درخت حوزه‌های تخصصی

The emergence of Non Government Organizations (NGOs) in various fields of life is proof that civil society is essential in building a democratic society. NGOs can educate citizens and communities on their fundamental rights to create a democratic state and world order life. NGOs in Indonesia and Egypt have played a significant role in strengthening democratic movements by empowering civil society. This study examines NGOs’ role in democratization in Indonesia during the reign of President Suharto and Egypt under the leadership of President Hosni Mubarak. In carrying out their functions, NGOs take a stand as a balancing force for the state and agents of community empowerment. The NGOs’ elements struggle in producing an ideal democratic society order in these two countries facing their respective challenges. Some NGOs challenge building democratic society such as military domination, party hegemony systems, and robust state control over society. To encourage democratization in Indonesia and Egypt, NGOs have contributed to building democratic practices, improving democratic performance, strengthening civil rights, monitoring elections, and promoting corruption eradication. The strengthening of democracy by NGOs in Indonesia and Egypt has impacted building political openness, awareness of citizens' political rights, and pro-society public policies.

Malaysia and Turkey are progressive, modern Muslim-majority countries. Both have shown strong resolve and capabilities in dealing with issues and challenges both at home and international level. In dealing with COVID-19 pandemic, both countries have adopted various measures and strategies to contain the virus outbreak. Yet, the biggest challenge in executing those is balancing the need to protect the public and maintain economic growth. Hence, this study compares and contrasts the measures and strategies taken by both countries in containing the COVID-19 outbreak as well as ensuring the continuity of economic growth. The time period of this study was from March 2020 until early February 2021 as most of the countries, including Malaysia and Turkey, by then had introduced new COVID-19-related health policies and economic stimulus packages. The finding compares and contrasts the effectiveness of those measures and strategies so that both countries can share and learn from this pandemic. .

Geopolitics as a branch of political geography is scientific in nature and, similar to other scientific disciplines, has two aspects: basic (fundamental) and applied. The basic aspect deals with the production of scientific theories, theoretical propositions and the development of geopolitical knowledge. The applied aspect deals with the production of practical theories, patterns and practical geopolitical methods to meet the needs of nations, countries and human societies. Applied knowledge of geopolitics, like applied propositions and theories of other disciplines, can be affected to some extent by worldviews, ideologies, cultures, attitudes, as well as the interests of nations, political users, and governments. Therefore, geopolitical science and knowledge, similar to other scientific disciplines, are inherently worthwhile and useful, and must be developed to meet the needs of nations and humankind. However, geopolitical knowledge must not be abused by governments and political actors on any scale, whether global, national or local. In contrast, it must be at the service to provide the needs of the citizens, human constructs, nations and human societies. Also, governments and political actors should exercise it in the same direction. Accordingly, the author (Dr. M. R. Hafeznia) has established and proposed a new theoretical /practical approach in the application of geopolitical science and knowledge in the political and moral life of humankind and human constructs, especially nations, under the title of "The Humanist Geopolitics". This view was published for the first time in the form of an article under the same title by the author in Geopolitics Quarterly, Volume: 3, No 4, Winter 2008, and later in the Journal of Conflicts in France, Paris in 2015. Since this geopolitical school has attracted the attention of some interested readers and has raised some questions and ambiguities for them, the author decided to formulate its principles and make them available to those interested to clarify the attitude and dimensions of this school of thought, with the hope that a step can be taken in the direction of relieving the suffering of humankind as the chosen ones by the God as creator of the universe and enhancing the living pattern of humankind and human constructs.

This study is reassessing the geopolitical consideration of the British government in the Sixth Days of the Arab-Israeli War,1967. Based on declassified documents from the British’s archive, this paper will analyze the geopolitical factor which shaped London’s reaction towards the conflict. Middle East geopolitical position was very strategic to the British interests in the region. Hence, the focus of this paper is to re-examine the consequence of the war toward Britain’s attitude in preserving her strategic military position and economic calculation in the Middle East between 1960s to early 1970s. These including the paramountcy of the British military bases in the region, arm trade commercial activities and a disruption of the oil flow from the region to the West. From historical perspective and analysis, this paper argued that the threats from the Soviet and Arab nationalist movements during the conflict had significantly influenced the British government’s reaction towards the war. Although London did not involve directly in the conflict like in the 1956’s Suez Crisis, yet British’s response was still crucial since Britain was the prime architect in drafting and tabling the United Nation Resolution 242 after the war. Indeed, this research inclines to believe that the British equilibrium attitude as proclaimed during the conflict was not purely based on a principle of a just and lasting peace but it was very much relying upon geopolitical consideration of safeguarding British major strategic interests in the region.   .

The main purpose of this article is to examine how and to what extent Iran-Russia cooperation is effective in ensuring ‘broader’ strategic stability through balancing in the Middle East. Strategic stability and balance of power are interrelated components of the region’s order which have changed following the Arab Spring and the Syrian crisis. The article analyzes Iran and Russia’s impact on these two concepts, with a systemic approach, paying attention to interrelationship of variables at regional and international levels. Although strategic stability has been generally considered an issue at international level of great powers politics, this paper, emphasizing on evolution of international relations, believes in a new, complex and multilayered definition of strategic stability - a ‘broader’ one in the Middle East, which is not necessarily ensured by agreements or balance among great powers. The results indicate that Iran-Russia cooperative balancing in the Syrian crisis against the US and at regional level with emphasis on a broad regional balance system has been effective in providing ‘broader’ strategic stability in the region. Although Russia's policy in this field put some limits on Iran, strategically it serves Iran’s interests.