نشریه مطالعات بین المللی
سال نوزدهم شماره 2 (پیاپی 74، پاییز 1401)

In the post-World War II era, superpowers and victors in the war offered economic superpowers to expand their economic and political influence and to develop and expand trade with allied and sometimes rival countries. Some of these plans were designed and presented with ideological goals or confrontation with the rival and others focused more on economic goals. Some refer to these initiatives as geopolitical tools, while others see them as a means to expand trade and economic influence. This article introduces the most important international initiatives of this kind in the last 70 years and for the first time compares China's Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) from an economic, social, political, commercial, and geopolitical perspective and with the Marshall Plan and the Molotov Plan (CMEA or Comecon). The main purpose of this article is to answer the question of what points of similarity and difference exist between China's BRI with the US Marshall plan and the Soviet Molotov plan. In this article, by examining the context and objectives of these super-projects, the similarities and differences between the above projects have been studied and compared.

The policies and behavior of different governments of the same country differs from each other in political, security-military, economic, social, cultural, etc. areas. This study intends to answer the question that "Why the US security policy in Trump and Biden’s administrations (and in principle all US administrations) is different? " This study used post-modernism and the concept of “state in process” for review and comprehension of differences between various US administrations, because from the perspective of postmodernism the identity of the state is never complete. The state is always in the process of being constituted, but never quite achieving that final moment of completion. This research is an analytical-descriptive study with a methodology based on Laclau and Mouffe’s discourse analysis method. This study attempted to gain an understanding on the differences between the US security-military strategies in Trump and Biden’s administrations through application of post-modernism and the concept of “state in process,” The results showed that "different, unfinished and incomplete identity of different US administrations (here Trump and Biden’s administrations) have caused them to have different discourses in the security-Military sector, Make it up and these different discourses have led to the use of different policies and practices in the security-military field."

General recommendation no. 19 of the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) acknowledged and incorporated violence against women into the system of eliminating discrimination against women as a gender-based discrimination, which previously was not explicitly included. Governments are obligated to fight violence against women, a gender-based discrimination in international human rights law. The European Convention on Human Rights has adopted rules to combat domestic violence against women. In addition to requiring governments to protect victims and punish perpetrators of violence, these commitments also eliminate the root causes of violence. The question concerns the representation of these provisions in the judicial precedent of the European Court of Human Rights. Therefore, this theoretical and descriptive-analytical study sought to explain the judicial precedent of the European Court of Human Rights in tackling domestic violence against women. Analysis of domestic violence against women within the framework of international human rights law in the judicial precedent of the European Court of Human Rights shows that these verdicts also consider this form of violence incompatible with European human rights laws and acknowledge that member states have practical commitments in this regard.

The involvement of the Islamic Republic of Iran and Saudi Arabia, the two most significant regional actors, in the Yemen crisis might be seen as a reflection of their ideological rivalry. Ideology plays a considerable part in this situation and paves the way for higher regional competition between these two countries. This study employs a comparative-analytical approach, and data are collected via desk research, books, academic journals, and databases. The subject was discussed using the comparative framework of Barry Buzan's "Regional Security Complex Theory" (RSCT). This study addresses the following question: "How can the rivalry between Iran and Saudi Arabia in the Yemen crisis be explored? “According to the theoretical framework of this study, the rivalry between Iran and Saudi Arabia may be analyzed in four criteria: roles, objectives, level, and strategies. In fact, these nations vary in these four criteria, which will be discussed in the paper. Iran and Saudi Arabia have been rivals for several years. Focusing on this issue and gaining knowledge of the Islamic Republic of Iran by analyzing Saudi Arabia's foreign policy in the region, the present research lays the groundwork for a logical and acceptable strategy to protect Iran's regional status and maintain the power balance.

Within the framework of realism, hegemony requires the use of certain instruments such as the international law to maintain its legitimacy and institutionalize its values. In fact, the stability of a hegemonic order and the continuation of the current situation could be really advantageous. Legitimization through the implementation of the international law has proven efficient in stabilizing the superior positions of the dominant countries. Known as central players in international politics to consolidate power, governments are immersed in the calculation of profits and costs. Hence, they prefer cooperation to favor their national interests. However, liberalism plays an undisputed role in developing the international law to establish ever-lasting peace. By tying the realization of international peace to the legitimacy of representative systems and the internal components of states, liberalism has opened an opportunity to improve human rights. Assuming that liberal international solidarity and peace are established through good governance at a domestic level, this paper aims to determine whether the approach of liberalism to the international law has managed to enhance the standards of governance in the community. For this purpose, the research literature was reviewed to collect data from documents, books, articles, websites, and other Internet-based sources. Finally, liberalism was introduced as a theoretical foundation of good governance to globalize the norms of the human rights in a bid to standardize governance, analyze the rise of liberal governments, and ensure and enforce the human rights.

The holy Quran describes God's will as the genesis and wellspring of any and all power in the universe. Therefore, it is necessary to interpret the concept of power ontologically and to analyse its essence, function, and constituent elements, as well as its substantial or abstract features. In this regard, the research addresses the following question: "What are the Quran's and international relations' viewpoints on the notion of power?" The descriptive-analytical method has been used to answer this question, and a desk research strategy to collect data from the library and the Internet. The fundamental result is that theories of international relations separate power components into substantial and abstract structures, such as militaristic, economic, and ideological, and see it negatively when it becomes operational. Unlike international relations theories of power, however, the holy Quran gives the abstract components of power priority over its substantial components and praises them. International relations theories see power as a means of achieving domination over others and self-satisfaction. Furthermore, such views promote war and see peace as a peripheral and temporary phenomenon. According to the holy Quran, people who receive power from God (whether individuals or society members) and employ this God-given power to please the almighty God will never dominate others in any period or location.

Today, sanctions of varying types are employed by one or several states as the most practical means of applying pressure in the international system to protect human rights, fight terrorism, and prevent war, among others. It has always been controversial to investigate sanctions and human rights violations and the associated consequences, particularly the violation of the right to health. This article seeks to answer the question, "What is the international responsibility of states for violations of the right to health resulting from sanctions?" This analysis presumes that sanctions from various aspects, particularly economic ones, result in human rights violations, including the right to health. Building on the proposed hypothesis and legal documents and evidence, this study examines the legal basis and the effects of imposing sanctions on human rights standards, international legal documents, the prohibition of international sanctions, the concept of international responsibility of states in international law, and the foundations of creating international responsibility of states (caused by sanctions).

Cyber attacks are a global problem that now pose great threats to the world security. Every day we see cyber attacks around the world in such a way that currently no part of the world is immune to these attacks. Capacities and potentials that The cyberspace has brought about human society has led countries to exploit these capacities and potentials for their own political and economic purposes that this has disrupted global cybersecurity. The only thing that can help solve this problem in the world is the cooperation of States at the international level to strengthen their cyber security. In this study , the question which arises is that What is the need for states to work together to strengthen their cyber security? Using the descriptive – analytical method , this question has been answered that because all aspect of human life has got dependent on cyber technologies and such a level of dependence leads to the abuse of some states in carrying out cyber attacks on the vital infrastructures of states , it is necessary that in order to strengthen cyber security , states should cooperate globally.

The equality of states in rights and obligations is a backbone component of the rule of law. However, veto power is against such equality. Global peace and security and political, economic, and cultural cooperation are essential for humans. The United Nations was founded to realize such objectives and contribute to international peace and welfare, while power-based politics arising from realistic strategies decelerates the implementation of international peace. The veto power is an effective mechanism of power-based politics that impedes the objectives of the rule of law. Therefore, this descriptive-analytical paper aims to identify solutions in order to constrain the veto power as a violation of the rule of law. To ensure the rule of law and preserve and promote multilateralism, the reform of the Security Council is the only solution rather than just an alternative.

According to some philosophers, it is feasible and inevitable to establish a rights-based global state (i.e., the unity of humanity under a common political power committed to the norms of human rights) considered the ultimate goal of the nation-state anarchy construct. It is used as the presumption to explain the capabilities of this state to maximally implement human rights. This study aims to determine what attractions a global state should have to maximally implement human rights. For this purpose, a descriptive-analytical method was employed to explain the capabilities of a global state and discuss the characteristics of this state in implementing the norms of human rights separately for the three generations of human rights. The research results indicate the unique attractions of the global state in terms of the exclusive and legitimate use of force (i.e., a Weberian state), mutual identification of all activists (i.e., a Hegelian state), correlation of humanity through control of conflicts and international coordination (i.e., a Kantian state), minimal and essential functionality (i.e., guarantee of negative rights), and establishment of distributive justice and worldwide redistribution of wealth (i.e., guarantee of positive rights). Therefore, such a state can maximally implement human rights.

This paper presents the futurology of effects of changes in the concept of invasion in the Kampala Review Conference on the quality of interaction between Iran and the International Criminal Court (ICC). This descriptive-analytical study consists of three sections, the first of which states the problem, presents the research generalities, and reviews the literature. The second section analyzes the background to the Kampala Review Conference and changes in the concept of invasion. Finally, the third section addresses the potential scenarios regarding the possible quality of interaction between Iran and the ICC based on the definition of invasion in the international criminal law. According to the final conclusion, the definition of invasion in the Kampala Review Conference and the non-exclusiveness of investigation into invasion at the discretion of the United Nations Security Council are two important factors in the success of developing companies in the conference. These two positive important factors can strike a balance in the formulation of the international criminal law, possibly change Iran’s membership status, and add Iran to the Rome Statute of the ICC.

Good governance received attention at the end of 1990s and was considered the key to development by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The more the rule of law is in effect, the more the judicial system is efficient, and the higher the participation rate is, the better the governance is applied. The Middle East witnessed, in the last decade, Arab uprisings against dictatorial regimes and discriminatory policies, in which good governance is deemed to be one of the possible ways to compensate for the past. This research investigates Egypt and Tunisia. To evaluate the status of these two countries, the six indicators of good governance are used: control of corruption, rule of law, regulatory quality, government effectiveness, political stability, and voice and accountability. This research seeks to comparatively find out what status of good governance Tunisia and Egypt have reached after the Arab Spring. This is a descriptive, analytical, and comparative study aimed at comparing the status of Egypt and Tunisia in terms of achieving a post-revolution good governance paradigm. The results indicated that Tunisia has relatively achieved stability, with a higher score in good governance, due to having a dynamic middle class, a fairly consistent and pluralistic civil society, small professional armed forces, ethnic-religious homogeneity, and consistency of different fractions. Egypt, in contrast, lives out in somewhat political instability, leading to reduced score in good governance, due to political-religious conflicts, deep involvement of armed forces in politics, and post-revolution 2013 Egyptian coup d'état.

The British hegemony and its isolationist policies have been in constant conflict with integration within the EU and its monopoly of adopting political strategies holds opposing views towards the common European foreign and security policy. The focal query of the present study is how to turn to constructivism as post-neo-functionalism and other dominant theories of international relations. Did Brexit address a common European defense and security policy through these two interconnected theories? Regarding the significance of functional and structural pressures within the EU, the assessment of neo-functionalism and its common foreign security policy in the context of politicization dynamics is that this exit strategy may lead to be popularized among other parts of the EU. In the interim, the drawback of the neo-functionalist theory is to pay no heed to of the role and function of governments such as Britain in political convergence and its determinism in underestimating variables and factors outside Europe and trans-European actors in the CFSP. Briefly stated, what neo-functionalist constructivism has to embark upon its theoretical analysis is to mull over the crucial role of national governments and independent decision-making influence of national elites such as the British government in terms of an independent policy, explicitly as the Brexit referendum.

As one of the largest dry regions in the world, the Middle East faces the consequences of climate change. These circumstances have elevated the region's limited freshwater resources and the unfavorable agricultural situation to major challenges. Although the Middle East lacks a long history of cooperation among its countries, environmental crises can turn the threats posed by climate change into an opportunity for greater cooperation among them. In this new situation, "The Abraham Accords" in 2020 signal that the Middle East has entered a new stage. This article aimed to investigate the role of the UAE and Bahrain normalization with Israel in reducing their environmental crises, especially in the water and agriculture sectors. This article examined the environmental status of the UAE and Bahrain at the time “the Abraham Accords” were signed and also discussed the opportunities and advantages the Abraham Accords brought for them. The findings indicated that these agreements provided an opportunity for the Israeli regime to attract more capital in environmental domains such as water and agriculture, as well as achieve higher levels of innovation. They also provided an opportunity for the UAE and Bahrain to reduce the scope of water and security crises while achieving long-term development.