مطالعات بین المللی

Dr. Mohammad Javad Zarif, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Islamic Republicof Iran, opened the Sixth Model United Nations (MUN) Simulation Exercise on24 August 2017 in Tehran. The theme of the UN Security Council Simulationthis year was the nuclear programme of the People’s Democratic Republic ofKorea (PDRK). In his speech, Dr. Zarif first applauded the Model UN simulations held by the International Studies Journal, and mentioned that he has missed teaching international relations in an academic setting. He also mentioned that it was heartwarming for him to see so many women participants in the room, and took pride in Iranian women being interested in international relations and world politics. Dr. Zarif also spoke about the significance of Cold War as well as the collapse of Soviet Union and the role that the UN played 30 years ago. He also emphasized that “We all need to arrive at a good, reliable,and convincing understanding of this period of transition, which was perceivedat a certain time in the past to be of a rather short period and expected – orsimply aspired to - arrive at a definitive position of unchallenged Americanglobal hegemony. Well, that hasn’t come to pass.” He also touched base on the issue of North Korea (DPRK) and mentioned that “it is not only states that areengaged in the drama, a much larger catalog of players and actors, inclusive ofnon-state actors – falling under the general rubric of civil society - are alsoinvolved and bear on the situation.” In addition, he talked about the significance of ‘change and power’ in international relations and iterated that “power couldbe defined as increasing influence and decreasing vulnerability.” Dr. Zarif mentioned a few historical and political events in which the issue of  power and gaining hegemony were involved. Lastly, he discussed how the Security Council failed Iran and watched in silence when Iraqis used chemical weapons on Iranians during the Iran-Iraq war. In the end, he wished the participants success and luck in the Model UN simulation and hoped that they could “move in the direction of - hopefully – political-diplomaticresolution of a regional tension with grave consequences for international peaceand security.”  

In a previous article, Stakeholder Theory and the Logic of Value Concepts: Challenges for Contemporary International Law, published in International Studies Journal (ISJ) in2011, the authors outlined the general premises for stakeholder theory applications and international human rights law. However, the challenges that pertain to economic/social rights were not addressed in detail. In this article, therefore, the authors provide a comparative analysis of narrow (or classical) versus broad (or modern)stakeholder theory with a specific view to determining the status of basic economic/social rights in the context of international human rights law. Narrow stakeholder theory is illustrated by Milton Friedman’s framework, whereas the main ideasand thoughts that define the broad alternative are derived from the work of R. Edward Freeman. While the authors primarily endeavor to outlinethe single most crucial premises and implications of application, they are also hoping to inspire discussion about future developments, especially since it could be argued that the stakeholder theory that has the best fit with United Nations norms and strategies may be conducive to a business as usual conclusion.

Context and Objective: Considering that in the process of human trafficking the human rights of victims including children and women are ignored in different ways by human traffickers and even involving governments including source, transit, and destination and given that human trafficking for the purpose of sexual or asexual somehow mutilates human dignity of this organized crime victimization. Research method: The current research is using description-analytic method as well as digital-library sources. Findings: The findings of the present study indicates that investigating the possibility of persecution of violators in International Criminal Court from deemed trafficking in persons as an instance of crime against humanity and addresses the criminalization status of trafficking in personsregarding constitution of International Criminal Court capacities in the light of victim-orientedhuman rights doctrine and the challenges facing the protective criminal policy of the United Nations. Therefore, different perspectives have been critically reviewed and evaluated on this issue. Conclusion: It can be argued that human trafficking together with the concrete subject composed of the victims of the crime had also a spiritual subject which is human dignity

The region of the Persian Gulf can be seen as a geopolitical arena in which the Arab-Iranian relations are shaped. As one of world’s primary and most significant source of fossil-energy exports, the Persian Gulf cobbles together Iran and the seven Arab countries of the region in a geopolitical cradle in which they enjoy similarities in economic and strategic life, as well as security concerns. Accordingly, the challenges of maritime political geography seem to be quite dependent on an established set of standards and agreements in order to remain on solid grounds. Currently, these challenges manifest themselves in four major categories, with substantial geopolitical consequences between the Iranians and the Arabs of the region, and the complexity of their relationships. These include: Religious Controversies, which concern the sectarian geopolitics; propagates under Jordan-Israeli concoction of “Shiite Crescent”;and Territorial Contentions with theirmajor controversy over the naming of the Persian Gulf. This article examines the process of territorial conflicts, proceedings, and eventually the settlements over the maritime areas of the Persian Gulf in the past five decades. The arrangement of the maritime political geography in the Persian Gulf is a fitting example of former disputes over the border and boundaries within the maritime regions of the world.  

The Kurdish question has caused ups and downs in Iran-Turkey relations. Geopolitical and geostrategic considerations of Iran and Turkey since the 1990s onwards have coupled with the economic needs of the two countries; needs that have led the two nations to geopolitical cooperation. None of the two has threatened the legitimacy and structure of the other government system by influencing the Kurdish movement in the other country. Their rivalries in the Iraqi Kurdistan and making efforts at influencing the developments in the Kurdish regions of Syria after the outbreak of the Syrian crisis, as well as ISIS attacks on Kobani brought the two sides on a collision course. This article seeks to examine Iran-Turkey relations as related to the Kurdish question between 1991 and 2015. The authors conclude that the Kurdish question has not affected their overall geopolitical and geostrategic policies.

Small states are generally assumed to be on the receiving end of power in the international arena rather than a source of it. But from the late 1990s up until mid-2013, when Sheikh Hamad Al-Thani ruled the country, Qatar became endowed with a form of power. This form of power did not conform to traditional conceptions of “soft,” “hard,” or “smart” power but was a composite form of power that could be best described as “subtle power”. Qatari foreign policy at the time was comprised of four primary components. These included hedging, military security and protection, branding and hyperactive diplomacy, and international investments. Combined, these four foreign policy components bestowed Qatar with a level of power and influence that was far beyond its status as a small state and a newcomer to regional and global politics. This type of power was neither rooted in the attraction of norms (soft power) nor in military ability (hard power). It instead consisted of a form of often behind-the-scenes agenda setting that could be best described as subtle power

The current Korean crisis is just a prelude to the tensions and conflicts that will accompany the rise of the ancient civilizations which have a much longer tradition than the Western World. Globalization will inevitably lead to the newly rise of the civilizations which have lost their standing and recognition in the course of Western colonialism and hegemony.  What we therefore need is a development of mutual recognition among the great civilizations of the earth, which should transcend a mere parallelism as well as a universal civilization which in the end would just be a kind of universalized Western civilization. While the task of the late 20^th century was the avoidance of the self-destruction of the planet, the task of our century will be to manage the new rise of the ancient civilizations without falling in the Thucydides trap of a repetition of the First World War – only now in Asia. As the slain former prime minister of Israel highlighted: "You don't make peace with friends. You make it with very unsavory enemies.” Mutual recognition of the civilizations of the earth has a double perspective: It allows solving conflicts on a rational basis and it is binding the conflict-parties to their own civilizational standards.     

The current situation in the Middle Eastern states thatare dealing with reconciliation and transition process is not going well. The research of the author for about four years in Yemen, Libya, and Tunisia is full of first-hand information and knowledge gained through direct interviews with national figures who are with or against revolutionaries. Combining original experience through interviews with richinput of literature gained by secondary research has turned thisbook into an invaluable source to study and delve into the incomplete Arab uprisings and the reason behind them. Hence, this kind of comparative analysis gives a decent and invaluable literature to those scholars who incline to study the transitional process in the Middle East following the fact that it is based on the field study and includes first-hand experience along with face to face interviews. In other words, such an analysis could be meritorious for decision makers of any states and actors involved in transitional process to learn from the points made about these three Arab states.