FOREIGN RELATIONS
Year:2012 | Volume:4 | Issue:3 (15)|Papers Count:8

This article tries to study the network of studying Iranian issues in the U.S. and its views on the U.S. policies towards the Islamic Republic of Iran. By referring to some data banks, the author identifies 182 personalities and the members of the network studying Iranian issues. Since more than one personality is present in some organizations, in total, 104 organizations are identified, at least one member of which is active in the network. Through analyzing data and based on recommended policies, existing presumptions about the nature of Iran-U.S. relations and their perception of political realities of Iran, four distinct models were discovered. The final results of this analysis shows that the whole body of recommended policies by the network members can be divided into four categories. "strategic interaction", "punitive measures without interaction", "conflictual interaction", and finally, "fundamental transformation" in U.S. foreign policy. Revealing such a model suggests that there are four groups or circles involved in policy–making in the network of studying Iranian issues which are studied and introduced in this article.

Afghanistan has exhibited two conspicuous characteristics during its modern history. Governments in Kabul have failed to achieve comprehensive penetration in the society in order to influence all aspects of life. European and Western powers have been unable to bring Afghanistan and its people under their unchallenged control during the past three centuries. For sure, plenty of different domestic and international factors emerge as the explanatory proof of these two realities. But, considering this quality of life in all its dimensions throughout Afghanistan, two justifications stand out to be more prominent and reputable. The main question of the article points to why leaders in Kabul and invading European and Western countries have shown such great inability to establish their congenial order throughout the country from 1747 to the present. On the other hand, they have been incapable to regulate social relationships in accordance with their preferred value system. In view of the two dominant governing characteristics of Afghanistan, the article’s hypothesis posits that the presence of fragmented identities (lack of national identity) and presence of shared sovereignty (multiple power centers) are major determining factors in the failure of Afghanistan's leaders and invading countries to establish their desired order and to regulate the preferable social relationships.

This article focuses on decisions made by the G-20 and state actions to exit from the world financial crisis and discusses the gap between "collective accords" as an instrument of multilateral diplomacy on the one hand, and the continuation of national protectionist and mercantilist policies as a realist approach based on self – help and opposed to multilateral economic actions, on the other hand. The main question of this article is which actions and policies have been pursued by the great powers of the world economy to solve the financial and economic crisis, and why has this crisis not been solved? The guiding hypothesis of this article is that although the great powers of the world economy have tried to solve the crisis through intergovernmental and intra-organizational interactions of the G-20 international financial policies and injection of capital into the global markets, they could not to solve the crisis due to the continuation of some national protectionist and mercantilist policies. The analytical framework of this research is based on an explanatory analytical method and the theoretical approach of neo-liberal institutionalism. According to this approach, the necessity of collective cooperation and the adoption of multilateral diplomacy is a model applied by the G-20. Finally, the authors address the reasons of the weakness or inefficiency of this collective and mostly governmental institution in dealing with the crisis and say that the continuation of mercantilist policies is responsible for many deficiencies.

This article tries to understand the complexities of German foreign policy in the new international geopolitical environment. There are few analysts who do not believe in considering Germany as a giant in industry and economy. However, it seems that this giant moves in the realm of international politics in a delicate, calculated and to some extent, unstable manner. The self-restraint culture prevalent in Germany means rejecting the participation in any military operation without United Nations Security Council or Bundestag authorization as a heritage of the two world wars. But, there is also a traditional tendency in Germany for having a considerable share in international politics and economy. These two divergent forces make it troublesome for German officials for developing a formulated strategy in the international arena. This article tries to realize how the accumulation of German national power after Germany's reunification in the first half of 1990s has influenced its foreign policy approach and behavior.

For a long time, there have been many discussions regarding the roots of the state and its formation in academic circles using realist, pluralist, and functionalist approaches. This article tries to look at the state from a different point of view and to give a new analytical instrument for international relations which poses the state as its independent variable: the state as an organization. Now, the question is that given the inter-complementary nature of organization and environment, which features of organizations could be compatible with its living in an international environment which evades any central power? In other words, which characteristics constitute the factors involved in state evolution as an organization in the international environment? To answer these questions, the article claims that the state as an organization living in such an environment has these identity-making features: implicit responsibility of statesmen, multiplicity of experts for studying the different aspects of the issue, organizational inertia, and inter-objective procedures of statesmen regarding historical experiences.

Power, based on the nature of international politics, is a concept that a correct understanding of which is necessary for having knowledge of a body of issues in the international system. For this reason, many efforts have been made to understand this concept and its components in the international relations literature. Efforts made by Joseph Nye in developing the theory of soft power are of great importance in this respect. This theory reveals new horizons beyond a uni-dimensional perception of power in understanding the elements involved in the meaning of power. But Nye's theory only explains generalities and does not go further to analyze effective details due to its philosophical poverty. This shortcoming has made the theory of soft power unable to answer questions posed during the research about the operationalization of this aspect of power. We believe that we can take useful steps to remove this shortcoming by using researches carried out on the concept of power in a social perspective. This article tries to introduce some elements to enhance the operationalization of the concept of soft power.

The international process of disarmament and arms control is an arena for constant disputes and conflicts between international tendencies and vital national interests of states. The conflict between vital national and security interests of states has sterilized the system of nuclear disarmament and arms control. The international law of disarmament and arms control treaties as an evolving legal system are evaded by resorting to different excuses by states under the pretext of preserving vital national interests. However, states claim that their actions do not violate the principles of international law. Therefore, the concept of vital national interests and similar concepts with political natures are among the main obstacles to the development of universal law on disarmament and arms control treaties, because they pave the way for arbitrary misuse of rights by states. For this reason, the slow process of developing principles of international law in this sphere stems from the national interests and sovereignty of states. Also, this area compared to other areas involves more limitations on the sovereignty and national interests of states to the benefit of international sovereignty and interests. This is due to the content of undertakings and monitoring mechanisms to ascertain the compliance of states to the regulations. This article tries to address the impact of vital national interests on the process of the development of principles of law on disarmament and arms control with an emphasis on the International Court of Justice judgments.

The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) doctrine is one of the new legal concepts in international law which is based on the theoretical foundations of "human security" and "humanitarian intervention". The introduction of the doctrine raised many hopes for removing the shortages of humanitarian intervention due to issues such as "selectivism" and "national interest– driven intentions of interventionist states". The Gaza crisis in 2007 is an appropriate case for testing the capabilities of this doctrine. Therefore, the main question of this article is that can, in theory, the R2P doctrine be an appropriate legal basis for international reactions to protect civilian inhabitants of the land of Gaza against the Zionist regime' s operations? Our transitory answer as a hypothesis to this question is that given the widespread and gross violation of human rights following the surrounding of Gaza and imposition of a 22- day war on its inhabitants, there is a necessary legal basis for implementing the R2P doctrine to protect Gaza's inhabitants. The secondary question of this article is related to the evaluation of the functions of predicted qualified authorities in the framework of the R2P doctrine during the Gaza crisis.