نشریه مطالعات بین المللی
سال هفتم شماره 2 (پیاپی 26، پاییز 1389)

The beginning of ethics in international relations back to the political thoughts of Son Tzu. His consistence to the strategic art and ethics showed an indispensable behavior which based on morality and ethics. This is the reason for what ethical morality expanded to the strategic decision in international relations and political sciences. In new era we could find the ethical strategies in critical theories school. The thinkers of this school believe the use of power is legitimate only in the situations of threat, checking, and cooperation.In this article we will analyzes the transformation of ethics behavioral to critical school. So the relationship of ethics and use of power will be discussed by our hypothesis.

In this article, I try to understand the position of justice as an “ethic necessity” in Realism and Liberalism paradigms of International Political Economy (IPE). Even though the realists basically dont recognize any position for justice ethic necessity, they have tried to follow a technique for reaching a kind of justice by accepting the theory of Democratic Peace of Kant in the Global Political Economy. But, all they practically follow are not duty bound to “justice ethic necessity”, rather in fact the non-ethical axis of National Interests.In case of theoretical transformations of liberalism paradigm, justice and its ethic necessity also dont have almost any key position. This paradigm follow the egoist axis of realist national interests in other framework named the “Competition”. This framework profit of “the Comparative Economic and Productive Advantages” principle that is the basic of “Individualist Society” and are erect on the “Market Economic System”. Even the arguments of the partisans of economic freedom that have been followed by the Neo-liberalists in the new era mean the rejection of all forms of “Income Redistribution” and “Equalitarian Politics” accepted historically by some of inter-paradigmatic reform efforts of liberalism.But, in the historical inter-paradigmatic transformations of liberalism, the necessity of foundation of the welfare State has been accomplished on the basis of “Social Democracy” approach. These theoretical transformations of course have been new shaped by “Justice Theory” of Rawls and “Welfare State Theory” of Keynes. However, “justice ethic necessity” has been rejected in the Neo-liberalism dynamics in the era of Globalization.In this article, I try to answer to this question: How can the justice be conceptualized as a symbol of ethic in some paradigms of IPE?

In the Persian article submitted, the morality of justification offered for foreign intervention to defend human rights in other countries is discussed. Primarily contradictory positions in the literatures of international relations are explored. Arguing the positive and negative aspects of foreign intervention to defend human rights, this student of politics sides with the pros of interventionist school, provided that the intervention does not emerge out of egoism and parochial interests. Based upon a new approach to define the state, this author argues in favor of the sovereignty of each and every individual global citizen. That is, he is critical of the taboos created around the sanctity of state. The criticism is to deconstruct the doctrinal principles of Westphalian international system. Instead, the argument condones the cosmopolitan and democratic communitarian values on one hand and Good Governance principles on the other. Of course he thinks that the modern state can play an instrumental role in realizing these values. This however needs the mythological component of nation to be divested from the state. State turns to a funnel-pomp instrument to facilate the sovereignty of citizens at both individual and global levels. Based upon a review of Persian mystical literature, this author found that Persian mythical poems articulated by Great Sages such as Hafez, Sa’di and Molavi support the moral intervention in support of citizenry rights, based on cosmopolitan values. In the meantime, the patriotic stand of Ferdowsi is mixed. Unequivocally, the author is critical of policies violating human rights. Nonetheless, he thinks systematic abuse of citizen rights will ultimately lead to mutual disadvantages for both the Shah and the citizens. He narrates the fall-outs of Jamshid’s tyranny embodied in the succession of a foreign intruder’s namely Zahhak, who is the symbol of bloodthirstiness.

Once International Relations claimed a monopoly over the study of world affairs, there is now a plurality of capable observers from disciplines like Geography, International Political Economy, and Sociology. The role of diplomats in International Relations has two essentials: Decision making in political affairs, and judgment on ethical affairs. A diplomat does judgment on other diplomats, states, peoples, their words, and beliefs.The concept of national interest refers to welfare goals of national governments on the international level such as the preservation of political independence and territorial integrity.The term rational denotes behavior that is appropriate to specified goals in the context of given situation. A course of action can be qualified as rational or not only with reference to the actor’s own intrinsic rational preferences.To assess the rationality of statesman’s foreign policy we must determine whether he correctly weighs the national interests in a particular situation and chooses a policy or an option that is most likely to achieve the national interests at acceptable cost and risk.Having examined the doctrine of Thomas Hobbes about the man, it is impossible not to pay attention to one essential question. It is a question of what is the human nature in reality, what are desires and inclinations which define ultimately the people’s behavior. The answer of Hobbes is mostly clear and unequivocal: From birth people are exposed to greed, fear, anger and to other animal passions, they look for respect and profits; they act for the sake of benefit and fame, that is, for the love to themselves and not to others. Thus, egoism turns up to be the main stimulus of the human actions.National Interests, Rationality and Morality are three sides of a triangle which has interactions to each others. We discuss interactions and impacts of the triangle sides briefly. Iran as an ancient state with similar and different national interests during history, rationality in its decision making and ethical values at foreign policy can propose new paradigms of dialogue of international relations and morality.

The exit different and sometimes controversial images, assumptions and predispositions on the relationship between ethics and politics. Some argue that there is no serious relationship between those two. The examination of the relationship between ethics and international politics from the perspective of international relations theories can illuminate and elaborate the quality of this relationship. From this angle, this paper raises and answers two queries:1. Where ethics stands, in the theories of international relations at large?2. What are the normative and ethical theories of international relations In response to these questions, the existing realist, neoliberal and radical theories will be examined through the prism of ethics and their attachment to ethical argumentations will be gauged. Then, the normative theories, especially communitarian and cosmopolitan ones, will be analyzed. These examinations will prove the basic argument of this paper that contrary to the prevailing assumption, ethics is a major issue for all theories of international relations.

This study concentrates on the issue of culture shift and the question ethics in International Relations in the last two decades. While, as the title of the study suggests, it seems that the issue of culture does not relates the question of ethics in international relations, but this study claims that culture represents an umbrella in international relations and foreign policy, under which the issue of norms and ethics have significant roles. In other words, the question of ethics in international relations is a sub-issue of culture in this arena. However, contrary to the views of many students of international relations, the culture per se does not equal the ethics and ethical values of international politics. While culture includes the question of ethics, it does not necessarily play the role of ethical issues in international relations. On the contrary, the culture may have un-ethical dimensions in this area. Thus the type op culture and the way culture is applied to international politics determine the ethical or un-ethical perspectives of the culture. By discussing the issue of culture in International relations, as a discipline, the study focuses on the issue of soft power theory. The main argument of this study is that the soft power paradigm in international relations, as it is used by the American students of IR, has an instrumental approach toward the question power and uses it a justifying factor for the application of hard power in international politics.

Environmental degradation, instability, drugs, terrorism and chemical or biological weapons recognize no boundaries. This must have become abundantly clear to all of us at least after September 11th. Thus, we need to shift to a paradigm and a mindset based on dialogue and stockholding, which allows us to appreciate this clear reality of being all parts of one unit. Under the tragic circumstances, empathy is the only human response. We cannot, but share in the pain and anguish of thousands of families who lost their loved ones and an entire nation that has been traumatized by the horror of this crime.Emotions and anger are only human, but we need a great deal of collective reflection and wisdom to establish a rational and far-sighted response. This response should focus not only on this horrific crime, but on terrorism in general. More importantly, it must deal with the roots of injustice and exclusion that can be exploited by demagogues to inflict so much harm on innocent human beings. Any response requires vision, serious political will and the active participation and cooperation of all. As a global menace, terrorism needs a global response, founded on inclusion, fairness and international legitimacy.

Is there any claim in world politics which my method and behavior in political life is not moral? Every body and every country, considers that its acts and conducts are moral. Now, there is an important question: What will be happen if officials of every country try to considering the belonging ideals are the best and perfect more than the same of other countrie's believes? For example, all of the political slogans such as consolidation of global socialism, protecting of nation's acts for national freedom and social progress, effort for achieving the ideals of Arabic and Islamic Ommah, announcement to solidarity with struggling nations in the way of economic and political freedom, quarrelling with discriminations, and having the deep sensation for promoting the democratic ideals, are valid and moral. Now there is a paradoxical situation, because if every country wants and tries to promoting and performing its specific political ideal in the world politics and in the international society, without any tolerations expediencies, and flexibilities, it seems that a moral ideal will convert to unethical and immoral ones. What is the main conclusion? War instead of peace.

Devastating contemporary world events, prove that human being needs for universal ethics in international relations. Despite of efforts in the international community to prevent governments from ungracious behavior, but the opportunity for lasting peace have missed due to the lack of attention or neglect of the rule of ethics. Considerable share of this failure refers to lack of understanding of cultural capacity for constructive interaction of human society, such that in many cases, we see that international actions are formed through misperceptions. In my point of view, the first step in this cultural interaction, is agreeing on a common concept that all cultures and civilizations can be gathered around it. The concept of "human dignity" as a universal value is a basic concept in the religions and civilization's teaching to provide a proper cultural capacity for interaction in such a process and to achieve a general theory for coexistence of international relations in the sphere. obviously, returning to spirituality and religion in public sphere- both domestic and international relations- has promoted the capacity of Islam and other monotheistic religions in increased interaction with international environment and emphasizing on common bases of religions (human dignity) will provide a special software power for walking in this way.