ایرانی امور بین الملل

Palestine was separated from Ottoman Empire''s territories following World War I with the aim of dividing it. As a member of a special committee set up in 1947 which resulted in the Resolution 181 of the United Nation known as ""Resolution of Division""، Iran objected to the move. Although the opposition to the partition of Palestine had its ups and downs، the ultimate proposal of the opposition movement was to allow all Palestinians to hold a referendum on Palestine، rather than force a two-state solution as the way to resolve the issue. Although Iran''s approaches to the Palestinian issue in its international relations have varied before and after the Islamic Revolution in 1979، its solution to the crisis in Palestine has always emphasized on necessity of Palestine reunification. This article seeks to evaluate the role of Iran in the opposition to a two-state solution، with a particular focus on how the shifts in Iranian policy towards the matter have not affected its principal insistence on preventing Palestine from being partitioned.

In search to depict the problems which have forced the Middle Eastern nations to acquire conventional arms and the ramification of militarization on regional and international levels، the present article examines three categories of: Regional (driven by the need to fight wars or guarantee security against specified external threats); Systemic (driven by supplier-client relationships، technological factors، or the pursuit of status and hegemony); and Internal (driven by the need to secure the regime against internal threats or the desire to use military development as a vehicle for social and economic modernization) as the significant factors which force theses nations to buy arms from various sources. It concludes that each category results in varying conclusions and these results vary in intensity with respect to each nation in the Middle East.

When people across the world saw two jet airliners hit the Twin Towers of New York on September 11، 2001، it never occurred to them that the officials of the United States might be working out a new global paradigm to fill the security gap. Only a few hours after the September 11 attacks، US President George W. Bush spoke of a new watershed in international law. Five years later، the new offspring reached its maturity in the form of the law of military commissions. New foundations were laid in the paradigm of “War on Terror” and in the struggle between security and human dignity، wherein the latter lost. Under this paradigm، new entities named “unlawful enemy combatants” were created، which had no rights and dignity whatsoever. Torture، as the strongest lever against human and humanitarian rights، was allowed against them. Loud voices were raised by the civil society against such violations to remind the international community of the huge cost of their widespread use. But these failed to have an impact. Consequently، only diplomatic approaches and emphasis on lawsrespecting human and humanitarian rights could be effective in guiding aberrant governments back to the legal fold.