نشریه مطالعات بین المللی
سال دوم شماره 3 (پیاپی 7، زمستان 1384)

A case study in this article shows that the British Labour Party acts more imperialistically, than the British Conservative Party ever contemplated to do. This is due to the fact that one never expects the British Labour Party to act so imperialistically, however the British Conservative Party behaving in an imperialistic manner would not be surprising.In any-case, as the case study in the article shows, it can be seen that from the Second World War until the present beginning of the twenty-first century, how overtly the British Labour Party has behaved in an imperialistic mode.Although the British are not a super-power, or a first rate power, nonetheless, the British Labour Party, which is the subject of this study, has the tendency to be imperialistic. An example in this respect can be given with the fact that it uses humanitarian assistances as a means of international diplomacy, even today. The article has greatly expanded and amplified on this matter.

The international media have recently shed the light on disturbing practices of interrogation that have been used in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo. At the same time, we witness a shift of discursive techniques and language regarding torture and high coercive techniques of interrogation. The effect is that the line between high coercive interrogations and torture has been blurred, regardless of international law and human rights treaties.This paper discusses the issue whether there is a limit to the use of such techniques and whether high coercive interrogation methods are a cruel, inhumane or degrading treatment, prohibited under international law.The first of the paper presents and describes the methods used and qualified as high coercive methods of interrogations. The second part deals with the legal and moral differences between torture and high coercive interrogations. In the third part the paper looks at the way courts and commissions qualify the methods described. Eventually, the paper analyzes if a line can be drawn under international law between torture and high coercive interrogations or if both are prohibited under international law.

After over 10 years of negotiations there still remain unresolved issues of great importance, which the Caspian coastal states could not agree upon. Unsettled are vital issues of the extension of national sovereignty and problems of the future borders of Azerbaijan, Iran, Kazakhstan, Russia and Turkmenistan in Caspian Sea, as well as not less sensitive issues of the right on the exploration and exploitation of the Caspian natural resources, especially oil and gas. The greatest obstacle to the negotiation process of the clarifying the legal status of the Caspian Sea comes from the often-conflicting interests of the Caspian littoral states. A successful interstate dialogue and legal compromise accepted by all the littoral states has been achieved only on the fragile Caspian environment through signature of Framework Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the Caspian Sea. May it be the first positive sign for the future progress in the ongoing negotiations.

Continued strength on the part of the state and relative weakness and political dependence on the part of society have so far proven insurmountable obstacles to democratization in the Middle East. Consequently, none of the three broad patterns of democratization—democratization through civil society, through the deliberate retreat of authoritarian leaders, and because of the emergence of fissures within the once-cohesive ruling elite—have appeared in the region on a wide scale, with the possible exceptions of Turkey and Lebanon. In Iran, during the first term in office of President Khatami, it appeared that the state’s lack of institutional and ideological cohesion would usher in a democratization process. Such was not the case, however, and the cracks within the ruling establishment appear to have disappeared with the election to the presidency of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Nevertheless, if the new President makes good on his campaign promises of facilitating economic growth and development, and by doing so enhances the economic position and independence of the middle classes, he may unwittingly pave the way for turning them into agents of democratization by prompting them to demand greater economic and political accountability and representation.