IRANIAN RESEARCH LETTER OF INTERNATIONAL POLITICS
Year:2017 | Volume:5 | Issue:1 |Papers Count:6

Islamic Republic of Iran's law for jurisdiction of Iranian judiciary for proceeding with the civil suits made against foreign states was adopted in response to the judgments made by the US courts against the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran and its related organizations and breach of their immunity. They have issued such judgments under the 1976 Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act and its subsequent amendments. In contrast, many judgments have been issued under Iranian Law. Irrespective of the validity of those judgments under international law, now we are faced with a huge number of judgments made by the Iranian and US courts against the other government and there are some persons who are beneficiary of those judgements. Under the current applicable rules of the US, final settlement of disputes arising from those claims is the pre-condition for normalization of the relation between the two states. Thus, we are faced with a question of what the capacities of international law for settling such disputes are if the two states decide to reestablish their relationships in the future...

After more than a decade of the dispute over Iranian nuclear program finally this delicate issue came to an end through the signing of a nuclear deal (jcpoa) between Iran and the 5+1 members. Russia, China and the United States are the main actors in Iranian nuclear case whose role in relation to this case is undeniable. The United States with its pressure, threats and sanctions was trying to prevent Iran from obtaining the nuclear power. This country used a variety of methods including sanctions and military threats to prevent Iran from continuing its nuclear activities. This is while China and Russia, the two countries that used to be placed among moderate opposition to the Iran’s nuclear program, expected the dossier to be handeld in the framework of international treaties such as the NPT, strongly opposing the use of military action against Iran. Russia and China have adopted ambiguous stances towards Iran since they, on the one hand, agreed with the West on worrying about the country’s nuclear power, and on the other, stood with Iran by supporting the country. Therefore, the questions that come to mind are as follows: what factors have affected the attitude of Russia, China and the U.S. on the Iranian nuclear program? How these factors have influenced it? In this article we try to answer the abovementioned questions...

Up-down democratic transitions occur in reaction to internal and external obligations and necessities by governments. This kind of transition begins in the form of liberalization and minimal democracy, and then in the process of time can lead to consolidation of democracy by providing various good situations and responsibility in government, people and civic associations.The important aim of this research is finding the answer of this question: What are the most important roots or efficient factors effecting on liberalization and gradual democracy in Kuwait from the 1990s onward.Research hypothesis: The most important factors effecting on liberalization and gradual democracy in Kuwait from the 1990s onward are the invasion of Iraq to Kuwait as an important external opportunity, the intensification of demands for democracy in civic associations, civic actors and social movements, political cleavages in power block or ruling elites and the impacts of press and the internet on awareness and attitude changes...

Iran nuclear program can be considered as one of the complicated cases of the country in the international scene which involves various dimensions.Albeit, events regarding the nuclear case took a new turn since Hassan Rouhani took office in 3 August 2013. Given the sensitive position of Iran nuclear program within the international system and the reflection of its various aspects in different foreign and domestic media, it is essential to take a closer look at the approaches employed by Sharq and Keyhan newspapers in this regard. As both sides of an extremist spectrum, i.e.reformists and fundamentalists, these two newspapers play a significant role in reflecting events and subjects related to Iran nuclear deal in Geneva using their own particular approaches.Furthermore, these two newspapers were chosen because of their regular and national publication in that period which coincided with the time that Hassan Rouhani took office as the 11th government. At this time, a new stage of decision-making and operations began in the area of Iran nuclear case along with negotiations with the parties involved…

Diplomacy and negotiation between governmental and nongovernmental units have been always underway domestically, regionally and globally, dating back to the human history. Such concepts as diplomacy, diplomat and negotiation have been extensively employed in the literature on international relations. They, recurrently, represent the relationship between two or more states or even several non-governmental actors. The central question, therefore, is how the changing concept of diplomacy related to the theories of international relations (IR). This study addresses the changes in diplomacy in IR. For this purpose, the changes in this concept from the mid-15th up until the 21st are reviewed. The main thrust here is to draw upon these conceptual changes with reference to the theories of realism, liberalism and constructivism. The findings indicate that it is possible to analyze the changes in terms of the theories via considering diplomacy in three different periods including traditional, unconventional and reciprocal (in this study). It should, however, be borne in mind that these three theories are not, on their own, able to explain the totality and full range of the changing concept of diplomacy.

Peacekeeping missions in Africa will have unexpected consequences for the people in the region involved in the conflict, which will have a longterm effect on the growth and development of the continent. Humanitarian peacekeeping operations refer to monitoring and supporting human rights and reducing human suffering in the host countries. But the passage of time shows that the UN peacekeeping operations, especially those in Africa, have failed. This article seeks to answer the question of why the Security Council's peacekeeping operations in three regions of southern Sudan, Darfur and Abyei have been a failure? Failure to comply with the components of successful peacekeeping operations is the reason of the failure of the mission in the aforementioned regions. It includes components of satisfaction and goodwill of the parties involved, impartiality of the mission, collaboration of the important outside agents, a sense of security for the parties involved, transparency in the mandate of the mission, quick and timely deployment of peacekeeping operations, internal and external coordination, competent command of the mission and focusing on the reasons for the battle. Complex situation in South Sudan, Darfur and Abyei and insufficient attention to the above factors lead to confusion, resulting in inefficiency of the Security Council and peacekeeping missions in these areas.