Unilateralism

Today, the global system is formed based on multilateralism, which is based on international relations and the origin of international organizations and institutions. But this matter is endangered by the unilateralism pursued by the United States of America. Coercive unilateral measures such as sanctions, threats, military intervention, and even measures such as withdrawal from international treaties are exerted at high levels. Therefore, such actions by a country, which considers itself protector of the human rights and interests of the international police, are contrary to the international law and the United Nations Charter and must be opposed by the international community. This study has adopted a descriptive-analytical approach and is based on internationally accepted documents and procedures. Data collection is done using library and internet tools and relying on objective data. In this study, we seek to answer the critical question of whether the United States' unilateral and hostile sanctions against the Islamic Republic of Iran are legitimate in terms of international law and human rights. Our initial answer (hypothesis) to this question is that the hostile actions of the United States of America against the Iranian people are blatant violations of international human rights law following the resolutions of the UN and the Human Rights Council. The fundamental rights of the Iranian people, such health, life, and the right to development, in all its legitimate respects, have been directly influenced by the hostile and unilateral actions of the United States, and have a worrying impact on the human rights and life of the Iranians. The United States' actions also impede the establishment of lasting and comprehensive peace and security in the international arena. The purpose of this study, therefore, is to examine and evaluate the contradictions between the sanctions as one of the most essential enforced and hostile actions of the United States' government against the economic resources of the Iranian state and nation from the perspective of the international law and human rights.

The US foreign policy in the post-World War II has been marked by periods of unilateralism, while in other periods, multilateralism has been more prevailing. The existing works, while explaining certain periods of unilateralism by various domestic and international factors, such as neo-conservative ideology and superpower rivalries in the Cold War, are unable to explain the reason for which in some periods, the US foreign Policy has been more dominant. This article seeks to explain the difference by referring to the conceptual complexity of US presidents. We analyzed the content of news conference transcripts for 11 post-WWII US presidents using the Flesch-Kincaid text readability index to measure presidents’ conceptual complexity. We used the index in our previous study to explain the unorthodoxy of Donald Trump’s foreign policy. Findings suggest with statistical significance that Presidents with low levels of conceptual complexity do not consider many factors as important and prefer unilateral actions by emphasizing short-term achievements. On the contrary, presidents with complex cognition are less likely to believe that the US can solve critical or long-term international issues alone.