its military equipment (e.g., nuclear warheads). As part of this military modernization strategy, some of the old types of missiles are replaced with the new ones  including new submarine-launched and ground-launched intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs). Additionally, the Russian military has begun new weapon research and development that had previously little place in the country's defense structure. The new program which started in the mid-2000s, include the production of cruise missiles, hypersonic missiles, and unmanned submarines. The evidence now shows that this program will be continued in the coming years.
The main research question is as follows: Why has Russia decided to modernize its nuclear warheads in recent years? In the hypothesis, it is asserted that among all factors which have prompted Russia to upgrade its nuclear warheads, the United States and NATO policy of deploying missile defense shields has had the greatest impact on Russia’s military modernization program. Since Russian leaders consider the establishment of missile defense systems by the NATO allies as an existential threat to their country, it comes as no surprise that they have been investing in a program with the aim of acquiring new nuclear capability for deterrence as well as for defense. The new weapon systems are developed to enhance Russia’s ability to retaliate in response to any aggressive actions including a nuclear attack by the US and NATO.
In order to find suitable answers to the research question, the authors, with a descriptive-explanatory approach, rely on qualitative conceptual content analysis of government documents (such as national security strategy document) and the  statements made by the high-ranking Russian officials. Furthermore, the views of international relations scholars, security specialists, and experts on Russian military affairs are explored for the purpose of descriptive data collection and analysis.
Two factors have contributed more than any other variables to the strategic culture of the Russian politicians and people: 1. The peoples’ experiences of the recent decades; 2. The leaders’ belief system which is influenced and shaped by geostrategic factors, military technology, and military organizations. Hostile and rival pawers’ d
eployment of the defense shields throughout Europe deprives Russia of the advantage of nuclear retaliation, thus giving the West the advantage of a first strike. This situation might shift the geopolitical balance to the disadvantage of Russia. Given the past history of Russia as a great power, it is basically inconceivable for the Russiansto accept the role of a minor power or a subordinate partner in the international system. Despite all itsshortcomings (e.g., a relatively low economic and technological development in the Global North), USSR(and later Russia as its leadingsuccessor state) has been regarded as amilitarily dominantstate in the post-WWII  international system.
From the point of view of the Russian leaders, the West's claims about the need for the missile defense shield to counter Iran's missile threats are exaggerated. Russia has hundreds of nuclear warheads that enable its leaders to deal a fatal blow to any enemy in any part of the world. The missile defense shield deprives Russia of this advantage. Even if the US and NATO missile defense shield poses no direct threat to the Russians, Moscow considers its deployment in Europe psychologically a negative, detrimental, and debilitating political move by Russia’s adversaries.
In response to the missile defense shield, Russian leaders initially sought security guarantees from the West, but Western leaders refused to accommodate Moscow’s request. They did not even accept Russia's offer to cooperate in NATO's missile defense shield plan in Europe, or even to grant Moscow access to the Qibla radar station in Azerbaijan. In response, Russia first suspended its membership in the Conventional Armed Forces in Europe (CFE) Treaty, and subsequently developed new delivery systems including the following ICBMS: a) the Sarmat  ICBM with a speed of 25,000 km per hour, a range of 10,000 km, and carrying 10 to 25 warheads; b) Yars ICBM, with a range of 11,000 km which can carry 6 to 30 nuclear warheads; c) Avangard rockets, reportedly with a record speed of 20 times the speed of sound, which means that no missile defense shield can destroy it; d) Burustenik cruise missile, which can be hidden from missile defense shield radars due to its low altitude flight; e) Alexander nuclear missile, with a speed of up to 2600 meters per second, which can  neutralize missile defense shield; f) advanced Borya-2 submarines capable of carrying sea-based Bulava ballistic missiles, which have a range of 8,000 km; g) Poseidon nuclear unmanned submarine, which was designed to destroy coastal areas. With these initiatives, Russian leaders modernized their nuclear warheads and were able to maintain their nuclear balance with the West and maintain their position as one of the world's two leading nuclear powers. Russia's military innovation includes the production of missiles that the missile defense shields of the US and its western allies cannot intercept and destroy. The deployment of these offensive systems has increased Russia's ability to deter and defend against the West.