دانشگاه گیلان (با مشارکت انجمن ایرانی روابط بین الملل) سیاست جهانی 2383-0123 14 2 2025 07 23 Explaining the context and requirements of global governance تبیین زمینه ها و الزامات حکمرانی جهانی 7 31 8370 10.22124/wp.2025.28820.3425 FA علی خواجه نائینی استادیار سیاستگذاری عمومی دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی Journal Article 2024 10 28 Globalization, as the increasing interdependence of nations and populations around the world, has intensified the need for global governance to facilitate collaborative action on environmental, economic, and political issues affecting nations. The disintegration of the basic functions of the state and the growth of uneven levels, the fragme are aishment of global governance. "Standards, norms, government capacities and international organizations" along with "coordination of actions, solving transnational problems and conflict management" constitute the main elements of global governance. But accepting the concept of global governance and trying to establish it requires the fields and requirements that this article deals with. Determining the relationship between international institutions and international regimes with the concept of global governance and also agreeing on the legitimacy of global governance mechanisms is one of these matters. Also, the role of networks of governmental and non-governmental actors at the national and transnational levels and the development of concepts such as global citizenship and global responsibility are other topics that are discussed in connection with global governance in this article.<br /><br />Introduction<br /><br />Globalization, as the increasing interdependence of nations and populations around the world, has intensified the need for global governance to facilitate collaborative action on environmental, economic, and political issues affecting nations. The disintegration of the basic functions of the state and the growth of uneven levels, the fragmentation of cultural identities and the reconfiguration of social, economic and political spaces are among other issues that require the necessity of planning for the establishment of global governance. Humanity has entered a new era in which nation-states can no longer be the sole guardians of security. Other authors also argue that humanity needs a world government to solve urgent problems that are transnational in nature—such as climate change, migration, financial instability, or the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction—and that require global governance.<br /><br /><strong> Theoretical Framework</strong><br /><br />Global governance can be understood as guiding the behavior of actors towards a single or common goal through the setting of rules, standards, and guidelines, or through targeted support. The transition from government to governance at the local and international levels is also characterized by a wide range of benefits and challenges. The benefits of governance include the ability to manage complex issues by involving all actors involved, integrating the knowledge, experience, and other assets of different actors, and overcoming differences and conflicts through cooperation and decision-making in a non-hierarchical and participatory manner. Modern global governance transcends nation-state boundaries and is not bound by territorial lines. Global governance is a type of global order that emerges when states, international organizations, and non-state actors voluntarily engage in discussions to create and enforce norms and rules that all parties are bound to observe.<br /><strong>3.Methodology</strong><strong><br /></strong>The method of collecting sources in this article is library and descriptive analytical method is used to review and analyze the materials.<br /><br /><strong> Results & Discussion</strong><br /><br />"Standards, norms, government capacities and international organizations" along with "coordination of actions, solving transnational problems and conflict management" constitute the main elements of global governance. But accepting the concept of global governance and trying to establish it requires the fields and requirements that this article deals with. Determining the relationship between international institutions and international regimes with the concept of global governance and also agreeing on the legitimacy of global governance mechanisms is one of these matters. Also, the role of networks of governmental and non-governmental actors at the national and transnational levels and the development of concepts such as global citizenship and global responsibility are other topics that are discussed in connection with global governance in this article.<br /><br /><strong> Conclusions & Suggestions</strong><br /><br />This study examines the context and requirements of global governance by analyzing the content of existing sources and focusing on different dimensions of this emerging concept. The elements of global governance include standards, norms, capacities of governments and international organizations, and coordination of actions, solving transnational problems, and managing conflict through joint cooperation. To strengthen the foundations and mechanisms of global governance, new concepts must be used, and the use of some existing theoretical structures such as international regimes for this purpose faces challenges. The intergovernmental and inter-governmental nature, ignoring transnational relations, emphasizing the vertical architecture of international and multi-level governance (rather than horizontal), and disregarding international norms and discourses and low-level interactions are among these challenges. Another conceptual challenge of global governance is legitimacy. Successful governance requires the consent and acceptance of those whose activities are monitored, but it is claimed that emerging global standards and norms are shaped by the interests and values ​​of industrialized countries and are therefore not legitimate. To address this issue, a new conceptualization of legitimacy based on the input, output, and operational levels of legitimacy was developed. Another requirement for global governance is to utilize the capacity of policy networks with functions such as joint networking, decision-making, coordination, and cooperation between multi-level and multi-sectoral actors. Finally, the development of conceptual capacities of "global citizenship," including "united citizens' organizations," as a cultural requirement for establishing global governance and the challenges of using them were examined, and proposed principles and rules were presented.<br />  «استانداردها، هنجارها، ظرفیت‌های دولتی و سازمان‌های بین‌المللی» همراه با «هماهنگی اقدامات، حل مشکلات فراملی و مدیریت تعارض» عناصر اصلی حکمرانی جهانی را تشکیل می‌دهند.جهانی‌شدن به عنوان وابستگی متقابل فزاینده بین کشورها و مردم در سراسر جهان، نیاز به حکمرانی جهانی را جهت تسهیل اقدامات مشارکتی در برابر مسائل زیست‌محیطی، اقتصادی و سیاسی که ملل مختلف را تحت تأثیر قرار می‌دهد، تشدید کرده است. از هم‌گسیختگی کارکردهای اساسی دولت، تکه‌تکه شدن هویت‌های فرهنگی و پیکربندی مجدد فضاهای اجتماعی، اقتصادی و سیاسی از دیگر مسائلی است که ضرورت تدبیر برای برقراری حکمرانی جهانی را ایجاب می‌کند. پذیرش مفهوم حکمرانی جهانی و تلاش در جهت برقراری آن نیازمند زمینه‌ها و الزاماتی است که این مقاله به آن می‌پردازد. تعیین نسبت میان نهادهای بین المللی و رژیم‌های بین المللی با مفهوم حکمرانی جهانی و همچنین توافق بر مشروعیت سازوکارهای حکمرانی جهانی از جمله این موراد است. همچنین نقش شبکه‌های بازیگران دولتی و غیردولتی در سطوح ملی و فراملی و توسعه مفاهیمی مانند شهروندی جهانی از دیگر زمینه‌هایی است که در ارتباط با حکمرانی جهانی در این مقاله مورد بررسی قرار می‌گیرد. https://interpolitics.guilan.ac.ir/article_8370_903bd0041ac2a18108d6c6736e0e4fc5.pdf

دانشگاه گیلان (با مشارکت انجمن ایرانی روابط بین الملل) سیاست جهانی 2383-0123 14 2 2025 07 23 The concept of humanitarian intervention after the Cold War in the development of the English school مفهوم مداخله بشر دوستانه پس از جنگ سرد در تطور مکتب انگلیسی 33 54 8771 10.22124/wp.2024.28779.3423 FA سیدعلی منوری دانشیار روابط بین الملل،گروه علوم سیاسی، دانشگاه خوارزمی، تهران، ایران شیرین حداد زند دانشجوی دکتری روابط بین الملل، گروه آموزشی علوم سیاسی ، دانشگاه خوارزمی، تهران، ایران Journal Article 2024 10 25 The notion of humanitarian intervention emphasizes prioritizing justice over the main principle of country sovereignty and this view legitimizes humanitarian interventions if severe human rights violations occur by authoritarian regimes, and it thus leads to external interference in domestic matters. Therefore, the pluralist and solidarist approaches emerge from different interpretations of the international community and the solidarist approach emerged as more influential after the end of the Cold War and the shift from a bipolar to a unipolar order but its focal point was after the September 11 attacks, which moved the global focus away from state-centric security to a human-centered framework, highlighting human rights, humanitarian intervention, and their increased importance in international relations. Therefore, this study aims to answer the question “How has the English school evolved with respect to humanitarian intervention after the end of the Cold War<br />Introduction<br /><br />The English School emerged as a synthesis of idealist and realist traditions in international relations with the aim to link these perspectives and achieve a middle path in international relations. Its "tripartite" pillars (the international system, international society, and world society) provide a foundation for understanding global political structures. Therefore, two primary approaches- pluralist and solidarist- reflect how states interact within the international community. During the Cold War and then the bipolar order challenges, the pluralist approach dominated, emphasizing state sovereignty and providing security. Therefore, many theorists have paid special attention to the non-intervention in the internal affairs of states by citing Article 2(7) of the United Nations Charter. The starting point of the solidarist approach can be identified with the end of the Cold War and the transition from a bipolar world order. However, the international shifts, especially the events of September 11 moved security away from the traditional state-focused framework, paving the way for prioritizing human-centered security and the rising importance of human rights, humanitarian intervention, and principles in global practice.<br /><br /><strong> Theoretical Framework</strong><br /><br />The theoretical framework of this study is rooted in the English School, which seeks to explain the behavior of states regarding humanitarian intervention. The key question is whether these interventions can be justified and understood within the solidarist framework.<br /><br /><strong> Methodology</strong><br /><br />This research uses a descriptive-analytical approach to answer the research question. The authors sought to utilize primary sources to explain the concept. Data are analyzed using desk studies and Internet sources in addition to various tools, including books, articles, online reports, and dissertations.<br /><br /><strong> Results and Discussion</strong><br /><br />The authors analyze and compare various and contradict theories of the English School. Before the Cold War, realism dominated international relations, with a strong focus on state power, security, and survival. However, other theories, such as the English school, were marginalized or were making efforts to adapt themselves to the existing conditions. In this regard, the pluralists emphasized state sovereignty and non-intervention in international affairs based on Article 2(7) of the UN Charter. However, what is particularly important for the authors of this study is the focus on a narrower approach to state-to-state relations in the international sphere. Some solidaristic theorists argue that intervention in other countries becomes necessary when severe, fundamental, and systemic violations of human rights, peace, and international security pose significant threats. In such situations, states and international organizations must take action, guided by their respective mandates, to carry out humanitarian interventions aimed at preserving peace and international security. This research examines examples such as Libya, Kosovo, Iraq, Somalia, Rwanda, and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Nevertheless, differing and conflicting perspectives on state actions remain, reflecting the evolving nature of the English school<br /><br /><strong> Conclusion and Suggestions</strong><br /><br />In this article, the authors seek to address an existing gap in the global context through a clear and accessible analysis, offering a distinct perspective on international relations that diverges from traditional views. The research aims to highlight specific aspects of international developments and demonstrate how certain theorists’ perspectives have evolved in response to shifting global circumstances. By emphasizing the concept of the international community and recognizing diverse viewpoints, efforts are made to clarify this evolving trajectory. Following the end of the Cold War, the English School underwent a major transformation in response to emerging international challenges, such as human rights violations. A key shift within the English School after the Cold War was the dominance of solidarist theory over pluralist approaches, leading to increased emphasis on humanitarian intervention within the solidarist framework in the global context. Ultimately, the English School continues to develop its theories by addressing these new global challenges and crises.. مفهوم مداخله بشردوستانه به معنای ارجحیت یافتن عدالت بر اصل اساسی حاکمیت کشورها است. این دیدگاه این امکان را می‌دهد که در صورت وقوع جنایت‌های فاحش حقوق بشر از سوی حاکمان اقتدارگرا؛ مداخله بشردوستانه مشروع تلقی گردد و به‌نوعی مداخله در سیاست داخلی کشورها رخ دهد. بدین ترتیب، با نگاه و تفسیر مضیق و موسع از جامعه بین‌الملل دو رویکرد کثرت‌گرا و همبستگی گرا از جامعه بین‌الملل منعکس‌شده است. نقطه آغازین ورود رویکرد همبستگی گرایی در عرصه عمل را می‌توان هم‌زمان با پایان جنگ سرد و گذار از وضعیت دوقطبی شناسایی کرد؛ اما نقل ثقل آن پس از حادثه 11 سپتامبر است که سبب گشت تا امنیت از گفتمان مسلط دولت‌محوری خارج و گام‌های مؤثری در جهت تأکید بر امینت بر محوریت انسان و اهمیت یافتن اصول حقوق بشر و مداخله بشردوستانه در عرصه بین‌الملل ظهور یابد. بدین ترتیب، پژوهش حاضر به دنبال پاسخگویی به این سؤال است که مکتب انگلیسی با توجه به مسئله مداخله بشردوستانه پس از جنگ سرد چگونه تحول‌یافته است؟ پژوهش حاضر از نظر روشی در دسته پژوهش‌های توصیفی_تحلیلی به کمک اسناد و منابع کتابخانه‌ای قرار می‌گیرد. https://interpolitics.guilan.ac.ir/article_8771_52d9129e9558ef91f02d859d9e0b999e.pdf

دانشگاه گیلان (با مشارکت انجمن ایرانی روابط بین الملل) سیاست جهانی 2383-0123 14 2 2025 07 23 Britain's special relationship with the United States on the Iranian nuclear issue in light of global Britain strategy رابطه ویژه بریتانیا با ایالات متحده در خصوص مساله هسته ای ایران در پرتو استراتژی بریتانیای جهانی 55 81 8962 10.22124/wp.2025.29465.3462 FA علیرضا کاظمی دانش آموخته دکتری مطالعات بریتانیا- گروه مطالعات اروپا -دانشکده مطالعات جهان- دانشگاه تهران-تهران- ایران. رضا باقری استادیار-گروه مطالعات اروپا-دانشکده مطالعات جهان-دانشگاه تهران-تهران-ایران. سمانه هادی دانش آموخته کارشناسی ارشد-حقوق بین الملل-دانشگاه قم-قم-ایران. Journal Article 2025 01 06 In recent years, numerous efforts have been made to resolve the Iranian nuclear issue through multilateral negotiations, including the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). The UK, as a key European power and a strategic ally of the US, has played an active role in this process. This article examines the impact of the "Global Britain" strategy on the UK's behavior toward the Iranian nuclear issue in the post-Brexit period. "Global Britain" is a concept introduced by the British government following its withdrawal from the EU, aimed at enhancing the country’s international role and increasing its foreign policy independence. The main hypothesis of this study is that the UK, within the framework of this strategy and leveraging its special relationship with the US, has pursued a path distinct from other European countries. In its attempt to reassert itself as a global power, Britain has adopted policies more closely aligned with Washington regarding the Iranian nuclear issue. Employing a qualitative approach and key concepts from the English School, this article analyzes this trend and its implications for British foreign policy.<br /><br />Introduction<br /><br />This article analyzes the United Kingdom’s foreign policy toward Iran’s nuclear issue in the context of shifting international dynamics and Britain’s evolving global role. Key developments—including the UK’s EU membership during the 2015 JCPOA, the U.S. withdrawal from the deal in 2018, and Brexit—have reshaped Britain's approach to this dossier. Using core concepts from the English School of International Relations—such as pluralism vs. solidarism, primary vs. secondary institutions, and the role of great powers and hegemony—the study examines how the UK has repositioned itself, particularly after the U.S. exit from the JCPOA. The main research question is: How has the “Global Britain” strategy influenced the UK’s approach to Iran’s nuclear issue post-Brexit? The analysis focuses on three dimensions: (1) the pluralism–solidarism tension, (2) the role of international institutions, and (3) the UK–U.S. special relationship within Britain’s great power ambitions. First outlined in 2017, “Global Britain” reflects London’s aim for a more independent, global role beyond Europe. While maintaining coordination with European partners, the UK has increasingly aligned with Washington’s tougher stance on Iran. The article argues that this strategy has facilitated both Britain’s repositioning as a great power and a recalibrated approach to the Iranian nuclear issue, combining European solidarity, national interest–driven pluralism, and strategic alignment with the United States.<br /><br /><strong> Theoretical Framework</strong><br /><br />This study is grounded in the English School of International Relations, which centers on three foundational concepts: the international system, the international society, and world society. According to Hedley Bull (1977), an international system emerges when at least two states are in contact and capable of influencing each other's decisions, thereby forming an interactive whole. Among these, the concept of international society holds central importance, as it represents a middle-ground approach: it arises when a group of states recognizes shared rules, participates in common institutions, and pursues collective interests. This society aims to establish order through shared norms, laws, and institutions. At a more normative level, world society expands the focus beyond states to include individuals as independent actors and ultimate units (Bull, 2002). In addition to these foundational ideas, the English School is also defined by key analytical dualities derived from international society. These include the tension between pluralism and solidarism, the distinction between primary and secondary institutions, and the contrast between great power and hegemony. These dichotomies offer critical tools for analyzing order, agency, and the structure of international relations within this theoretical framework.<br /><br /><strong> Methodology</strong><br /><br />This article, using a qualitative approach, examines official speeches by British authorities, the UK government's strategic documents, and the views of selected analysts. Data were collected using library and internet-based resources.<br /><br /><strong> Results & Discussion</strong><br /><br />The Global Britain strategy has significantly shaped the UK’s post-Brexit foreign policy, particularly in relation to Iran’s nuclear issue. Following the U.S. withdrawal from the JCPOA in 2018, Britain gradually shifted toward greater alignment with Washington, while still expressing support for the agreement in coordination with France and Germany. This reflects a dual approach: affirming commitment to multilateral norms while adapting to new geopolitical realities. Drawing on the English School framework, the UK’s actions reveal a growing emphasis on pluralism over solidarism, and a return to primary institutions—such as sovereignty and balance of power—when secondary mechanisms like the JCPOA proved fragile. Britain has sought to assert itself as a great power, balancing its normative commitments with strategic interests in West Asia. The UK’s foreign policy has been shaped by its special relationship with the U.S., evolving security and economic priorities, and a desire to influence international order post-Brexit.<br /><br /><strong> Conclusions & Suggestions</strong><br /><br />The findings of this study demonstrate that the Global Britain approach has steered the UK’s foreign policy on the Iranian nuclear issue and regional developments in West Asia toward a balance between strategic autonomy and multilateral cooperation. Within this framework, the UK has sought to maintain its “special relationship” with the United States while continuing to play an active role in preserving agreements such as the JCPOA in coordination with European partners. This dual strategy—a blend of pragmatic realism and commitment to international norms—if sustained and well-managed, can strengthen Britain’s position as a great power with a normative role in the international system. From a policy perspective, these findings can inform the design of the UK’s future strategies toward Iran and regional security issues. Leveraging international institutions, avoiding undermining multilateral agreements like the JCPOA, and enhancing proactive diplomacy are among the recommended measures to promote regional stability and Britain’s international legitimacy. Furthermore, maintaining a balance between security interests and normative commitments amid complex geopolitical conditions can serve as a model for the UK’s foreign policy in other critical domains as well در سال‌های اخیر، تلاش‌های متعددی برای حل‌وفصل مسئله هسته‌ای ایران از طریق مذاکرات چندجانبه، از جمله توافق برجام، صورت گرفته است. بریتانیا به‌عنوان یکی از قدرت‌های اصلی اروپایی و متحد راهبردی ایالات متحده، نقش فعالی در این روند داشته است. این مقاله به بررسی تأثیر سیاست «بریتانیای جهانی» بر رفتار بریتانیا در قبال مسئله هسته‌ای ایران در دوره پسابرگزیت می‌پردازد. «بریتانیای جهانی» مفهومی است که پس از خروج بریتانیا از اتحادیه اروپا برای تقویت نقش بین‌المللی این کشور و افزایش استقلال در سیاست خارجی مطرح شد. فرضیه اصلی مقاله این است که بریتانیا در چارچوب این سیاست و با تکیه بر رابطه ویژه خود با آمریکا، مسیر متفاوتی از دیگر کشورهای اروپایی اتخاذ کرده و در تلاش برای بازتعریف جایگاه جهانی خود، سیاست‌هایی هماهنگ‌تر با واشنگتن نسبت به موضوع هسته‌ای ایران در پیش گرفته است. مقاله با استفاده از رویکرد کیفی و مفاهیم مکتب انگلیسی روابط بین‌الملل، این روند و پیامدهای آن را برای سیاست خارجی بریتانیا تحلیل می‌کند. https://interpolitics.guilan.ac.ir/article_8962_7ff32522936108fccd264ae80517bb93.pdf

دانشگاه گیلان (با مشارکت انجمن ایرانی روابط بین الملل) سیاست جهانی 2383-0123 14 2 2025 07 23 The containment school in the United States' China policy: An explanation from the perspective of the balance of threats مکتب مهار در سیاست چینی ایالات متحده: تبیینی از منظر موازنه تهدید 83 113 8963 10.22124/wp.2025.29590.3467 FA آرزو محمودی برام دانش آموخته کارشناسی ارشد روابط بین الملل، گروه علوم سیاسی، دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی، دانشگاه شیراز، شیراز، ایران فریبرز ارغوانی پیرسلامی دانشیار روابط بین الملل، گروه علوم سیاسی، دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی، دانشگاه شیراز، شیراز، ایران Journal Article 2025 01 17 This article aims to analyze the increasing competition between the United States of America as the "leader of the prevailing international order" and the People's Republic of China as an "emerging power". This article raises the question of what factor has contributed to strengthening the containment strategy versus the engagement strategy in the US foreign policy towards China since 2010? It believes that the perception of China as an emerging threat has strengthened the containment school in the US foreign policy towards China. This article shows that the increase in China's economic, military, political and cultural power in the context of various initiatives and actions has challenged the interests and dominance of the United States in the prevailing liberal order; therefore, the perception of American elites of China as a country with interests in the prevailing order has changed to the perception of China as a threat to the American order and interests; Therefore, American policies after 2010 have been focused on containing China to balance against the threats posed by this country.<br /> <br /><br />Introduction<br /><br />The structure of the current order is focused on the relations between China and the United States as two major global powers and their regional and global allies; considering the uncertain trends, it can be claimed that the current era is the era of transition from a unipolar order led by the United States to a unipolar order consisting of major powers such as Russia, the European Union, etc. with the presence of a potential hegemon, namely China, which as a result of this structural change makes competition and tension in relations between major powers and even small powers inevitable in the structure of the international system. Considering these propositions, the study of US foreign policy towards China can provide scholars with a clear understanding of the type of ruling or transitional order, its consequences and crises, to provide the necessary foundation for formulating a country's foreign policy in the international arena and in dealing with bilateral relations with major powers, based on its national interests. Given the above necessity, the answer to the question: What factors have led to the strengthening of the containment school versus the engagement school in US foreign policy towards China since 2010? can expand the scientific and academic literature in the field of international relations on the competition between great powers and its consequences and effects..<br /><strong>2.Theoretical Framework</strong><br />The balance of threat theory, in the form of neorealism, offers an adequate conceptual framework for analyzing international relations within the anarchic structure of the international system, and is particularly well-suited for examining the dynamics of relations between great powers, such as the United States and China. This theory emphasizes that in competitive conditions, states feel threatened when military power, geographical proximity, aggressive intent, and the potential ability of the other party to challenge their position act in combination. From this perspective, balancing or follow-up policies in the form of alliances and coalitions are tools that countries use to confront these threats..<br /><strong>3.Methodology</strong><br />The present article attempts to evaluate the existing hypothesis and answer the aforementioned question in four parts. In this regard, this article first identifies its turning point in relation to other studies by emphasizing the subject and issue under investigation. It then explains the balance of threat theory and its application by outlining the foundation of this research, specifically the realist paradigm. In the final two sections, this article presents the foreign policy of the United States of America towards China before and after 2010, emphasizing the decline and re-emergence of the containment school in it. Then, based on an explanatory-analytical method, it presents evidence and examples of China's increasing power in the dimensions of economic, military, political, and cultural power, in parallel with its increasing threat to the United States, which explains why the United States perceives China's increasing power as a threat, especially in the Asia-Pacific region.<br /><strong>4.Results & Discussion</strong><br />The United States has sought to prevent China from emerging as a threatening power since the end of the Cold War, particularly since 2010. Because China, through sustainable economic development, military modernization, and the establishment of military bases in key areas such as the South China Sea, is trying to expand its dominance over trade, economic, and vital energy routes, and along with promoting the Chinese economic development model, increasing its cultural and diplomatic influence, it is shaking the foundations of the institutions, structures, norms, and values governing the liberal international order led by the United States and consolidating its position as an alternative hegemon in the new Chinese order. In this regard, while China's macro power has increased, China's national and defense rhetoric and strategies have also adopted a more aggressive and expansionist tone since 2008, reflecting China's aggressive intentions towards the status quo, which has been complemented by China's increased offensive capabilities, especially in the military and economic arenas, with the deployment of aircraft carriers, intercontinental and ballistic missiles, and the presentation of alternative economic institutional and structural initiatives such as the Belt and Road Initiative, and has paved the way for China's increased cultural and soft power within the framework of the establishment of Confucius Institutes. All of these factors and issues have led the United States and its allies to perceive the threat posed by China's increasing power and the need to counterbalance it. Therefore, the United States, by employing the containment strategy, aims to limit China's competitive power on the one hand and increase the costs of China's confrontation with the existing order on the other..<br /><strong>5.Conclusions & Suggestions</strong><br />China's all-around growth as an emerging power, especially in economic, military, political, and cultural dimensions, is considered a strategic threat to the United States. China's sustained economic growth, which underpins its military and political strength, has significantly enhanced its ability to influence the behavior of other actors. China's expansion of military infrastructure, including the establishment of naval bases in the South China Sea and its massive investment in new technologies, are signs of its comprehensive power that challenges the global order based on US hegemony and threatens its strategic position internationally. Overall, China's multidimensional growth of power and its associated strategies pose a serious threat to the United States and its allies in the Asia-Pacific region. This trend necessitates structural and strategic responses from the United States to counter the Chinese threat and reinforce the current global order, which is based on American values and norms. In this regard, since 2010, China's increase in power in the four dimensions is not simply recognized as an increase in power, but rather is understood as a threat to the security and national interests of the United States and its allies in the liberal order, which can be explained by relying on the balance of threat theory and emphasizing the increase in threat rather than the increase in Chinese power.<br />  هدف مقاله حاضر، تحلیل رقابت فزاینده ایالات‌متحده آمریکا به‌عنوان «رهبر نظم بین‌المللی حاکم» و جمهوری خلق چین به‌مثابه «قدرت نوظهور» است. این مقاله با طرح این پرسش که چه عاملی از سال 2010 به بعد، به تقویت استراتژی مهار در برابر استراتژی مشارکت در سیاست خارجی آمریکا نسبت به چین کمک کرده است؟ با تکیه بر روش تبیینی و بهره‌گیری از نظریه موازنه تهدید، معتقد است که تلقی چین به‌عنوان یک تهدید نوظهور موجب تقویت مکتب مهار در سیاست خارجی آمریکا در برابر چین شده است. این مقاله نشان می‌دهد که افزایش قدرت اقتصادی، نظامی، سیاسی و فرهنگی چین در چارچوب ابتکارها و اقدام‌های مختلف، منافع و سلطه ایالات‌متحده در نظم لیبرال حاکم را با چالش مواجه ساخته است؛ لذا درک نخبگان آمریکایی از چین به‌مثابه یک کشور ذی‌نفع در نظم حاکم به درک از چین به‌عنوان یک تهدید علیه نظم و منافع آمریکایی تغییر یافته است؛ بنابراین سیاست‌های آمریکا پس از سال 2010، معطوف به مهار چین با هدف موازنه‌سازی در برابر تهدیدهای این کشور بوده است. https://interpolitics.guilan.ac.ir/article_8963_df959eae80fad50a60b9f15dd1b537d8.pdf

دانشگاه گیلان (با مشارکت انجمن ایرانی روابط بین الملل) سیاست جهانی 2383-0123 14 2 2025 07 23 The impact of the Moscow format on the regional relations of the Islamic Emirate of Afghanistan تاثیر فرمت مسکو بر مناسبات منطقه‌ای امارت اسلامی افغانستان 115 143 8753 10.22124/wp.2025.28023.3373 FA روح اله اسلامی دانشیار گروه علوم سیاسی دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی دانشگاه فردوسی مشهد - ایران علیرضا انصاری کارگر کارشناسی ارشد روابط بین الملل و عضو کادر علمی دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی دانشگاه جامی، هرات، افغانستان. بصیراحمد حصین دکتری علوم سیاسی از دانشگاه فردوسی، مشهد، ایران و عضو کادر علمی دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی دانشگاه جامی، هرات، افغانستان. Journal Article 2024 07 29 The Regional Pattern of the Moscow Format was established in 2017 as a regional platform for consultation, involving special representatives from Russia, Afghanistan, India, Iran, China, and Pakistan, with a perspective towards a "day after America" approach to Afghan affairs. The primary question is, what is the role of the Moscow Format in the regional interactions of the Islamic Emirate's government? The research hypothesis posits that the Moscow Format, centered around Russia and the participating countries, aims to retain the Taliban within the anti-unilateralism front against the United States in the region, strengthen the Islamic Emirate's anti-ISIS policy, and facilitate its regional legitimacy. The findings indicate that the Moscow Format pursues two strategic objectives: political (anti-unilateralism with the U.S.) and security (counter-terrorism). The current government benefits from political (legitimization), economic (utilization of economic mechanisms), and security opportunities within this framework. This study employed an explanatory method and data collection through library research using scholarly articles and reputable news agencies.<br /><br />Introduction<br /><br />The regional model of the Moscow Format was established in 2017 as a regional platform for consultations with the participation of special representatives from Russia, Afghanistan, India, Iran, China, and Pakistan, with a view toward "a day after America." Subsequently, five Central Asian countries, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan, joined this format. Accordingly, countries that have always been involved in Afghan affairs have sought to align new actors in Kabul with their strategic interests following the withdrawal of American forces. Along with dealing with internal political issues, particularly the topic of an “inclusive government,” the Taliban government also faces security and economic challenges. Thus, regional interactions with the Islamic Emirate government are challenging without external support. This research aims to examine the role of the Moscow Format's regional model to address the question: What role does the Moscow Format play in the regional interactions of the Islamic Emirate government? The hypothesis is that the Moscow Format, centered on Russia and the active role of the countries within this framework, aims to keep the Taliban aligned against American unilateralism in the region, strengthen the Islamic Emirate government's anti-ISIS policies, and thereby create a foundation for their regional legitimacy.<br /><strong>2- Theoretical Framework</strong><br />The withdrawal of American forces from Afghanistan provided an opportunity for powerful regional countries to fill the void left by America in Afghanistan's interactions. This approach can be analyzed within the framework of realism in general and offensive realism in particular. Offensive realism, a subset of neoclassical realism, argues that anarchy compels states to maximize their relative power because security and survival are not guaranteed. By maximizing power and influence, their security and survival are essentially ensured. Mearsheimer identifies three reasons for states' pursuit of power: the anarchic structure of the international system, the offensive capabilities that all states possess, and uncertainty about the intentions and motives of adversaries. Another key concept of this approach is that revisionist states aim to achieve a hegemonic position in the international system. Generally, the offensive realism approach is defined as states seeking to change the status quo. Thus, the idea of changing the status quo, especially in Russian foreign policy, was raised in the "Primakov Doctrine," creating the idea of a multipolar world instead of a unipolar one in the second half of the 20th century to protest against American unilateralism and the existing situation.<br /><strong>3- Methodology</strong><br />To test the hypothesis and potentially answer the research question, this study employs an explanatory method and data collection through library research, using scientific articles and reputable news agencies.<br /><strong>4- Results & Discussion</strong><br />States behave differently under different conditions; accordingly, they seek interest and security. The research findings show that Russia and its allied countries within the framework of the Moscow Format pursue two strategic goals: security (combating terrorism) and political (anti-American unilateralism). Additionally, since coming to power, the Taliban government has faced numerous challenges, and the Moscow Format, while pursuing strategic goals, has also created opportunities for the Islamic Emirate government. These opportunities can be seen in political (regional contact committee), economic (utilizing the experiences and economic capabilities of member countries), and security (alignment in combating terrorism) dimensions, optimally utilizing which would lead to political legitimacy, regional security, and economic growth.<br /><strong>5- Conclusions & Suggestions</strong><br />The regional model of the Moscow Format, centered on Russia, China, and Iran, strives to fill the void left by the absence of America and prevent the U.S. from regaining initiative. This model pursues two major political and security strategies. The first approach is to create a front against American unilateralism and propose the idea of a multipolar or new democratic order led by major powers like Russia, China, and Iran, considering their interests. The second is the security issue, specifically combating terrorism in general and ISIS in particular, as terrorism is a potential and actual threat in Central Asia. By utilizing the political, economic, and security opportunities within the regional model of the Moscow Format, the Islamic Emirate government can optimize and maximize benefits for political legitimacy, economic opportunities, and security consensus for the continuation and consolidation of its rule. The primary challenge facing the current government is the issue of political legitimacy and recognition by powerful regional and global actors. Overall, the Islamic Emirate's anti-ISIS policy is considered the first step towards regional interaction and creating opportunities for political convergence. Aligning against American unilateralism has led to regional harmony and alignment for the Islamic Emirate, significantly impacting the country's economy and security الگوی منطقه‌ای فرمت مسکو در سال 2017 به عنوان یک پلت فرم منطقه‌ای برای رایزنی با حضور نمایندگان ویژه روسیه، افغانستان، هند، ایران، چین و پاکستان با نگاهی به «یک روز پس از آمریکا» نسبت به امور افغانستان ایجاد گردید. سوال اصلی به این می‌پردازد که فرمت مسکو چه نقشی بر تعاملات منطقه‌ای حکومت امارت اسلامی دارد؟ فرض تحقیق بر این استوار است که فرمت مسکو با محوریت روسیه و کشورهایی که در این چارچوب قرار دارند در صدد هستند تا طالبان را در صف ضد یک جانبه‌گرایی آمریکا در منطقه حفظ ، سیاست ضد داعشی حکومت امارت اسلامی را تقویت کرده تا زمینه مشروعیت منطقه‌ای آنها مهیا شود.یافته‌ نشان می‌دهد که فرمت مسکو دو هدف استراتژیک سیاسی (ضد یکجانبه گرایی با آمریکا) و امنیتی (مبارزه با تروریسم) را تعقیب می‌کند و حکومت کنونی در چارچوب این فرمت از فرصت‌های سیاسی (مشروعیت‌زایی)، اقتصادی (استفاده از سازوکارهای اقتصادی) و امنیتی بهره می‌برد. در این تحقیق از روش تبیینی و شیوه جمع آوری داده کتابخانه‌ای، استفاده از مقالات علمی و خبرگزاری‌های معتبر می‌باشد. https://interpolitics.guilan.ac.ir/article_8753_c8bb19ea7caef0d83f527755e103ebba.pdf

دانشگاه گیلان (با مشارکت انجمن ایرانی روابط بین الملل) سیاست جهانی 2383-0123 14 2 2025 07 23 The Geopolitics of the Zangezur Corridor and Iran's National Security: Modeling the Interactions of Rival Coalitions with the Game Theory Framework ژئوپلیتیک کریدور زنگزور و امنیت ملی ایران: مدلسازی تعاملات ائتلاف رقیب با چارچوب نظریه بازی‌ها 145 169 8964 10.22124/wp.2025.29871.3481 FA رحمان حریری استادیار و عضو هیات علمی گروه علوم سیاسی و روابط بین الملل ، دانشکده علوم اجتماعی ، دانشگاه رازی کامران لطفی استادیار و عضو هیات علمی گروه علوم سیاسی و روابط بین الملل ، دانشکده علوم اجتماعی ، دانشگاه رازی عاطفه شهسواری دانشجوی دکتری جامعه شناسی سیاسی گروه علوم سیاسی دانشکده علوم اجتماعی دانشگاه رازی ، کرمانشاه 0009-0004-6258-4096 Journal Article 2025 02 18 In this research, an attempt has been made to answer the question of what the consequences of the alignment and joint efforts of Israel, Azerbaijan, and Turkey in the Zangezur corridor from 2020 to 2024 are for the Islamic Republic of Iran. In this context, qualitative methods and the theoretical framework of game theory have been utilized. The results of the research indicate that competition in the Caucasus region over the establishment of the Zangezur corridor could lead to increased rivalry and tensions in this area. Additionally, the coordinated efforts of the three mentioned countries in the Zangezur corridor reflect a broader strategy aimed at reducing Iran's influence in the South Caucasus and pose a threat to Iran's security. Consequently, Iran must seek alliances with countries like Russia and Armenia to safeguard its interests and position; as a result, this competition and game could yield different outcomes for each of the actors and may even lead to a win-lose situation for them in achieving their interests.<br />The Zangezur Corridor, as a vital transit route, not only connects the main part of Azerbaijan to Nakhchivan but also serves as an important bridge between Central Asia and the Caucasus with Turkey and Europe. The establishment of this corridor could impact the interests of neighboring countries, including Iran. This research aims to answer the question of what the consequences of the alignment and joint efforts of Israel, Azerbaijan, and Turkey in the Zangezur Corridor from 2020 to 2024 are for the Islamic Republic of Iran. In this context, this study employs a qualitative method and the theoretical framework of game theory, proposing the hypothesis that the existing changes in the South Caucasus indicate that the relations among the three countries—Turkey, Azerbaijan, and Israel—have strengthened more than in the past, which could pose a serious threat to Iran and weaken its geopolitical position in the South Caucasus, leading to geopolitical and strategic suffocation for Iran. The research findings suggest that competition in the Caucasus over the establishment of the Zangezur Corridor could increase rivalry and tension in the region. Additionally, the coordinated efforts of the three mentioned countries in the Zangezur Corridor reflect a broader strategy aimed at reducing Iran's influence in the South Caucasus and pose a threat to Iran's security. Consequently, Iran must seek alliances with countries like Russia and Armenia to safeguard its interests and position; as a result, this competition and game could yield different outcomes for each of the players and may even lead to a win-lose situation in achieving their interests.<br /><br /><strong> Theoretical Framework</strong><br /><br />Game theory elucidates the strategic interplay among actors. Azerbaijan seeks to enhance its regional connectivity and diminish dependency on Iran. Turkey aspires to consolidate its regional hegemony, counterbalance Russian influence, and reduce reliance on Iranian transit routes. Israel supports the corridor to limit Iranian geopolitical leverage while maintaining energy and trade routes vital to its economy. The cooperative dynamics among these actors amplify their collective leverage against Iran.<br /><strong>3.Methodology<br /></strong>The research employs a qualitative, descriptive-analytical approach based on game theory, focusing on interactions among competing actors. Data from library resources, publications, and reputable news outlets inform the study. This method evaluates the strategic interests of Israel, Azerbaijan, and Turkey while projecting the potential impacts on Iran<strong>.</strong><br /><strong>4.Discussion and Results</strong><br /><br />Strategic Context<br /><br />The Zangezur Corridor holds transformative potential for regional connectivity. It is pivotal for Azerbaijan, bridging its mainland with Nakhchivan and facilitating trade with Turkey and Europe. Simultaneously, Turkey envisions the corridor as a gateway to Central Asia, strengthening its ties with Turkic-speaking nations. Israel perceives it as a means to counter Iran's influence, fortify its alliance with Azerbaijan, and bolster energy security.  <br /><br /><br />Implications for Iran<br /><br />Iran faces multifaceted threats from the corridor's establishment:<br /><br />Economic Isolation: The corridor bypasses Iranian transit routes, undermining its role as a trade nexus between Central Asia and Europe.<br />Geopolitical Marginalization: Strengthened Turkish and Azerbaijani influence diminishes Iran's foothold in the South Caucasus.<br />Security Concerns: Israeli-Azerbaijani collaboration heightens surveillance and military capabilities near Iran's borders, exacerbating its vulnerabilities.<br />Cultural Threats: The corridor bolsters Turkic unity, which may incite nationalist sentiments among Iran's Azerbaijani minority.<br /><br /><br />Strategic Alliances<br /><br />To counter these threats, Iran could strengthen alliances with Armenia and Russia, leveraging shared interests in curbing Turkish and Israeli influence. Additionally, enhancing its North-South Corridor could serve as a strategic alternative to maintain relevance in regional trade.<br /><br />Broader Regional Dynamics<br /><br />The Zangezur Corridor's implementation could reshape regional power structures, fostering heightened competition among actors. While Azerbaijan, Turkey, and Israel stand to benefit economically and geopolitically, Iran risks profound setbacks unless it recalibrates its strategies.<br /><strong>5.Conclusion</strong><strong> & Suggestions</strong><br />In this research, the issue has been analyzed using game theory regarding the coordinated efforts of three countries—Israel, Azerbaijan, and Turkey—since 2020, following the Second Nagorno-Karabakh War, until 2024, in creating the Zangezur Corridor and its implications for the Islamic Republic of Iran. In this context, it should be noted that the presence of multiple actors in the South Caucasus has made this region competitive, and the discussion surrounding the establishment of the Zangezur Corridor has increased its significance. This importance has multiplied for countries like Turkey and Israel, and their influence in the region, along with their proximity to Azerbaijan, poses a security threat to other actors in the South Caucasus, namely Iran. The three actors—Azerbaijan, Turkey, and Israel—who are pursuing the implementation of this project and have supported the establishment of this corridor are each trying to achieve their own interests through it, using this project as leverage against Iran and aiming to reduce its influence in the South Caucasus. If these three actors achieve their goals and if this project is implemented, Iran will face economic constraints; its access to regional markets, Central Asia, and Europe will be cut off, leading to what can be described as geopolitical suffocation for Iran. Furthermore, as mentioned, the implementation of the Zangezur Corridor will disrupt the balance of power in the region to Iran's detriment and to Turkey's advantage, thereby strengthening Turkey's influence in the area. Therefore, it can be said that changes in the geopolitical equations of the South Caucasus will affect Iran's interests in both economic and security domains. Overall, the competition in the Caucasus region over the Zangezur Corridor, with Azerbaijan, Turkey, and Israel on one side and Iran on the other, could lead to increased tensions in this area and pose a serious threat to Iran, potentially forcing it into an alliance with countries like Russia and Armenia. Thus, this competition and game could yield different outcomes for each of the actors and result in a win-lose scenario for them in achieving their interests. In summary, to emphasize the strategic importance of the Zangezur corridor and its impact on Iran's geopolitical and economic position, it is suggested that Iran expand its relations and cooperation with both Russia and Armenia to maximize the benefits of this project for its own interests and to mitigate its negative consequences. This approach would help prevent a decline in its influence in the region and enable Iran to play an active role. Furthermore, Iranian foreign policy officials can strengthen their key role in the region through direct and multilateral negotiations with Armenia and Azerbaijan, thereby allowing Iran to influence the implementation of the Zangezur corridor and safeguard its national interests in the area. It is recommended that Iran develop its transportation infrastructure in border areas with Armenia and Azerbaijan to create a transit route for itself; additionally, Iran can enhance its position in international trade by establishing and developing a North-South corridor as an alternative route to the Zangezur corridor<br /><br />Introduction<br /><br />The Zangezur Corridor, as a vital transit route, not only connects the main part of Azerbaijan to Nakhchivan but also serves as an important bridge between Central Asia and the Caucasus with Turkey and Europe. The establishment of this corridor could impact the interests of neighboring countries, including Iran. This research aims to answer the question of what the consequences of the alignment and joint efforts of Israel, Azerbaijan, and Turkey in the Zangezur Corridor from 2020 to 2024 are for the Islamic Republic of Iran. In this context, this study employs a qualitative method and the theoretical framework of game theory, proposing the hypothesis that the existing changes in the South Caucasus indicate that the relations among the three countries—Turkey, Azerbaijan, and Israel—have strengthened more than in the past, which could pose a serious threat to Iran and weaken its geopolitical position in the South Caucasus, leading to geopolitical and strategic suffocation for Iran. The research findings suggest that competition in the Caucasus over the establishment of the Zangezur Corridor could increase rivalry and tension in the region. Additionally, the coordinated efforts of the three mentioned countries in the Zangezur Corridor reflect a broader strategy aimed at reducing Iran's influence in the South Caucasus and pose a threat to Iran's security. Consequently, Iran must seek alliances with countries like Russia and Armenia to safeguard its interests and position; as a result, this competition and game could yield different outcomes for each of the players and may even lead to a win-lose situation in achieving their interests.<br /><br /><strong> Theoretical Framework</strong><br /><br />Game theory elucidates the strategic interplay among actors. Azerbaijan seeks to enhance its regional connectivity and diminish dependency on Iran. Turkey aspires to consolidate its regional hegemony, counterbalance Russian influence, and reduce reliance on Iranian transit routes. Israel supports the corridor to limit Iranian geopolitical leverage while maintaining energy and trade routes vital to its economy. The cooperative dynamics among these actors amplify their collective leverage against Iran.<br /><strong>3.Methodology<br /></strong>The research employs a qualitative, descriptive-analytical approach based on game theory, focusing on interactions among competing actors. Data from library resources, publications, and reputable news outlets inform the study. This method evaluates the strategic interests of Israel, Azerbaijan, and Turkey while projecting the potential impacts on Iran<strong>.</strong><br /><strong>4.Discussion and Results</strong><br /><br />Strategic Context<br /><br />The Zangezur Corridor holds transformative potential for regional connectivity. It is pivotal for Azerbaijan, bridging its mainland with Nakhchivan and facilitating trade with Turkey and Europe. Simultaneously, Turkey envisions the corridor as a gateway to Central Asia, strengthening its ties with Turkic-speaking nations. Israel perceives it as a means to counter Iran's influence, fortify its alliance with Azerbaijan, and bolster energy security.  <br /><br /><br />Implications for Iran<br /><br />Iran faces multifaceted threats from the corridor's establishment:<br /><br />Economic Isolation: The corridor bypasses Iranian transit routes, undermining its role as a trade nexus between Central Asia and Europe.<br />Geopolitical Marginalization: Strengthened Turkish and Azerbaijani influence diminishes Iran's foothold in the South Caucasus.<br />Security Concerns: Israeli-Azerbaijani collaboration heightens surveillance and military capabilities near Iran's borders, exacerbating its vulnerabilities.<br />Cultural Threats: The corridor bolsters Turkic unity, which may incite nationalist sentiments among Iran's Azerbaijani minority.<br /><br /><br />Strategic Alliances<br /><br />To counter these threats, Iran could strengthen alliances with Armenia and Russia, leveraging shared interests in curbing Turkish and Israeli influence. Additionally, enhancing its North-South Corridor could serve as a strategic alternative to maintain relevance in regional trade.<br /><br />Broader Regional Dynamics<br /><br />The Zangezur Corridor's implementation could reshape regional power structures, fostering heightened competition among actors. While Azerbaijan, Turkey, and Israel stand to benefit economically and geopolitically, Iran risks profound setbacks unless it recalibrates its strategies.<br /><strong>5.Conclusion</strong><strong> & Suggestions</strong><br />In this research, the issue has been analyzed using game theory regarding the coordinated efforts of three countries—Israel, Azerbaijan, and Turkey—since 2020, following the Second Nagorno-Karabakh War, until 2024, in creating the Zangezur Corridor and its implications for the Islamic Republic of Iran. In this context, it should be noted that the presence of multiple actors in the South Caucasus has made this region competitive, and the discussion surrounding the establishment of the Zangezur Corridor has increased its significance. This importance has multiplied for countries like Turkey and Israel, and their influence in the region, along with their proximity to Azerbaijan, poses a security threat to other actors in the South Caucasus, namely Iran. The three actors—Azerbaijan, Turkey, and Israel—who are pursuing the implementation of this project and have supported the establishment of this corridor are each trying to achieve their own interests through it, using this project as leverage against Iran and aiming to reduce its influence in the South Caucasus. If these three actors achieve their goals and if this project is implemented, Iran will face economic constraints; its access to regional markets, Central Asia, and Europe will be cut off, leading to what can be described as geopolitical suffocation for Iran. Furthermore, as mentioned, the implementation of the Zangezur Corridor will disrupt the balance of power in the region to Iran's detriment and to Turkey's advantage, thereby strengthening Turkey's influence in the area. Therefore, it can be said that changes in the geopolitical equations of the South Caucasus will affect Iran's interests in both economic and security domains. Overall, the competition in the Caucasus region over the Zangezur Corridor, with Azerbaijan, Turkey, and Israel on one side and Iran on the other, could lead to increased tensions in this area and pose a serious threat to Iran, potentially forcing it into an alliance with countries like Russia and Armenia. Thus, this competition and game could yield different outcomes for each of the actors and result in a win-lose scenario for them in achieving their interests. In summary, to emphasize the strategic importance of the Zangezur corridor and its impact on Iran's geopolitical and economic position, it is suggested that Iran expand its relations and cooperation with both Russia and Armenia to maximize the benefits of this project for its own interests and to mitigate its negative consequences. This approach would help prevent a decline in its influence in the region and enable Iran to play an active role. Furthermore, Iranian foreign policy officials can strengthen their key role in the region through direct and multilateral negotiations with Armenia and Azerbaijan, thereby allowing Iran to influence the implementation of the Zangezur corridor and safeguard its national interests in the area. It is recommended that Iran develop its transportation infrastructure in border areas with Armenia and Azerbaijan to create a transit route for itself; additionally, Iran can enhance its position in international trade by establishing and developing a North-South corridor as an alternative route to the Zangezur corridor در این پژوهش،تلاش شده است به این سؤال پاسخ داده شود که پیامدهای همسویی و تلاش مشترک اسرائیل،آذربایجان و ترکیه در کریدور زنگزور از سال 2020 تا 2024 برای جمهوری اسلامی ایران چیست؟در همین راستا، ازروش کیفی و مبانی متدلوژیک نظریه بازی‌ها بهره گرفته شده است. .نتایج پژوهش نشان می‌دهند که رقابت در منطقه قفقاز بر سر ایجاد کریدور زنگزور که می‌تواند باعث افزایش رقابت و تنش‌ در این منطقه شود.همچنین تلاش‌های هماهنگ سه کشور مذکور در کریدور زنگزور نشان‌دهنده یک راهبرد گسترده در جهت کاهش نفوذ ایران در قفقاز جنوبی و تهدید امنیت ایران را به دنبال دارد و ایران نیز باید برای حفظ منافع و موقعیت خود به ائتلاف با کشورهایی مانند روسیه و ارمنستان روی آورد؛در نتیجه این رقابت و بازی می‌تواند برای هر یک از بازیگران نتایج متفاوتی داشته باشد و حتی باعث برد-باخت آن‌ها در رسیدن به‌منافع-شان شود https://interpolitics.guilan.ac.ir/article_8964_625fbd5d71f801560b81cd25234e1564.pdf

دانشگاه گیلان (با مشارکت انجمن ایرانی روابط بین الملل) سیاست جهانی 2383-0123 14 2 2025 07 23 Border changes with the creation of the "Turani Corridor" and its impact on the economic interests of Türkiye and Iran تغییرات مرزی با ایجاد "دالان تورانی" و تاثیر آن بر منافع اقتصادی ترکیه و ایران 171 197 8965 10.22124/wp.2025.30513.3522 FA محمد ولی مدرس استادیار گروه روابط بین المل، دانشکده حقوق و عاوم سیاسی دانشگاه خوارزمی، تهران، ایران سید سعید میرترابی حسینی گروه روابط بین الملل، دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی، دانشگاه خوارزمی، تهران، ایران طاهره زادفرج دانشجوی دکترا ـ روابط بین الملل ـ گروه روابط بین الملل ـ دانشکده حقوق و علوم سیاسی ـ دانشگاه خوارزمی ـ تهران ـ ایران Journal Article 2025 04 28 The mutual economic interests of Iran and Turkey have been discussed many times, but creating “Turani Corridor” on the borders of Iran with the South Caucasus region, and the new conditions resulting from it, necessitate the need to explain the issue once again. The question is, how will creating a corridor on the borders of Iran and Armenia and the geopolitical changes resulting from it affect the geoeconomic interests of the two countries? The hypothesis is that Turkey’s current effort to create Turani Corridor will shape the geoeconomic situation in favor of this country by increasing the transit of goods and energy at various domestic, regional, and international levels, leading to losses and threats against the Islamic Republic of Iran at these levels. To explain the issue, the concepts of energy geopolitics and geoeconomics have been used as the focus of theoretical discussion. this study is applied in terms of research type, descriptive-analytical in terms of method, and library and documentary in terms of data collection technique.<br /><br />Introduction<br /><br />While countries in different parts of the world are trying to use trade, especially in the energy sector, to achieve their foreign policy and security goals, the South Caucasus region is no exception to this rule, and the alignment of interested powers in this region shows that economic interests have pitted them against each other in a way. The second Karabakh conflict in 2020 between Armenia and Azerbaijan and the resulting border changes provided an opportunity for Turkey to pursue ways to approach its economic goals more seriously, but what has now made Turkey, as a transit country and one of the interested countries in the region, more eager to exploit this important geoeconomic feature is the demand for creating of a corridor between the main territory of Azerbaijan and the Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic, which Turkey insists will become the shortest land transportation route between the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans, as well as the intersection point of the North-South and East-West routes. The importance of exploring creating of the "Turani Corridor" becomes even more apparent when we know that its creation in the borders of the Islamic Republic of Iran will cause huge losses in the economic sphere, especially in energy exports, for the country. Therefore, in this study, which aims to provide a warning analysis of the strategic economic threats resulting from border changes with creating Turani Corridor for Iran, the question is raised: How will the geopolitical changes resulting from  creating  Turanian Corridor in the South Caucasus region and on the borders of Iran affect the economic interests of Iran and Turkey? The hypothesis is that Turkey's current effort to create this corridor, through increasing the transit of goods and energy at various domestic, regional and international levels, will benefit this country and lead to losses and threats against the Islamic Republic of Iran."<br /><br /><strong> Theoretical Framework</strong><br /><br />This research is based on geoenergy and geoeconomics, which are components of geopolitical theory. For the authors, “geoenergy” is a new analytical method that refers to political decision-making in national and international affairs and analyzes the impact of factors such as location, energy supply and demand centers, transit routes, or energy prices. Geoeconomic interests are also raised when economics is analyzed from a geopolitical perspective. Otherwise, if economics is studied in terms of politics and power, it has no place in geopolitics and the concept of geoeconomics cannot be attributed to it, and pure economics is raised.<br /><br /><strong> Methodology</strong><br /><br />In this study, descriptive-analytical method and within the framework of Geoenergy and geoeconomics, "border changes with creating Turani Corridor" have been assumed as the independent variable and "economic interests of Iran and Turkey" as the dependent variable to express the research variables.<br /><br /><strong> Results & Discussion</strong><br /><br />As a transit country, Turkey insists that the "Turani Corridor" (Zangezur) will become the shortest land transportation route between the Pacific and Atlantic Oceans, as well as the intersection point of the North-South and East-West routes. Meanwhile, economic growth in parts of Turkey's interior, the growth of Turkish-Azerbaijani relations in the fields of energy and trade exchanges, the growth of relations with Central Asia, as well as Turkey's increasing role in Caspian Sea gas and its transformation into an energy hub and also increasing economic exchanges between China and Europe via Türkiye are only some of the benefits of creating Turani Corridor for this country. But the importance of investigating this issue becomes even more apparent when we know that creating this corridor on the borders of the Islamic Republic of Iran will not only reduce Turkey's dependence on the energy resources of Iran and Azerbaijan, but also the loss of the market of one of Iran's northern neighbors, Armenia, due to the severance of land connections with this country, and the elimination of the transfer of Iranian gas to Europe via this route, and ultimately, the country's withdrawal from international transportation routes and the reduction of Iran's role in transportation between East and West, will cause enormous losses for the Islamic Republic of Iran in the energy and geoeconomic fields.<br /><br /><strong> Conclusions & Suggestions</strong><br /><br /> According to the research findings and considering the topics of energy geopolitics, which studies energy interrelationships at the international, global or regional level, and geoeconomics, which examines strategic economic issues, and after examining the impact of geopolitical changes resulting from the creation of the Turanian Corridor on the economies of Turkey and Iran at three levels, domestic, regional and international, it is clear that these changes are in Türkiye's favor and bring significant benefits to it. On the other hand, creating this corridor will have deterimental geoeconomical consequences for Iran at the three aforementioned levels. Another important point is that achieve its goals, in addition to involving regional countries, including Azerbaijan, Ankara also potentially has the opportunity to involve China and Europe to exert pressure on Iran. In this regard, before Turkey takes advantage of such opportunities, the Islamic Republic of Iran should reach an alternative solution that could be a move towards closer ties with European countries that oppose geopolitical changes in the Caucasus region and the creatiing the Turanian Corridor, as well as those that favor preserving the territorial integrity of Armenia, while strengthening relations with China. منافع متقابل اقتصادی ایران و ترکیه بارها مورد توجه قرار گرفته است اما ایجاد «دالان تورانی» در مرزهای ایران با منطقه قفقاز جنوبی، و شرایط جدید ناشی از آن، ضرورت تبیین موضوع را بار دیگر ایجاب می‌کند. پرسش این است که ایجاد دالانی در مرزهای ایران و ارمنستان و تغییرات ژئوپلیتیکی ناشی از آن، چگونه بر منافع ژئواکونومیکی دو کشور تاثیرگذار خواهد بود؟ فرضیه این است که تلاش کنونی ترکیه برای ایجاد دالان تورانی، اوضاع ژئواکونومیکی را از طریق افزایش ترانزیت کالا و انرژی در سطوح مختلف داخلی، منطقه ای و بین المللی، به نفع این کشور شکل داده، منجر به زیان‌ها و تهدیدهایی علیه جمهوری اسلامی ایران در این سطوح خواهد شد. برای تبیین مساله، از ژئوپلیتیک به عنوان محور بحث نظری و مولفه های زئوانرژی و ژئواکونومی وابسته به آن بهره گرفته شده است. این پژوهش از حیث نوع تحقیق، کاربردی و از حیث روش، توصیفی ـ تحلیلی و از حیث تکنیک جمع آوری داده‌ها، کتابخانه‌ای و اسنادی است. https://interpolitics.guilan.ac.ir/article_8965_b66261307900b6bfc5d0860d5eb2e595.pdf

دانشگاه گیلان (با مشارکت انجمن ایرانی روابط بین الملل) سیاست جهانی 2383-0123 14 2 2025 07 23 China's resurgence and the prospects for maritime strategy transformation بازخــیـزش چیـن و چشم انداز تـحول استراتـژی دریـایی 199 237 8751 10.22124/wp.2025.29852.3479 FA غلامعلی چگنی زاده دانشیار روابط بین الملل، دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی، تهران، ایران محمد زارع دانشجوی دکتری روابط بین الملل، دانشگاه علامه طباطبائی، تهران، ایران 0009-0007-6320-6291 Journal Article 2025 02 15 The rise of China has placed the importance of a new geopolitical space, that is, a space that stretches from the South China Sea to the Indian Ocean and East Africa, at the center of gravity of regional and international order-building. This space is a “blue” space, and certainly the dominance of each of the great and regional powers over this space can play a significant role in how it shapes the future of this order. In order to escape the mentality of a “victim” actor and also to escape “geopolitical suffocation” after almost 500 years of focusing on land, the People’s Republic of China has been trying to rebuild its navy since the 1950s and has increased its interest in the ocean, and this effort seems to be bearing fruit today, under the fifth generation of Chinese leaders. This article attempts to examine the developments in China's maritime strategies using the process-finding method and to state that a kind of transition from defensive realism to offensive realism has taken place in China's maritime strategy.<br /><br />Introduction<br /><br />A persistent and recurring pattern in the history of international relations—particularly since the first half of the nineteenth century—has been the effort and desire of major powers to possess strong naval forces for the purpose of protecting expanding commercial and economic interests, attaining prestige, projecting themselves as great powers, striving for dominance at sea, and ultimately preventing rival and enemy powers from gaining control in this domain. What is evident is that the scope of this “strategic aspiration” to become a major naval power has now reached China, making it the latest land-based power attempting to transform into a maritime power. This effort has been seriously pursued by the country’s fifth-generation leadership, especially Xi Jinping, and has gained further strength with the emergence of the slogan “Chinese Dream.” China’s resurgence and revitalization have placed the importance of a new geopolitical expanse—stretching from the South China Sea to the Indian Ocean and East Africa—at the center of regional and international order formation.<br /><br /><strong> Theoretical Framework</strong><br /><br />China's resurgence and the increase in its national capacity and power have had significant effects on China's national grand strategies and efforts to restore its national greatness, especially through the modernization of military capabilities, as well as the evolution of the country's maritime security strategies and its transition from a force focused on "coastal defense" to "near sea defense" and finally to "distant water defense". In the following, an attempt has been made to examine this transition in China's maritime security strategies from the perspective of realist approaches to offensive and defensive structures, and from the time of Deng Xiaoping to Xi Jinping, relying on the maritime strategic documents of the People's Republic of China, the country's gradual externalization and presence in peripheral waters as well as the Indian Ocean, and the evolution in the missions of the country's navy.<br /><strong>3.Methodology</strong><strong><br /></strong>Given the importance of this issue and the necessity of gaining a clearer understanding of the transformations in the grand national strategies of the actors present in this domain—particularly the People’s Republic of China and its navy—and of offering a broad picture of developments in China’s naval strategies, this article seeks to address the question of how China’s maritime security strategies have changed in line with the country’s growing power and national capability, from the time of Deng Xiaoping to that of Xi Jinping. Relying on the hypothesis that a form of shift—namely, a transition from defensive realism to offensive realism—has occurred in China’s maritime security strategy, this study applies a process-tracing method to examine and assess that transformation.<br /><br /><strong> Results & Discussion</strong><br /><br />This expanse is a maritime one, and undoubtedly, control over it by any major or regional power can play a significant role in shaping the future of this order. In order to move beyond the mindset of a “victim” actor and also to escape what it called “geopolitical suffocation,” the People’s Republic of China—after nearly 500 years of land-centered focus—resumed its efforts to rebuild its naval forces in the 1950s. At the same time, it increased its interest in the ocean, albeit with a “Janus-like” perspective—that is, viewing the ocean as both a source of opportunity and a source of threat. These efforts appear to have borne fruit under the fifth generation of Chinese leadership, shifting China’s position from a country traditionally “continental-oriented” to one increasingly “maritime-oriented.”<br />In addition, China’s 2015 Defense White Paper states that the traditional mindset—that land is superior to sea—must be abandoned, and that greater importance should be attached to the management of seas and oceans as well as the protection of China’s maritime rights. The navy is expected to gradually shift its focus from the defense of “near seas” to “far seas”—a shift that bears considerable resemblance to the “Mahanian school” of maritime security. It should be noted, however, that from 1949 to the late 1970s, China condemned the “Mahanian” model of maritime security as an attempt to rationalize “imperialist colonialism” in East Asia. It argued that Mahan had provided the U.S. imperialists with a blueprint for restoring colonies and pursuing global hegemony, and that he merely represented the interests and objectives of capitalists. Yet, over time, and with China’s growing power, the country appears to be moving toward the “Mahanian” theory and model of maritime security—one that, moreover, has a close affinity with the theories of offensive structural realism.<br /><br /><strong> Conclusions & Suggestions</strong><br /><br />In fact, since 2012, "transforming China into a great maritime power" has become an integral part of China's grand strategy, and Beijing has committed itself to a long-term effort to achieve this goal. An effort that not only did not stop with the coming to power of Xi Jinping from 2013 onwards, but also moved forward at a faster pace and even acquired more aggressive dimensions. In summary, and based on what has been stated, a kind of transition in China's maritime security strategy, namely the transition from coastal defense to near-sea defense and distant sea defense, has taken place in line with China's increasing national power and capability, transforming the country from a passive and defensive position in the maritime domain to an active and aggressive one.<br />.<br />  بازخیزش چین، اهمیت یک پهنه ژئوپلتیک جدید، یعنی پهنه‌ای که از دریای جنوبی چین تا اقیانوس هند و شرق آفریقا کشش و امتداد می‌یابد را در مرکز ثقل نظم‌سازی منطقه‌ای و بین‌المللی قرار داده است. این پهنه یک پهنه « آبی » است و یقیناً تسلط هرکدام از قدرت‌های بزرگ و منطقه‌ای بر این پهنه می‌تواند نقش قابل توجهی در چگونگی شکل‌دهی به آینده این نظم داشته باشد. جمهوری خلق چین به منظور گریز از ذهنیت یک بازیگر « قربانی» و همچنین گریز از «خفگی ژئوپلتیکی» پس از تقریبا 500 سال تمرکز بر خشکی، تلاش برای بازسازی نیروی دریایی خود را از دهه 1950 مجددا در دستور کار قرار داد و علاقه خود به اقیانوس را افزایش داد و به نظر می‌رسد که این تلاش امروز و در زمان نسل پنجم رهبران چین به ثمر نشسته است. این مقاله تلاش دارد تا تحولات ایجاد شده در استراتژی‌های دریایی چین را با بهره‌گیری از روش فرایندیابی مورد بررسی قرار داده و بیان نماید که نوعی نقل و انتقال از رئالیسم تدافعی به رئالیسم تهاجمی در استراتژی دریایی چین صورت گرفته است. https://interpolitics.guilan.ac.ir/article_8751_87b14133f4b8033c795bf051ec97d8d1.pdf

دانشگاه گیلان (با مشارکت انجمن ایرانی روابط بین الملل) سیاست جهانی 2383-0123 14 2 2025 09 22 A historical and analytical study of the political and social situation of Christians in Kurdistan from the late Nasserite period to the end of the Qajar dynasty. مطالعه‌ای تاریخی و تحلیلی بر وضعیت سیاسی و اجتماعی مسیحیان کردستان از اواخر دوره ناصری تا پایان سلسله قاجار 239 258 9312 10.22124/wp.2025.31162.3552 FA نهیه سنگین آبادی دانشجوی دکتری تاریخ، گروه تاریخ، واحد سنندج، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، سنندج، ایران سید محمد شیخ احمدی استادیار گروه تاریخ، واحد سنندج، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، سنندج، ایران کیوان شافعی استادیار گروه تاریخ، واحد سنندج، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، سنندج، ایران Journal Article 2025 03 11 Kurdistan, as one of the most culturally and religiously diverse regions in Iran, has always played a special role in the country's social and political history. The Christian community of Kurdistan, including Assyrians and Chaldeans, represents part of this diversity. During the Qajar period, the political and social conditions of this religious community were subject to extensive changes. The government often pursued a policy of religious tolerance, and Christians, like other religious minorities, enjoyed limited rights. Meanwhile, the presence of foreign religious missionaries in the Christian areas of Kurdistan sometimes intensified local sensitivities and led to religious conflicts. This research, through a descriptive and analytical approach, using library documents, attempts to examine the history of the presence of Christians in Kurdistan and their political and social status during the Qajar period. The results indicate that Christians in Kurdistan during that period faced challenges such as political limitations, social pressures, and cultural changes; however, they were able to maintain their position to a large extent by using international relations and the ability to adapt to new conditions. کردستان، به‌عنوان یکی از مناطق پرتنوع ازلحاظ فرهنگی و مذهبی در ایران، همواره نقشی ویژه در تاریخ اجتماعی و سیاسی کشور ایفا کرده است. جامعه مسیحیان کردستان، شامل آشوری‌ها و کلدانی‌ها، بخشی از این تنوع را نمایندگی می‌کنند. طی دوره قاجار، شرایط سیاسی و اجتماعی این جامعه مذهبی تحت تأثیر تغییرات گسترده‌ای قرار داشت. حکومت اغلب سیاست تسامح مذهبی را دنبال می‌کرد و مسیحیان، مشابه سایر اقلیت‌های مذهبی، از حقوق محدود بهره‌مند بودند. در همین حال، حضور مبلغان مذهبی خارجی در نواحی مسیحی نشین کردستان گاهی حساسیت‌های محلی را تقویت کرده و منجر به برخوردهای مذهبی می‌شد. این پژوهش از طریق رویکرد توصیفی و تحلیلی، با استناد به اسناد کتابخانه‌ای، تلاش می‌کند تاریخ حضور مسیحیان در کردستان و وضعیت سیاسی و اجتماعی آن‌ها در دوره قاجار را بررسی کند. نتایج حاکی از آن است که مسیحیان کردستان در آن دوران با چالش‌هایی مانند محدودیت‌های سیاسی، فشارهای اجتماعی و تحولات فرهنگی روبه‌رو بودند؛ اما توانستند با بهره‌گیری از ارتباطات بین‌المللی و توانایی انطباق با شرایط جدید تا حد زیادی جایگاه خود را حفظ کنند. https://interpolitics.guilan.ac.ir/article_9312_3a2f5402a326c9e4537eb1da464e46c0.pdf

دانشگاه گیلان (با مشارکت انجمن ایرانی روابط بین الملل) سیاست جهانی 2383-0123 14 2 2025 07 23 Emerging order-building factors in the Middle East and diversifying the foreign policy toolbox عوامل نوپدید نظم ساز در منطقه خاورمیانه و تنوع بخشی به جعبه ابزار سیاست خارجی 259 277 8977 10.22124/wp.2025.30134.3502 FA امیر عباسی خوشکار دانش آموخته دکترای روابط بین الملل، دانشگاه تهران، تهران، ایران پیام طبیبی کارشناسی ارشد حقوق، دانشگاه مفید قم، قم، ایران. Journal Article 2025 03 17 Regional orders are one of the most important factors influencing the foreign policy behavior of regional and transregional government units. The Middle East region, affected by the intervention of transregional powers, has gone through various periods of security order formation. The factors shaping the order of the Middle East region have been highly diverse in different historical periods. During the Cold War, militaristic trends and bipolar transregional interventions were the most important factors forming the order of the Middle East region. The foreign policy behavior of the powers of the West Asian region has undergone many changes due to the interaction with the new order. The changes made have caused changes to occur in the foreign policy toolbox of most governments. The research method of the present article is explanatory and the method of collecting documentary sources.The research method of the present article is explanatory and the method of collecting documentary sources<br /><strong> </strong><br /><br /><strong> Introduction</strong><br /><br />Regional orders are one of the most important factors influencing the foreign policy behavior of regional and transregional government units. The Middle East region, affected by the intervention of transregional powers, has gone through various periods of security order formation. The factors shaping the order of the Middle East region have been highly diverse in different historical periods. During the Cold War, militarized trends and bipolar transregional interventions were the most important factors forming the order of the Middle East region. In the last two decades, the factors causing transformation in the order of the West Asian region have changed. In the present study, the factors causing transformation and transformation in the order of the West Asian region that have formed the basis of new changes are examined.<br /><br /><strong>Theoretical Framework</strong><br /><br />The foreign policy behavior of the powers of the West Asian region has undergone many changes due to interaction with the new order. The changes made have caused changes to occur in the foreign policy toolbox of most governments. The factors creating regional orders and their transformation into polarizations and transformation in the form of a change in the nature of new communications have had different characteristics in past periods. Regional and transregional government units and the content of their communications are the builders of orders. Regional orders are one of the most important variables affecting the behavior of government units. Regional orders are composed of various order-building processes, the most important of which are defined in the form of security order-building processes. The aforementioned processes include a set of sub-processes that occur in the political, economic-energy and cultural spheres. The result of the interaction of different order-building thematic layers leads to the formation of a security order.<br /><br /><strong> Methodology</strong><br /><br />The research method of the present article is descriptive and the method of collecting documentary sources.<br /><br /><strong> Results & Discussion</strong><br /><br />The question of the present research is what factors are the current changes in the West Asian regional order rooted in and what impact has the resulting change had on the foreign policy behavior of the regional governments? In response to the above question, the following hypothesis is put forward: the change in the West Asian regional order and its networking are rooted in three factors: the networking of geoeconomic ties, the networking of perception engineering and the networking of deterrence, and this has caused the foreign policy toolbox of many regional powers to move towards diversification in order to have a multidimensional impact on the regional security order. The research method of the present article is descriptive and the method of collecting documentary sources. State and non-state actors in the West Asian region, while intensifying the complexity of the existing order, benefit from the current metamorphosis structure. In fact, the interaction of the agent and the networked structure is a two-way and constructive interaction. Structural pressure causes the costs of regional strategic action to increase for units that do not use the network approach, and actors that do not seek to adapt to the newly emerging transformed environment with the aforementioned approach will have high costs in implementing regional plans. On the contrary, units that seek to use regional and transregional communication links and nodes with a network approach to enhance their strategic stability point, while reducing costs, help to make foreign policy behaviors more efficient and strengthen the foreign policy toolbox.<br /><br /><strong> Conclusions</strong><strong> & Suggestions</strong><br /><br />The strengthening and complexity of regional links in regional thematic areas and their connection to the global networked order has been affected by a specific progressive process. The following model shows that the networkization of order in West Asia is rooted in the networkization of the economy in this region, and further, with the networkization of communications and soft power and the desire of regional government units to expand their soft power influence network at the regional and trans-regional levels, the aforementioned process has intensified. At the end of the linear movement of the previous circles, a supplementary and final circle has been added. Units that have been able to achieve outstanding successes in the previous two circles will be more successful in networking their deterrence using their network capacity and regional and global links. Therefore, all three circles are linked to each other in the form of a linear causal relationship and help to deepen the complexity and networkization of order in the region. The network connection of the three aforementioned layers with each other and mutual feeding from each other will be the builder of the strategic environment.<br />  نظم های منطقه ای یکی از مهمترین عوامل تاثیرگذار بر رفتار سیاست خارجی واحدهای دولتی منطقه ای و فرامنطقه ای به شمار می آیند. منطقه خاورمیانه متاثر از مداخله قدرت های فرامنطقه ای، دوره های نظم یابی امنیتی مختلفی را پشت سر گذاشته است. سوال پژوهش حاضر این است که تغییرات حاضر در نظم منطقه غرب اسیا ریشه در چه عواملی و متغیرهایی دارد و تغییر حاصل شده چه تاثیری بر رفتار سیاست خارجی دولت های منطقه داشته است؟ در پاسخ به سوال فوق فرضیه ذیل مطرح می شود تغییر در نظم منطقه غرب اسیا و شبکه ای شدن ان ریشه در سه عامل شبکه ای شدن پیوندهای ژئواکونومیکی، شبکه ای شدن مهندسی ادراکات و شبکه ای شدن بازدارندگی دارد و این سبب شده است تا جعبه ابزار سیاست خارجی بسیاری از قدرت های منطقه به سمت متنوع سازی جهت تاثیرگذاری چندبعدی بر نظم امنیتی منطقه پیش برود. روش پژوهش مقاله پیش رو تبیینی و روش جمع آوری منابع اسنادی می باشد. https://interpolitics.guilan.ac.ir/article_8977_7d74d2b2ac6aa9905ae948806286642b.pdf

دانشگاه گیلان (با مشارکت انجمن ایرانی روابط بین الملل) سیاست جهانی 2383-0123 14 2 2025 08 23 Ensuring the Eternality of the Principle of Territorial Integrity in Opposition to Separatism and the Right to Self-determination تضمین جاودانگی اصل تمامیت ارضی در تقابل با تجزیه طلبی وحق تعیین سرنوشت 279 304 9329 10.22124/wp.2025.31838.3592 FA احمد اعتماد نویسنده مسئول، استادیارگروه حقوق دانشگاه پیام نور، تهران، ایران. 0009-0007-4086-9340 جابر قاسمی استادیارگروه علوم سیاسی دانشگاه پیام نور، تهران، ایران 0000-0003-3379-5164 Journal Article 2025 10 01 One of the legal mechanisms for preserving the fundamental principle of territorial integrity is to consider it eternal and permanent in the constitutions; in other words, the constitutions express the irrevocable principles within the framework of the theory of constitutionalization. Considering such a principle eternal does not mean that it is unchallengeable, but rather that it is challenged by other fundamental principles such as claims of secessionism that emerge in the form of the right to self-determination and democracy. The main question of the article is how can the eternality of the principle of territorial integrity be guaranteed in the opposition to the claim for secession, which is sometimes presented in the form of a right to claim, and the right to self-determination? The hypothesis of the article is that although from a legal perspective, the order governing the constitution guarantees the eternality of the principle of territorial integrity, the presentation of political theories and the dominance of politics over the law challenges this principle in practical terms. The research method in this article is descriptive-analytical .<br /><br />Introduction<br /><br />A key legal mechanism for safeguarding the fundamental principle of territorial integrity is its constitutional entrenchment as a perpetual and unamendable norm. This principle, as part of the collective identity of the nation, confronts secessionist claims often framed within the discourse of the right to self-determination and democracy. The central question of this article is how the perpetuity of the principle of territorial integrity can be guaranteed against such claims. The hypothesis posits that while, from a legal perspective, the normative order of the constitution is the primary guarantor, the dominance of politics over law in practice poses significant challenges to this guarantee.<br /><strong>2</strong>.<strong>Theoretical Framework</strong><br />The theoretical framework of this article rests on three main pillars:<br />- Constitutionalization: The core theory is the "constitutionalization" of fundamental principles like territorial integrity, rendering them an unalterable part of the constitutional identity.<br />- Theoretical Conflict on Secession: The article examines the clash between two major justifications for a right to secede: the "deontological" theory (e.g., Wellman), emphasizing the moral-political right of groups, and the "consequentialist" theory (e.g., Lafkowitz), focusing on the practical outcomes of secession.<br />- Clash of Rights: Another framework involves analyzing the conflict between the "right to self-determination" (as the basis for secessionist claims) and the "principle of territorial integrity." This section analyzes the "Liberal Nationalist" theory (which attributes the right to self-determination to ethnic/regional groups) and the theory of "Popular Sovereignty over Territory" (which attributes this right to the entire nation as a single political entity).<br /><strong>3</strong>.<strong>Methodology</strong><br />The research method is descriptive-analytical. Data and information were gathered through a library study of authoritative sources in constitutional law, political science, scientific articles, and the review of rulings from constitutional courts of various countries. The analytical focus is on the procedures and case studies from nations that have faced the most serious challenges in this domain, particularly Ukraine (regarding Crimea) and Spain (regarding Catalonia).<br /><strong>4</strong>.<strong>Results & Discussion</strong><br />The research findings indicate that a purely legal approach is insufficient by itself to guarantee territorial integrity in practice.<br />- Symbolic Role of Unamendable Principles: Declaring territorial integrity as an unamendable principle, while having an important symbolic and identity-forming function, can be overridden when confronted with strong political will and deep crises (as seen in Crimea).<br />- The Challenge of Constitutionalizing Secession: Examining the constitutions of the few countries that recognize a right to secede (such as Liechtenstein and Uzbekistan) shows that this is usually conditional and limited to specific regions, not a general right. However, the theoretical confrontation between those who see this as reinforcing territorial integrity through blocking mechanisms (e.g., Norman) and those who view it as violating the constitutional normative order (e.g., Sunstein) persists.<br />- Legal Balancing: The case studies of Ukraine and Spain show that their constitutional courts have attempted to balance the right to self-determination with territorial integrity by invoking the rule of law and constitutional order. In Spain, the Constitutional Court, by annulling unilateral resolutions of the Catalan parliament, emphasized the necessity of following constitutional procedures for any change. In Ukraine, although legal solutions (such as constitutional amendment) have been proposed, political and international power has been the determining factor in practice.<br /><strong>5</strong>.<strong>Conclusions & Suggestions</strong><br />The overall conclusion of the article is that guaranteeing the perpetuity of the principle of territorial integrity cannot be achieved through a purely legal path alone and requires complementary political-social measures. The most important proposed solutions are:<br />- Clarification of the Right to Self-Determination in Domestic Law: Clarifying that the right to self-determination primarily means participation in governance, not unilateral secession.<br />- Strengthening National Unity and Common Identity: Promoting a sense of national belonging and reinforcing the foundations of social solidarity among all groups and ethnicities.<br />- Expanding Genuine Autonomy and Positive Decentralization: Granting extensive and meaningful powers to regions within the framework of national sovereignty, in a way that reduces feelings of discrimination and deprivation.<br />- Guaranteeing Minority Rights: Establishing effective mechanisms to respect the cultural, linguistic, and religious rights of minorities to undermine the grounds for secessionist claims.<br />Ultimately, when political power (internal and external) merges with the claim to self-determination, the fragility of the constitution in preserving territorial integrity is revealed, and the legal order can be overshadowed by political realities.<br /><strong> </strong><br /><strong> </strong><br />.<br />  یکی از سازوکارهای حقوقی برای حفظ اصل بنیادین تمامیت ارضی، جاویدان ودائمی دانستن آن در قوانین اساسی است؛ به عبارت دیگر قوانین اساسی مبین اصول غیرقابل بازنگری در چارچوب نظریه اساسی سازی هستند. جاویدان دانستن چنین اصلی به معنای چالش ناپذیری آن نیست بلکه با اصول بنیادین دیگری مثل ادعاهای تجزیه طلبی که در قالب حق تعیین سرنوشت و دموکراسی ظهور پیدا می کند به چالش کشیده می شود. پرسش اصلی مقاله این است که چگونه می توان در تقابل ادعای تجزیه طلبی که گاه در قالب حق -ادعا مطرح می شود وحق تعیین سرنوشت، جاودانگی اصل تمامیت ارضی را تضمین کرد؟ فرضیه مقاله این است که اگرچه از منظر حقوقی صرف نظم حاکم بر قانون اساسی تضمین کننده جاودانگی اصل تمامیت ارضی است اما ارائه نظریات سیاسی وحاکم شدن سیاست بر قانون این اصل را از لحاظ عملی به چالش می کشد. روش پژوهش در این مقاله توصیفی-تحلیلی می باشد. https://interpolitics.guilan.ac.ir/article_9329_d46637c7ecfeac8ebd0222a52c46fc40.pdf