نشریه مطالعات بین المللی
سال نهم شماره 1 (پیاپی 33، تابستان 1391)

This article conducts a comparative analysis of Iran and Turkey, two neighboring countries in the Middle East that share Islamic cultural identities and a clear political interest in promoting regional détente. While Turkey has made great strides in terms of consolidation of its ruling elite, industrial growth, job creating investment, the expansion of civil society, capacity building (economic development, and improving health care and education), and housing sector, Iran has had comparable successes in some areas, such as capacity building, but certainly has fallen behind in other areas, such as losing managerial skills, brain drain, widening divisions within its power structure, and growing restrictions on the expansion of civil society and democratic freedoms. One notable difference between the two countries is that trust in public institutions is higher in Turkey than Iran. Whereas Turkish civilian leaders exhibit noticeable disinterest in military rule, Iran’s clerical establishment has forged an alliance with the Revolutionary Guards. These issues are discussed with particular regard to the problems confronted in both countries in tackling domestic and foreign policy matters. The article highlights why the normalization of relations with the United States more specifically and the Western world more generally would benefit Iran. The political and economic troubles that Iran faces are likely to undermine Iranians’ support for the regime in coming years.

What are the sources of mistrust between the United States and Iran? How do the countries represent each other in official discourses? How does discourse shape policies? These are some of the questions that are central to this article, which dissects the past, present and future of Iranian-American relations. It is argued that both countries can’t think their foreign policies without the other and that the official discourse in both countries is reflective of this interdependency. The article takes a critical view of the current state of relations between the two countries and actively considers how the current impasse could be overcome.

here are a number of known and unknown variables that are likely to shape regional security dynamics and international relations in the Middle East in the coming years. The outcomes and impacts of two broad, on-going trends are relatively easily discernible. They include continued American military presence in the Middle East; and a continued qualitative shift in the nature of power that has determined regional alignments and postures over the last decade or so. The consequences of these two trends are relatively easy to discern: a continuation of the American security umbrella; the emergence of a new regional power block, namely the GCC, that relies on a qualitatively new form of power than that heretofore prevalent in the region—what may be called “subtle power”; and the regional states’ continuation of uneasy relations with Iran without jeopardizing their close alliance with the United States. These trends are taking place in a context of fluid, and highly unstable, domestic politics in most countries of the Middle East that are rocked by the Arab Spring. The specter of collapsed states, once limited to Afghanistan and Pakistan, has now spread to Libya, Syria, and possibly even Bahrain. Iran’s ability to proactively respond to each of these developments will determine its power and stature in the region and beyond. Unless it can place itself in front of these emerging waves, it may find itself subsumed by them, or, at the very least, have its position undermined through their force.

Despite the immense literature on various aspects of “Human Rights,” students of law, politics and international relations are less acquainted with the ontological basis of this vitally important issue. There seems to be a false impression that this topic is an invention of Western power which is now being used as an instrument of political pressure against traditional and less developed authoritarian societies. In fact, the ontological dimensions of human rights have been largely ignored. We are now witnessing a developing criticism on the legitimacy of human rights which is under serious threat. This essay attempts to look at the issue from an ontological perspective. The main focus here is not “human rights” per se and the conventional norms governing its realm, rather, the aim is to investigate the preliminary requisites to it; that is the ontological basis that embraces man’s inalienable rights by virtue of his very nature as a “human being” and not necessarily as a member of society or the citizen of a political entity called state. The question here is whether man-disregard of his race, faith, gender, creed and political or territorial affiliation- ultimately exists totally for or as a member of society or exists in some significant sense for himself independent of the socio-political environment? Another important question is whether the entitlement of such rights entails a correlative duty or it is merely a privilege as basic moral guarantees that people shall enjoy in all countries and cultures simply because they are human beings. It will be argued that the problem of human rights is essentially lack of effective enforcement in a disparate chaotic international system.

In the aftermath of Lisbon Summit of NATO in November 2010, US, NATO and Afghanistan agreed to create conditions for “irreversible transition to full Afghan security responsibility and leadership” by the end of 2014. This requires internally an increased pace in the strengthening of administrative judicial, political and security institutions in Afghanistan. Externally, to manage the post-transition responsibilities a supportive role by the neighbouring countries is essential. In this backdrop it is crucial to assess the nature and dynamic of internal and external security challenges to Afghanistan. The study provides useful insights into the nature of complexity that characterizes the behavior of regional actors. It examines the security implications of US exit strategy not only for Afghanistan but in the region and beyond.

Throughout history, the functions and roles of borders have been continuously changing. They can only be understood in their context, shaped as they are by history, politics and power, as well as cultural and social issues. Borders are therefore complex spatial and social phenomena which are not static or invariable, but which are instead highly dynamic. This comprehensive volume brings together a multidisciplinary team of leading scholars to provide an authoritative, state-of-the-art review of all aspects of borders and border research. It is truly global in scope and, besides embracing the more traditional strands of the field including geopolitics, migration and territorial identities; it also takes in recently emerging topics such as the role of borders in a seemingly borderless world; creating neighbourhoods, and border enforcement in the post-9/11 era.