درخت حوزه‌های تخصصی

Artificial Intelligence has emerged as a transformative technology with implications for global security. This article using descriptive-analytic method aims to explore the US and China’s Competition for AI supremacy and its security consequences for global security. The research main question is that “what ramifications do the US and China’s competition for AI supremacy have for global security?” This article argues that the competition between China and the U.S in the realm of AI technologies has significant ramifications for global security, with implications spanning economic, military, and geopolitical spheres. This multifaceted competition casts a profound shadow over the contemporary international landscape and necessitates a nuanced understanding of its consequences. This article also discusses that international collaboration, dialogue, and the establishment of norms and regulations are crucial in harnessing the benefits of AI while mitigating its risks. The final section of this article addresses recommendations to robust AI systems that prioritize human rights. By embracing a responsible approach to AI, we can strive towards a safer and more secure world.

One of the most significant breakthroughs in technology is the evolution of computing sciences and cybernetics. This development has had a global impact, with the widespread use of computer sciences leading to worldwide issues. In the third wave, time and place have become intertwined, eliminating the effects of distance and creating a new version of space. These characteristics have transformed the geography of virtual space into the geopolitics of virtual space. The findings of this analytical article, conducted using a library method and the strategy of cyberspace geography studies, suggest that the geography of virtual space is an emerging academic topic. When the geography of cyberspace addresses inequality in cyberspace security, it becomes a geopolitical issue. The paper explores how cybernetics is changing traditional notions of power, sovereignty, and conflict. The research also considers the implications of emerging technologies on global governance, the balance of power, and the potential for new forms of cyber-hegemony, concluding with recommendations for future policy and strategic considerations in this rapidly evolving field.

Geostrategic realms refer to large-scale spatial zones on the Earth shaped by the rivalry among major global powers, forming extensive blocs of confrontation. These realms are structured through a combination of political, cultural, economic, social, military, security, commercial, technological, and media-related factors or a subset thereof and are typically led by a dominant actor assuming a guiding role. At the global level, two primary realms can currently be identified: the maritime realm and the continental realm. Transformations within geostrategic realms are infrequent and evolve over the long term, as dominant powers strive to preserve their superiority and stability by leveraging the aforementioned variables. In the aftermath of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, which intensified cohesion among maritime powers, a new geopolitical window has opened for China to strengthen its position within the continental realm. Moreover, the rise of Donald Trump as President of the United States and the resulting transatlantic tensions over the Ukraine war present the potential for reshaping the global geostrategic landscape. This study investigates these emerging fractures and examines the prospects for realignment among global realms and the rise of new strategic actors. It analyzes geostrategic configurations through the lens of prominent geopolitical theories and interprets the shifting dynamics between the maritime and continental realms in the current global context. The research is primarily based on library and documentary sources and follows a descriptive-analytical methodology.

The relationship between Identity and stability occupies the core of consensus democracy philosophy, as this governance model is designed to ultimately realise stability by addressing societal fragmentation in divided societies. In Iraq, this relationship shapes a complicated trajectory, mainly because the society moved fast from identity politics (transition) to issues politics (post-transition), which turned the consensus democracy itself that succeeded in realising stability in the transition by functioning well in addressing identity-related crises paradoxically into a driver for instability in the post-transition, for its dysfunctionality beyond the identity sphere. This article argues that this dysfunctionality is primarily linked to flaws of Arend Lijphart’s theory of consensus democracy more than problems stemming from the Iraqi context. It reviews and analyses the existing literature on the nexus of identity and stability under consensus democracy, taking Iraq as a case study. As a review article, this research uses the qualitative method; its data are collected from secondary sources. It found that the philosophy of consensus democracy is designed to primarily meet transition demands, which makes rapid societal transformation beyond transition raise bottom-up pressures expressed in new demands that this democracy cannot accommodate, creating a growing gap between the post-transitional social dynamics and the transitional politics, which generates chronic instability. Further research is needed on stabilisation mechanisms in post-transition, as most studies of consensus democracy focus on stability in transition.

This study aims to investigate Saudi Arabia’s quest for regional hegemony, including its objectives, initiatives, and difficulties. In other words, the degree to which Saudi Arabia has been successful in establishing itself as the region’s dominant power. It is crucial to thoroughly explain Saudi Arabia’s psychological and practical justifications for pursuing regional hegemony in this context. To examine the political discourses, reality, narratives, ambitions, and perspectives of Saudi Arabia and compare these with other regional powers in this area, as well as to highlight a number of context-specific constraints on Saudi Arabia’s aspirations for regional hegemony, is the goal of the research. In addition, it intends to investigate how external powers such as the United States, China, Russia, the European Union, and Turkey influence Middle Eastern regional dynamics based on their own vested interests. This analysis demonstrates that Saudi Arabia’s drive for regional hegemony is mostly restrained by external causes. First, despite its preeminent economic power, the country lacks strong military capabilities to provide a security shield for its friends in this region. Second, the sectarian politics and undiversified economy of the region make it unlikely that secondary nations will receive full public goods. Third, low economic integration, the perception of a common regional threat, the absence of a broad free trade arrangement, the superiority of hard power over soft power, and a lack of mutual trust among regional countries are significantly diminishing the acceptance of Saudi Arabia’s hegemonic role in the region. However, Saudi Arabia is deliberately involving regional partners and coalitions in regional growth. The country takes on the main task for reshaping the Middle East’s economy and elevating this region to success. If Saudi Arabia is successful in fostering regional integration, offering a security shield, encouraging trust building, and collaborating with other states in this region to address shared regional threats, it will have a greater chance than the majority of other states in the region to become the regional hegemon. 

The complexity of global order is often obscured by the oversimplified representations of international relations, illustrated through political maps. These maps, while seemingly objective, are subjective projections that reflect the ideology of their creators and fail to capture the nuanced dynamics of power and control among states. Such a misrepresentation contributes to a distorted understanding of global dynamics. Meanwhile, the origins of political geography can be traced back to the 18th century, particularly with the establishment of the first school of political geography in Saint-Petersburg, Russia, between 1720 and 1750. Political geography, however, is not entirely homogenic; it encompasses several competing theories regarding the perception of space. It has developed gradually with the changes in perception of space: as an absolute, relative and cognitive space respectively. Recognizing the complexity and evolutionary features of a political map and political geography as whole thus appears to be crucial for understanding global politics.