World Sociopolitical Studies

By causing a serious gap in the optimistic literature on European integration processes, Brexit has provided numerous challenges for international relations theorists. In this regard, in the present article, three influential theories that best explain Brexit will be discussed: neorealism, constructivism, and the English school of international relations. Notwithstanding that both neorealism and constructivism are able to raise important issues, it seems that there are still certain shortcomings in the two theories in explaining Brexit. Neorealism relies too much on macro-analysis and material factors, and, on the other hand, constructivism tries to account for essential factors from the domestic or secondlevel analysis. Therefore, the paper's central question is how does the English School provide a convincing explanatory framework for understanding Brexit? In response to the question, the paper adopts a theoretical perspective to analyze and explain both the micro-level and macro-level of the Brexit phenomenon by utilizing the English School’s central assumptions: institutions, the great power status, pluralist-solidarist debate, and the balance of power. It is concluded that English School is able to explain Brexit more satisfactorily. According to the school’s assumptions, Brexit is not an oddity, but a natural consequence of internal and external equations in the United Kingdom.

This paper intends to examine the way in which major American media have framed Iran's Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (the JCPOA). Following the nuclear agreement between the Islamic Republic of Iran and the 5+1 powers in Vienna, the event was significantly depicted on the two major mainstream media outlets of the United States, namely CNN and Fox News. The study examines these media through framing as its theoretical approach. Framing, which is a prominent theory in communication and media studies, is concerned with the presentation of an issue in media. Using framing analysis, the study is based on data collected thorough an analysis of the JCPOA relevant transcripts broadcasted on CNN and Fox News during four strategic events within a threeyear period, starting from July 14, 2015. The collected data was analyzed by ATLAS.TI software to classify and place the selected frames into respective tables. By analyzing approximately 1200 deconstructed themes, the findings reveal the main coding-news of CNN and Fox News as Iranophobia, Iran's containment, Advocates vs. Opponents, US approach towards JCPOA, Iran's nuclear program, Iran’s economy, Role of Israel as well as the JCPOA achievements. The present paper concludes that under the impact of politicized frames in the US outlets, Iran’s nuclear program has been distorted, framed and consequently represented to the audience.

Negative socio-psychological repertoire about adversary exists in many societies plunged in conflicts. The challenge is how to make the structure of the society more flexible for a conflict resolution with enemies. This article examines the attempts of a pro-Iran-deal civil society, the - International Crisis Group, to change the negative societal beliefs regarding Iran, which exist in the American society. By using the unfreezing theory of Bar-Tal and Halperin (2011 b) as well as the NVIVO 12, which is qualitative content analysis methodology, this paper attempts to analyze this procedure from 2011 to 2016. The International Crisis Group made an effort to break the rigidity of barriers and remove their content in the American society. This trend of Iran unfreezing started in 2011 and increased in 2013, during the presidency of Hassan Rohani in Iran. Results indicate that the International Crisis Group fought against the rigid discourse that exists in the US about Iran through four main principles: removing the perception of Iran as a threat, legitimizing and humanizing Iran’s image, emphasizing the importance of the course of time, and expanding new information and alternative data about the US-Iran conflict. This new information aimed at justifying Iran’s actions and giving roadmaps for the future policies of the US toward Iran.

The traditional approach to international law granted states an absolute monopoly in making international law and it discussed the rights and powers of states as a sole subject of international law. However, the proliferation of norms made by non-state actors raises questions with regard to the status of the actors as well as the legitimacy of the norms in the international fora, while it also challenges the state-centric orientation of international law. In consideration of the foregoing, customary law—whichwas traditionally comprised of two statebased elements of practice and opinio juris, as an important source of international law—has been faced with a strand of inquiry: can non-state actors generate international customs? Through 1) an in-depth survey of scholarly arguments regarding law-making in certain circumstances that could also belong to private parties; and 2) a close examination of the lex mercatoria as an example of existing international customs developed by non-state actors, this article tries to clarify a) the legitimacy crisis of a more inclusive approach to international law and b) proposes opportunities whereby non-state actors could participate in the law-making process.

Germany and France are often viewed as the EU pillars in their common European foreign policy. After Brexit, their role has become even more significant. Consequently, the Euro-Atlantic relations have been affected by the ways these countries react to the US’s foreign policies when they are against European values, including the tenets of the international rule of law. The US withdrawal from Iran’s deal with 5+1 concerning Iran’s nuclear program (known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action and abbreviated as the JCPOA) is a case regarded as unlawful by the UN. It can be used to test how much these two countries show resistance to the US in case of disagreement. This article draws a comparison between Berlin’s reaction to the US withdrawal from the JCPOA vise-à-vise Paris’s response to the same event. The distinctions between these responses and the reasons behind them will be analyzed by drawing on the theory of neoclassical realism. Furthermore, it will be argued that while Germany’s political structure and its historical developments speak volumes about its disposition to being more conservative and taking less restrictive measures towards countries like Iran, for France, tipping the balance of power is an important factor that accounts for the country’s tendency to form an alliance with the hegemon in recent years.

This paper aims to investigate the portrayals of Hindu-Muslim relations in recent Bollywood movies with a specific emphasis on the Tanhaji movie. The movie narrates and depicts a religious struggle in the 17th century for the liberation of India. While Hindu-Muslim relations and conflicts have had many fluctuations throughout the history of India, evidences indicate that the contemporary situation of Muslims have worsened in the country. In parallel with the discriminatory discourses that are becoming prevalent against Muslims in the mainstream Indian society, different types of media represent and justify these actions. Cinema as the most significant type of popular entertainment in India has played an important role in this regard. The results of the present study indicate that by introducing Hindus as heroes who are smart, loyal, brave, diligent and dedicated to their motherland, and Mughal Muslims as violent, cruel and irrational, certain Bollywood movies have provided a significant contrast between the two groups.