Political Science
Majid Rouhi
Abstract
IntroductionAchieving foreign policy objectives has historically relied on a range of instruments. They are commonly categorized into three types: diplomatic, military, and economic. In recent years, however, a new concept known as feminist foreign policy (FFP) has been introduced into this repertoire. ...
Read More
IntroductionAchieving foreign policy objectives has historically relied on a range of instruments. They are commonly categorized into three types: diplomatic, military, and economic. In recent years, however, a new concept known as feminist foreign policy (FFP) has been introduced into this repertoire. This approach is generally understood as emphasizing the promotion of gender equality and increasing the effectiveness and representation of women and marginalized groups in foreign policy decision‑making processes. Recent scholarship suggests that Western policymakers and analysts increasingly employ gender as an analytical level to better understand power dynamics within authoritarian regimes. Proponents of this perspective argue that rebalancing historically entrenched structures of power through gender-sensitive constructs can generate deep changes in both the domestic and foreign policies of countries such as Iran, Russia, and China.The present study aimed to examine and explain the concept of FFP from both theoretical and practical perspectives. The research questions are as follows: First, how can FFP be conceptualized and explained from a theoretical perspective? Second, what are the core instruments, tactics, and practical objectives underpinning FFP, and in what ways do these align with the strategic interests of Western states? Finally, how can the approaches and objectives of European and American FFP toward the Islamic Republic of Iran be identified, and what are the resulting political–theoretical implications and consequences of such policies?Literature ReviewA notable study in the field of FFP is Feminist Foreign Policy in Theory and in Practice: An Introduction (Foster and Markham, 2023. This study examines how feminist approaches to foreign, development, and trade policy are implemented by governments at both multilateral and national levels. Vernon (2022), in the article “Sexuality, Gender, and Colonial Violence of Humanitarian Intervention,” addressed this issue by arguing that gender functions as a normative framework underpinning humanitarian interventions. In “Iran Is No Litmus Test for Germany’s Feminist Foreign Policy,” Parkes et al. (2023) contend that the protests and unrest in Iran in 2022 may signal the potential for structural transformations that could emerge from a feminist revolution, and they call for the adoption of a more assertive and proactive German approach in this regard. Moreover, Adebahr and Mittelhammer dedicated a series of reports and articles to the significance of adopting an FFP toward Iran. For instance, in the 2020 paper titled “A Feminist Foreign Policy to Counter Iran: Assessing EU Options,” they argue that—based on a revised understanding of Iran’s power structures—the European Union should articulate a more comprehensive and inclusive conception of security and national interests.Materials and MethodsThe current research employed a qualitative methodology and an approach rooted in foresight analysis. It qualitatively examined Western policies toward Iran by drawing on policy documents, official statements, analytical reports, and relevant scholarly literature. It then identified the operative components of these policies—their instruments, tactics, and objectives—and evaluated both their practical performance and their broader political–theoretical implications.Results and DiscussionOn 2 December 2014, Sweden’s Foreign Minister Margot Wallström became the first to introduce FFP as a concrete initiative aimed at advancing gender equality. In the years that followed, several countries announced their intention to adopt the principles of FFP. This approach refers to a public policy framework in which interactions with other states, movements, and non-state actors are shaped by priorities such as peace, gender equality, and environmental sustainability. It seeks to challenge and transform colonial, racist, and patriarchal power structures. Advocates contend that implementing feminist foreign policies and articulating a coherent political framework grounded in gender-sensitive strategies can facilitate inter-state alliances and help bring about meaningful changes in national foreign policy.A broadened conception of security, a critical examination of power relations, and the recognition of women’s political agency in foreign policy and diplomacy constitute the three core elements that define the transformed character of the FFP approach. The feminist approach to foreign policy pursues key objectives such as promoting substantive social and political change within authoritarian regimes. It aims to address longstanding imbalances in power structures and resolve international disputes and conflicts with revisionist states. Gender-sensitive foreign policy foregrounds gender constructs and redefines dichotomies such as feminine/masculine, weak/strong, and rational/emotional. It seeks to examine power dynamics embedded in these dichotomies within and between states, viewing them as significant factors shaping international relations and policies.Following the upheavals and unrest in Iran in 2022, the European Union noted that changes in Iran could be driven by a feminist revolution, thus emphasizing the pivotal role of gender and women in shaping its policy choice. In the United States, some analysts began to advocate shifting away from a maximum‑pressure strategy toward a feminist approach to Iran. The FFP approach seeks to address the root causes of conflict and violence and to advance a more comprehensive understanding of security. Its central objective is to transform policymaking and international engagement over the long term by incorporating diverse voices and prioritizing human security. When applying a feminist lens to European and U.S. policy toward Iran, primary attention is directed toward documenting and responding to widespread human rights concerns. In addition, such an analysis tends to examine and evaluate the impact of Iran’s policies and measures on marginalized groups and minorities, including Kurds, Baluchs, Baha’is, Afghan refugees, and other vulnerable populations.ConclusionThe current analysis examined FFP as an innovative instrument for advancing foreign policy objectives. It tried to delineate the assumptions and principles of FFP, evaluate the approaches of various countries in this regard, and assess both the general and case-specific objectives of FFP in relation to Iran. The findings indicate that the feminist approach seeks to decode power structures and enhance women’s representation in politics. Rather than privileging state-centric conceptions of security, it emphasizes human security and aspires to foster greater peace and stability in the international system by incorporating female voices into foreign policy and diplomacy. The approach also extends to issues of nuclear policy and disarmament, highlighting its relevance to security governance across multiple levels. FFP can yield deeper understanding of Western policies toward Russia, China, and particularly Iran. The gender-sensitive logic underpinning Western policy toward Iran—especially in the aftermath of the events of 2022—provides notable explanatory insight into policy choices and discourses. Moreover, FFP functions as a strategic narrative that aligns with and advances Western norms as opposed to traditionalist paradigms. Thus, the West tends to rely on FFP to advance its hegemonic neoliberal order and discourse.
Public policy
Matin Anjomrooz; Mohammad Khezri
Abstract
IntroductionIn recent decades, rapid and extensive changes in political, social, economic, and technological fields have created unprecedented and multidimensional challenges for policymakers. These changes have not only made public administration more difficult but also necessitated a fundamental revision ...
Read More
IntroductionIn recent decades, rapid and extensive changes in political, social, economic, and technological fields have created unprecedented and multidimensional challenges for policymakers. These changes have not only made public administration more difficult but also necessitated a fundamental revision of traditional policy approaches and a shift toward new paradigms. The present study aimed to explore the causes and mechanisms of paradigm shifts in policymaking and provide a comprehensive framework for understanding such transformations. The research sough to analyze the why and how of policy shifts in the context of refugee crisis in Iran. The main research question is: What are the driving factors and mechanisms behind policy shifts in policymaking?Literature ReviewParadigm shifts in policymaking are shaped by a range of factors, including global crises, technological advances, social changes, and international pressures. Several theoretical frameworks—such as Hall’s paradigm shift theory, institutionalism, and discourse analysis—seek to explain how these transformations occur. In “Policy Paradigms, Social Learning, and the State: The Case of Economic Policymaking in Britain,” Hall (1993) distinguishes three levels of policy change: instruments, goals, and paradigms. Institutionalism highlights the influence of institutions on policy development, while discourse analysis focuses on how language and discourse shape policy formation. Major global crises, such as the 2008 financial crisis and the COVID–19 pandemic, exemplify external drivers that can trigger paradigm shifts.Materials and MethodsThis research employed qualitative methods and a case study design. Focusing on the refugee crisis in Iran, the data was collected through policy documents and international reports. The analysis drew on several theoretical frameworks: Hall’s paradigm shift theory, institutionalism, and discourse analysis. These frameworks enabled the examination of changes in Iran’s migration, security, economic, and social policies in response to the refugee crisis.Results and DiscussionAs the findings revealed, policy shifts in Iran’s response to the refugee crisis have been driven by a combination of internal and external factors. The crisis has prompted significant changes in migration, security, economic, and social policies. For instance, Iran has adopted stricter border controls and reduced the number of newly registered refugees, reflecting a shift toward managing existing refugee populations rather than admitting new ones. These changes align with Hall’s paradigm shift theory, as they represent a fundamental rethinking of policy goals and instruments in response to the limitations of previous approaches.Institutional factors have also played a critical role in shaping these policy shifts. The Iranian government has implemented stricter residency renewal processes, with only 60% of eligible refugees successfully renewing their residency permits in recent years. This reflects the influence of institutionalism, as changes in institutional oversight and evaluation mechanisms directly impact policy outcomes. Additionally, the deployment of advanced surveillance systems along Iran’s eastern borders has reduced illegal entries by 30%, demonstrating how institutional innovations can drive policy changes in response to security concerns.Economic and social dimensions of the refugee crisis have further contributed to policy shifts. The influx of refugees has intensified competition in low-wage labor markets, leading to economic pressures and social tensions. Despite efforts to integrate refugees, challenges such as discrimination and cultural friction persist, with nearly 70% of Afghan refugees reporting social and economic hardships. These findings highlight the complex interplay of economic, social, and institutional factors in shaping policy responses to the refugee crisis, underscoring the need for comprehensive and adaptive policymaking approaches.Paradigm shifts in policymaking are complex and multifaceted phenomena that require a deep understanding of the interaction of various factors and mechanisms of change. Global crises, technological advancements, and social changes are among the key drivers of policy shifts. In the case of Iran, the refugee crisis has had profound impact on public policies, necessitating a comprehensive and coordinated approach to effectively manage the crisis. Policymakers must continuously monitor global and domestic developments and use mechanisms such as policy learning and institutional innovations to create effective and sustainable policy changes.ConclusionParadigm shifts in policymaking are an inevitable process driven by rapid social, economic, technological, and environmental changes. Policymakers must actively respond to environmental and social changes and leverage the opportunities arising from these changes to improve policy efficiency and effectiveness. Increasing public participation and strengthening the legitimacy of policies through transparent and inclusive discourse can help reduce resistance to change and increase the acceptance of new policies. A deep understanding of the drivers of paradigm shifts and the mechanisms of change can help policymakers better navigate future transformations and design sustainable and effective policies.
Political Sociology
Alireza Samiee Isfahani; َNafisseh Alahdadi; Reza Rezaei; reza dehbanipour
Abstract
Introduction As a critical discourse analysis, the present study aimed to uncover the verbal violence hidden in the discursive structure of various intellectual tendencies during the Constitutional period in Iran. The central research question is: How can linguistic violence be identified and analyzed ...
Read More
Introduction As a critical discourse analysis, the present study aimed to uncover the verbal violence hidden in the discursive structure of various intellectual tendencies during the Constitutional period in Iran. The central research question is: How can linguistic violence be identified and analyzed in the speeches and writings of different intellectual discourses during the Constitutional period? To address this question, the study employed a descriptive–analytical method. The analysis drew on Ruth Wodak’s framework of critical discourse analysis and Patricia Evans’s theory of verbal violence. These approaches were used to analyze strategies of verbal violence in the discourses of rival intellectuals: on one side, Mirza Malkam Khan and Talibov (representing Western/modernist discourse), and on the other side, Sheikh Fazlollah Nouri and Ayatollah Na’ini (representing religious discourse).Literature ReviewThere are significant contributions about intellectual-cum-political discourses in Iran. For example, Tabari (2020), in Iranian Society During the Period of Reza Shah Pahlavi, examined the era of Reza Shah’s rule. Hossein Abadian (2019), in The Crisis of Consciousness and the Development of Intellectuals in Iran, explored the historical development of intellectual thought in Iran. In Iranian Intellectuals and Tradition, Ali-Hosseini (2019) addressed the relationship between Iranian intellectuals and the tradition, examining how contemporary Iranian intellectuals had understood the tradition.In 2007, Mirsepasi explored some aspects of Iranian intellectualism in the book titled Iranian Intellectuals: Social Hope and Philosophical Despair, focusing on the antagonism and othering expressed by Iranian intellectuals toward modernity and the West. Kasravi (2006), in History of the Iranian Constitutional Revolution, highlighted the contributions of key figures who had emerged from among the masses and played a pivotal role in Iran’s Constitutional Movement. He also uncovered important aspects of the movement that had remained obscured despite their fundamental significance.Most of the previous studies have primarily focused on physical or structural forms of violence; however, the present research deals with linguistic violence. Moreover, the current study is significant in terms of the comparative perspective on the Constitutional period and the early Pahlavi era, thereby making it possible to compare strategies of linguistic violence across two distinct socio‑political contexts.Materials and MethodsThe present study used a combination of Ruth Wodak’s critical–historical discourse analysis and Patricia Evans’s theory of verbal violence to describe and analyze verbal violence during the Constitutional period as reflected in the language of prominent intellectuals across different strands of intellectualism. At the level of textual analysis, Wodak’s critical–historical discourse analysis focuses on discursive strategies, formulated as five guiding questions (Wodak & Meyer, 2001). These strategies are: (1) referential or naming strategies, (2) predicational strategies, (3) argumentation strategies, (4) perspectivization or framing, and (5) intensification and mitigation. In addition to Wodak’s model, the analysis relied on Patricia Evans’s theory of verbal violence in The Verbally Abusive Relationship (2009). Evans identifies several forms of verbal abuse, including: withholding, countering, discounting, verbal abuse disguised as jokes, blocking and diverting, accusing and blaming, judging and criticizing, defining, undermining, threatening, labeling, and raging or verbal outbursts.Results and DiscussionMirza Malkam Khan regarded law and legislation as fundamental principles. Based on his descriptions and explanations, the establishment of law was his central demand, and he viewed legal reform as the essential foundation of progress. This emphasis on law appears in his referential, predicational, critical, and offensive strategies. For example, in his discourse he uses weakening and derogatory language—such as referring to people as alleyway animals or calling them a stupid group—to highlight the need for legal transformation.Talibov identified the alphabet as the primary cause of the Islamic ummah’s ignorance. In his statements, Talibov employed not only a linguistic strategy but also perspectivization and intensification by amplifying the role of the alphabet as the fundamental source of ignorance. At the same time, his argument reflects a form of critical verbal violence, as it attributes the nation’s intellectual shortcomings to the inadequacies of the Persian language and script. This is particularly striking given that Persian literature has produced significant and influential works recognized throughout the world.Sheikh Fazlollah Nouri, speaking with religious authority, categorically rejected constitutionalism. From a jurisprudential (fiqh) standpoint grounded in strict adherence to religious beliefs and criteria, he labeled anyone who acted against religion as lā‑mazhab (irreligious). Such statements reflect his discursive strategies of disciplinary linguistic, perspectivization, and intensification, through which he reinforces his views. This rhetoric constitutes a form of critical verbal violence, characterized by the outright negation of constitutionalism through religious prohibition (or harām). At the same time, this language contributes to verbal confrontation with Western‑influenced movements.Na’ini emphasized freedom, separation, and, in general, the principles of constitutionalism; however, for him, the law itself carried even greater importance. He states that without drafting the constitution, all of the above measures are like shaving one’s head. In this analogy—employing predicational and perspectivization strategies—Na’ini uses a form of critical verbal violence that includes labeling. By asserting that any emphasis on constitutional reform without a proper legal foundation is futile and ineffective, he intensifies his critique and underscores the indispensability of law.ConclusionThe present inquiry uncovered verbal violence within the discursive structures of different intellectual tendencies, examining the effects of such verbal abuse on its targets. Overall, the most salient form is the verbal violence used by Western-oriented intellectuals against scholars, the clergy, and religious thought. In contrast, verbal violence within religious discourse—largely produced by clerical scholars—appears to be directed more inward, reinforcing boundaries within the religious discourse, rather than directly confronting Western-oriented intellectual discourse. The verbal violence of this period manifested through five discursive strategies and in multiple forms, with varying frequency across the two camps. Moreover, consistent with the textual framework, the most prominent type in both discourses is critical verbal violence, as they both were critical of intellectuals. Next in frequency are insults, accusation and blame, and finally labeling, which occur more often than other types of verbal violence. The confrontational stance and rhetorical intensity of Western-oriented intellectuals, along with the destructive force of their language, were among the factors that shaped the course of constitutionalism
Political Sociology
Ayoub Menati; Taha ashayeri
Abstract
Introduction Development is a long-term process that requires specific structures and conditions, which emerge gradually over the course of history. After the 1979 Revolution, Iranian society experienced various political changes. The growing participation in elections from 1978 to 2024 reflects a process ...
Read More
Introduction Development is a long-term process that requires specific structures and conditions, which emerge gradually over the course of history. After the 1979 Revolution, Iranian society experienced various political changes. The growing participation in elections from 1978 to 2024 reflects a process of political maturation and development within the society. Research indicates that political developments, democratic changes, and citizens’ reliance on participation and elections during historical transformations are influenced by various factors—most notably the levels of economic, cultural, and social capital. These variables have played a significant and vital role in shaping the political development of Iranian society. In this respect, the present study aimed to examine Iran’s political development as manifested in research studies published during 2005–2024. It sought to address the following questions: (1) Is there a significant relationship between social capital and political development? (2) Is there a significant relationship between cultural capital and political development? And (3) is there a significant relationship between economic capital and political development? The study is based on the hypothesis that social, economic, and cultural capital simultaneously influence the realization of political development.Literature ReviewPolitical development can be defined as the process of adjustment between traditional patterns of life and new societal demands. One of its initial steps is the formation of a national state. Political development may manifest across the general population, at the state level, or in the organizational structure of the political system. Historically, the concept first referred to achieving individual goals through planning, but over time it came to signify movement from the status quo toward a more desirable situation. Gradually, the concept of political development became associated with political empowerment, political competence, political participation, and political culture. In broad terms, development is a process in which social transformation occurs; in which changes emerge in the social system, political organization, and leadership, and human capabilities expand along with political functions and capacities.Materials and MethodsThis study used meta-analysis to examine Iran’s political development as manifested in research studies. Meta-analysis estimates the overall effect size by synthesizing results from multiple studies as a single analytical unit. The current analysis focused on the published articles, the year of publication, and the key independent and dependent variables. Several keywords were used to retrieve the relevant articles from the databases such as Noormags, Civica, IranDoc, and Magiran. The timeframe was limited to the period 2005–2024. In total, 99 studies were initially identified. After screening them for methodological rigor, credibility, validity, and scientific relevance, 56 documents were selected for analysis. The analysis used CMA2 software and Cohen’s d and Fisher’s effect size tests to estimate the final effect size for each study, as well as the total final effect size.Results and DiscussionAccording to the findings, social capital has the strongest positive and significant relationship with political development, with an effect coefficient of 0.563. Among its components, social trust (0.621) showed the greatest impact. Cultural capital also demonstrates a positive and significant relationship with political development, with an effect coefficient of 0.472; within this dimension, media literacy (0.410) and religious affiliation (0.335) have played prominent roles in the process of political development in Iran. In contrast, economic capital has the weakest—though still significant—relationship with political development, with an effect coefficient of 0.280. Concerning economic capital, the component of economic participation (0.316) contributed the most. Overall, the results suggest that political development in Iran is influenced more by social and cultural capital than by economic factors. Moreover, strengthening trust, social cohesion, and civic awareness can provide an appropriate foundation for the realization of political development.ConclusionRelying on a meta-analysis of 56 research studies published during 2005–2024, the current analysis examined the relationship between three forms of capital—social, cultural, and economic—and political development in Iran. Political development refers to the enhancement of civic capacity, political activism, political awareness, and the realization of citizenship rights within a democratic framework, including attention to minority rights alongside the majority rule. In the research model, this variable demonstrated an effect coefficient of r = 0.563, indicating a substantial ability to explain and predict the level of political development. Given the identified rational patterns, political development is defined as the growth of political awareness, political culture, citizens’ inclination toward democracy, democratic values, and political participation. As levels of social, cultural, and economic capital increase, the tendency towards values associated with political development also rises.
International Relations
Soroush Shabani Khatibani; Ali Alizadeh
Abstract
IntroductionThe South Caucasus region—comprising Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia—has long been a focal point of geopolitical tension and instability. The current study aimed to explore the significant intra-regional factors affecting security arrangements in the South Caucasus. It tried ...
Read More
IntroductionThe South Caucasus region—comprising Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia—has long been a focal point of geopolitical tension and instability. The current study aimed to explore the significant intra-regional factors affecting security arrangements in the South Caucasus. It tried to answer the following research question: What are the effects of the most important intra-regional factors on the security arrangements in the South Caucasus?Literature ReviewNumerous studies have explored the intra-regional causes influencing the security arrangements in the South Caucasus. For instance, in “The Nagorno-Karabakh Conflict and Security in the Caucasus,” German (2012) identified several key intra-regional factors, including the Nagorno-Karabakh dispute, historical animosity, diverse strategic orientations, and limited cooperation at the state level. Cornell (2017) pointed to persistent territorial conflicts, external threats, and the evolving relationships of South Caucasus republics with regional and great powers as complicating factors for regional security. Chechelashvili (2021) highlights conflict zones, potential for economic cooperation, regional organizations, and the influence of major world powers as intra-regional determinants of security, also noting Georgia’s potential to foster regional stability.The article “Russian and Turkish Approaches to Security Arrangements in the South Caucasus” (Hoseinzadeh et al., 2018) identified conflict resolution, the development of a multilateral trust regime, and intra-regional economic growth as crucial intra-regional components. In “South Caucasus Security Arrangements: Future Opportunities and Challenges,” Jafarinia et al. (2023) focused on the Karabakh conflict and the economic development of the countries in the region. Moreover, in “On Regional Security Governance Once Again,” Ceccorulli (2016) examined domestic factors and highlighted the Karabakh issue, energy security, and the significant but limited role of private sector actors. The literature converges on a central issue, that is, a relative lack of in-depth focus on the intra-regional determinants of security arrangements. While these factors are mentioned, the existing literature often fails to elaborate on them, leaving a discernible gap in research.Materials and MethodsThis research employed a descriptive method complemented by qualitative document analysis. Neoclassical realism was used as the theoretical framework. The process began with identifying the main topic areas, followed by selecting relevant documents and categorizing them according to the research questions. Using a bottom-up approach, three main elements with six indicators were developed based on theoretical models. The analysis proceeded in three stages: (1) initial screening, which involved a quick summary of qualitative and quantitative information; (2) intensive reading, dedicated to meticulous examination for extracting key information organized into important elements; and (3) final interpretation, where facts were matched to address the research questions. Relying on library sources and statistical data, the study employed triangulation—combining descriptive analysis with qualitative document analysis—to ensure the reliability and validity of findings.Results and DiscussionThe regional power structure was examined through two primary indicators, namely the distribution of power among the three republics and the level of regional polarization. According the results, the distribution of power among Armenia, Azerbaijan, and Georgia is inherently asymmetrical, driven by significant disparities in both hardpower (military capacity) and soft power (economic capacity). This imbalance has yielded two critical security outcomes. First, dominant states—such as Azerbaijan in its conflict with Armenia, or separatist actors in Georgia—possess a higher probability of success, which incentivizes them to initiate conflicts. Second, weaker states often seek to restore equilibrium by forging alliances with external powers, thereby embedding regional disputes within the geopolitical rivalries of extra-regional actors. Regarding polarization, the analysis highlighted the divergent foreign policy orientations of the three states: Georgia’s pro-Western tendency, Armenia’s alignment with Russia, and Azerbaijan’s more balanced approach. Consequently, no single internal or external actor has managed to incentivize the South Caucasian states to adopt a bandwagoning policy, which remains the primary mechanism that could otherwise reduce uncertainty and enhance stability in the region.The economic factors shaping regional security were examined in two broad respects: the level of interdependence between the republics and their roles in energy transmission lines. Research indicates that this interdependence is surprisingly low, particularly between Armenia and Azerbaijan, which limits the scope for cooperation and conflict resolution. In addition, energy transmission lines are of crucial significance to the geopolitical standing of the region. Efforts to reduce dependence on Russia and the willingness to undermine Armenia are highlighted, a strategy referred to as elimination policy. This low level of economic interdependence suggests that internal groups seeking stability for economic gain have minimal influence on the foreign policy of these nations.The military-security factor was examined through two critical indicators: territorial disputes and ethnic tensions. The interplaybetween these two can escalate ethnic tensions—as seen in the Karabakh conflict and the 2008 Georgia war—into full-blown territorial disputes and total wars. These intense disputes remain unresolved, aligning with William Zartman’s ripeness theory. The historical legacy of the Soviet era, coupled with deep-seated ethnic tensions in the region, significantly fuels these conflicts. Furthermore, the current regional power structure—marked by an imbalanced distribution of power and a lack of bandwagoning policies—fosters a sense of potential victory among stronger parties. Ethnic tensions impact regional security in two primary ways: first, through state actions towards its minorities, and second, through transborder ethnic minorities. These groups include the Kists, Javakheti Armenians, Ahiska Turks, and Georgian Azeris in the region, as well as the Lezgins and Talysh communities in Azerbaijan. Such tensions not only exacerbate existing disputes but also have the potential to ignite new ones. This complicates the establishment of lasting security agreements by fostering leaders’ negative perceptions and a pessimistic strategic culture towards external relations and foreign collaboration, particularly in security matters.Conclusion This research identified and analyzed three primary intra-regional factors shaping the security arrangements in the South Caucasus. They include the regional power structure, economic factors, and military-security factors. Each of these factors was further divided into indicators that would build up the overall security environment of the region. The examination of intra-regional factors affecting the security arrangements in the South Caucasus revealed a complex interplay of variables contributing to regional instability. The convergence of factors creates a nuanced security dilemma that is not easily resolved and necessitates a comprehensive, multi-faceted approach to achieve regional stability and cooperation.
Developments in the Islamic world
َArash Moradi; Fariborz Arghavani Pirsalami
Abstract
IntroductionThe rise of the Justice and Development Party (AKP) marked a turning point in the contemporary history of Turkey, redefining the country’s foreign policy. Bolstered by the self-confidence derived from Turkey’s economic growth, the AKP viewed its presence in various regions—particularly ...
Read More
IntroductionThe rise of the Justice and Development Party (AKP) marked a turning point in the contemporary history of Turkey, redefining the country’s foreign policy. Bolstered by the self-confidence derived from Turkey’s economic growth, the AKP viewed its presence in various regions—particularly in areas once within the Ottoman Empire’s sphere of influence—not only as possible, but as necessary. Achieving balance in foreign policy across different regions is necessary both for security considerations and for the protection of economic interests. In this respect, the present study sought to answer whether the adoption of Asianization in Turkey’s foreign policy under Erdoğan was driven primarily by security balance or by the requirements of economic diplomacy. The study is based on the hypothesis that Turkish leaders’ perception of a transitioning international order—characterized by the plurality of power centers and the diversity of influential actors—has led them to regard Asianization as a strategic orientation that not only serves the objectives of economic diplomacy, but also addresses the long-term requirements of security balancing.Literature ReviewThere are several works dealing with Turkey’s Asian-centered approach in foreign policy. For example, the edited volume titled Turkey’s Asia Relations (Anas, 2022) explores various dimensions of the topic, arguing that the rise of Asia may lead to greater cooperation between Turkey and the West, as their shared focus on Asia creates opportunities for both political and economic collaboration. In Development and Foreign Policy in Turkey: Rethinking Interdependence in a Multipolar World, Kutlay and Karaoğuz (2023) discuss how the erosion of the liberal order has contributed to the reproduction of protectionism, consequently increasing the importance of the state’s role in the development process. According to them, the AKP’s inability to integrate Turkey’s economy into global supply chains has caused the country’s foreign policy to lag behind its economic development. Moreover, the book titled Turkey’s Foreign Policy Narratives: Implications of Global Power Shifts (Alaranta, 2022) examines the various foreign policy discourses through which Kemalists and Islamists interpret the global order and Turkey’s position within it. Alaranta argues that, during this period of international transition, competing narratives in Turkish foreign policy have given rise to multiple visions of the path to development in both domestic and foreign policy.The novelty of the present study lies in its recognition of the rise of Asia as an order-making pole and the emphasis on Asia’s capacity to create alternatives within the international order. Unlike the previous studies, this article not only explores the economic interactions between Turkey and Asia, but also analyzes their security dimensions. Examining Turkey’s relations with the principal poles of power in Asia, it assesses the significance and effectiveness of these relations in the broader context of Asia’s resurgence.Materials and MethodsUsing a descriptive–explanatory approach, the present study adopted the theoretical framework of neoclassical realism to identify the state’s behavioral patterns in response to major systemic transformations. The analysis also focused on the dynamics of the ongoing transition from an Atlantic-centered order to the one centered on Asia-Pacific. It thus provided a comprehensive understanding of the motivations underlying Turkey’s turn toward Asia by integrating systemic factors with domestic mediating elements.Results and Discussion The analysis of Turkey’s Asianization policy under Erdoğan suggests that the country is pursuing changes that extend beyond purely economic and security imperatives. By recognizing new realities in the international order and shifting power dynamics in Asia, Turkey has sought to strategically redefine its position on the global stage. Asia’s emergence as a major center of power in the contemporary world has encouraged Turkey to deepen its engagement with the region across multiple domains, including economic, security, and diplomatic cooperation. This policy therefore reflects not only the requirements of economic diplomacy and security balancing, but also Turkey’s aspiration to play a more active and independent role in the evolving global order.One distinctive aspect of Turkey’s Asianization is its multifaceted approach. By acknowledging shifts in the international system, Turkey has sought to leverage the vast economic opportunities in Asia to advance its development. At the same time, security challenges and disputes with organizations like NATO and the European Union have driven Turkey to reduce its reliance on the West and deepen strategic partnerships with Asian powers such as China, Japan, and India. These relationships not only enable Turkey to engage in major initiatives like the Silk Road and investments in technology and defense but also serve to enhance the country’s strategic independence.ConclusionAsianization in Turkish foreign policy under Erdoğan reflects profound shifts in the international order and the country’s efforts to adapt accordingly. By leveraging Asia’s economic and security strengths and prioritizing strategic independence, Turkey aims to secure a stable and influential position as both a regional and global power. This approach offers a potential new model for interaction and cooperation between the East and the West, benefiting not only national interests but also the broader international community.
Developments in the Middle East
Rahele Chatrsefid; Amir Mohammad Haji-Yousefi
Abstract
Introduction The crisis of Syrian externally displaced populations (EDPs), triggered by the civil ...
Read More
Introduction The crisis of Syrian externally displaced populations (EDPs), triggered by the civil war that began in 2011, has displaced more than 14 million Syrians, with Turkey hosting the largest population of Syrian EDPs. The arrival of millions of Syrian EDPs in Turkey has generated far‑reaching political and social consequences, making the issue one of the most significant challenges in Turkey’s domestic and foreign policy landscape since 2011. From the outset of the crisis, Turkey adopted discursive and legal formulations that diverged from the internationally recognized category of refugee, instead framing Syrians as guests within a discourse of national hospitality. Although these terms evoke benevolence and moral responsibility, they have been embedded in a political framework marked by conditionality, hierarchy, and state‑determined limits.The current research sought to address the following questions: What are the most significant factors shaping changes in the official labeling of Syrian EDPs in Turkey’s governmental approach? And how does this shifting labeling ultimately influence the country’s policies toward them? The study is based on the hypothesis that the primary drivers behind changes in the labeling of Syrian EDPs—and, by extension, the shifts in Turkey’s policies toward them—are political factors (e.g., nationalism and electoral pressures) and economic factors (e.g., integration challenges and strain on public resources). The analysis focused on how Turkey’s approach governs Syrian EDPs through a hospitality narrative that positions them as passive subjects rather than political actors endowed with rights.Literature ReviewA review of existing literature reveals that research on Syrian EDPs in Türkiye has primarily focused on their socioeconomic impact, legal status, security implications, or integration outcomes. However, the political significance of labeling—that is, how the state names, frames, and categorizes EDPs—remains understudied. This study addresses this gap by treating labeling not as a superficial linguistic choice but as an instrument of political action that structures state–EDPs relations and provides discursive justification for policy change. Unlike prior studies that view refugee management primarily through administrative or legal frameworks, the current analysis foregrounds the interplay between terminology, political discourse, and policy orientation.Materials and MethodsThis study applied a qualitative document analysis to examine official terminology and discourse, focusing on how Syrian EDPs were constructed as guests through legal, spatial, and discursive practices. This analysis drew on key documents and sources, including the AFAD 2014 report on Syrian guests in Turkey, Turkish legal instruments (e.g., the 2013 Law on Foreigners and International Protection and the 2014 Temporary Protection Regulation), media discourse, and international reports published by the World Bank and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). Moreover, the study relied on Derrida’s reflections on hospitality to examine how shifts in terminology could correspond to broader changes in the political landscape, economic conditions, and electoral incentives.Results and Discussion The findings demonstrate how Turkey’s policies have effectively depoliticized displacement, thereby limiting the rights of Syrian EDPs and normalizing their marginalization. Initially, the state’s terminology—specifically the pervasive use of guests—served several political functions. It legitimized the open-door policy, constructed a narrative of moral obligation, and positioned Turkey as a humanitarian actor within regional politics. However, as the economic situation deteriorated, public discontent mounted, and political competition intensified, the state’s terminology and discursive approach underwent a significant transformation. The representation of Syrian EDPs shifted from that of morally deserving guests to individuals perceived as contributors to rising unemployment, strains on municipal services, and broader social tensions. This discursive shift aligned with substantive policy measures, including more restrictive mobility regulations, tightened residency controls, limited access to labor market, and a growing emphasis on voluntary return.According to the findings, nationalism and electoral dynamics are pivotal to understanding such a discursive transformation. Political parties increasingly instrumentalized the discourse surrounding Syrians in electoral campaigns, thereby heightening public anxieties and framing Syrian EDPs as a burden. Concurrently, economic factors played a decisive role in reshaping public opinion and justifying more restrictive policy shifts. The evolution of temporary protection policy is particularly illustrative here. While initially framed as a humanitarian mechanism, it has increasingly functioned as a tool for enhanced state control, selective access to rights, and the facilitation of return. Theoretically speaking, Derrida’s analysis of hospitality distinguishes between the ideal of unconditional openness and the reality of conditional acceptance shaped by rules, laws, and political interests. Turkey’s approach to Syrian EDPs aligns more closely with Derrida’s notion of conditional hospitality. The initial discourse of generosity and moral responsibility did not signify unlimited acceptance; rather, it reflected a political strategy that preserved the state’s authority to define and redefine refugee status. The language of hospitality allowed the state to maintain symbolic control while framing its policies as morally grounded.ConclusionThis study concludes that shifts in Turkey’s refugee policy cannot be fully understood without considering the role of language, terminology, and political discourse in shaping state actions. The evolution of labels—ranging from guests to categories associated with burden and pressure—reflects underlying political and economic shifts and directly informs policy orientation. The findings helped confirm the hypothesis that political and economic factors influence the development of Turkey’s approach to Syrian EDPs. Furthermore, the study emphasized the critical importance of incorporating discursive analysis into future research on refugee policy, as the language employed by the state is not merely descriptive but constitutive of policy outcomes.
International Relations
Mojtaba Abdkhodaei
Abstract
IntroductionThe world’s unpreparedness in managing the COVID–19 pandemic can be analyzed on two levels. The micro level concerns the weaknesses in state governance in responding to widespread human phenomena and crises. The macro level stems from the world order, the structure of the international ...
Read More
IntroductionThe world’s unpreparedness in managing the COVID–19 pandemic can be analyzed on two levels. The micro level concerns the weaknesses in state governance in responding to widespread human phenomena and crises. The macro level stems from the world order, the structure of the international system, and its procedures. At the macro level, crisis management has faced three key challenges: distrust, discrimination and injustice, and irresponsibility on the part of great powers. However, during a global crisis like the COVID–19 pandemic—which demanded integrated international cooperation, collaboration, and participation—the behavior of great powers—driven by profiteering and the desire to expand their sphere of influence—posed a significant challenge to humanity. These challenges included the instrumentalization of the crisis for power balancing and the containment of rivals, imposition of profit-driven economic policies, obstruction of international medical organizations’ efforts, and most disgracefully, the use of the crisis to intensify economic sanctions against oppressed and innocent nations struggling for survival.Today, humanity faces the question of whether the current order and leadership of the international system by ambitious world powers can truly create a safer world. Was the decision made at the Dumbarton Oaks Conference, the Yalta Conference, and ultimately the San Francisco Conference wise enough to entrust global security to the great powers? How far can the current international system and global order—centered on great powers—carry the burden of humanity’s responsibility in the face of global crises? These questions raise several related issues concerning the challenges the state‑based Westphalian order has created for the responsibilities individuals and nations owe to others. It also concerns how the political and economic foundations established after World War II—along with the harmful consequences of the liberal, U.S.‑led order—have entangled human beings in natural and man‑made disasters, profiteering, and the sacrifice of people’s well‑being for the benefit of a few, rather than promoting values such as devotion and self‑sacrifice. Furthermore, there is the question of the role the secular nature of the current global order has played in generating such destructive effects.The present study is based on the hypothesis that over the past four decades the current international order has been founded on two main pillars: the state‑based Westphalian order and liberal capitalism. This order has been constituted based on modern rationality and intellectual paradigms such as secularism. It is detached from the sacred as it has developed around the centrality of egotism and profiteering. It is also the product of an international structure whose material, institutional, and paradigmatic dimensions are to guarantee the interests of great powers and ultimately maintain a balance of power among them. As a result, the security and structure of the system of great powers are sustained through distrust, discrimination, injustice, and modern forms of profiteering. In this sense, the system is fundamentally unable to make decisions or act according to human criteria in the management of widespread human crises such as public security and human justice. Therefore, there is the need to establish a new world order based on the foundations and models that reflect human values, human responsibility, and opposition to material profiteering.Literature ReviewNumerous research efforts have examined the transformations of the post‑COVID era, framing the pandemic as a historical turning point in the global order with implications for economic, public health, and political developments. The existing literature also includes critical and postcolonial perspectives about the discriminatory dynamics and power relations embedded in the management of COVID–19. What distinguishes the present study is its macro‑level analysis through the lens of international politics, with particular attention to how the power structure of the international system shapes discriminatory patterns in crisis governance. It also emphasizes the role of modern rationality—and its detachment from the sacred—in shaping the foundations and deficiencies of the current global order. The current inquiry transcends conventional critical paradigms and highlights the need to rethink the foundational concepts within a post‑secular order. Materials and MethodsThis study used an analytical–explanatory method and adopted an eclectic theoretical framework for understanding the international system and crisis management.Results and Discussion Any desirable order depends on the realization of four fundamental principles. The first is the priority of general human interests over ethnic, racial, and territorial interests. The foundation of international order must be constituted in relation to the sacred and grounded in a divine system of meaning. Such a system encompasses the entire existential dimension of actors and pursues an end that can liberate the existential life and identity of units from the constraints of egotistic aims and desires associated with instincts, habits, attachments, and environmental factors. It links human existence and identity to two essential elements of collective life—that is, awareness and responsibility—and seeks meaning for being and living beyond the self. In this perspective, meaning is found in choices that transcend the centrality of the self (whether individual or collective), such as ethnicity, race, or nation. In other words, it frees human beings from the constraints of self-centeredness and profiteering and directs attention toward the higher and enduring purposes of existence. Consequently, the need for a critical rethinking of the relationship between ethics and foreign policy becomes increasingly urgent.The second is the transformation in the concept of politics. In the conventional approach to international politics, the management of human crises has been treated primarily within the literature of low politics; however, it has increasingly been shaped by the issues, subjects, and logic of high politics. High politics is associated with questions of military power, strategy, and the interests of great powers. As a result, within such a system, the dominant approach to crisis policy and crisis management is not oriented toward resolving the crisis itself, but rather toward exploiting the crisis to secure the interests of great powers. The third important principle concerns the transformation in the concept of security. The COVID–19 pandemic was declared a threat to humanity by international institutions, indicating that the hierarchy of global security threats is changing rapidly. The fourth principle is about the transformation in the status of international cooperation and participation. Any plan to restore the international system requires the adoption of an appropriate strategy to strengthen international cooperation.The four principles above call for a rethinking of the establishment of appropriate medical regimes, a humanitarian global trade system, and a just international politics. Achieving these goals depends primarily on reconnecting politics with the sacred, de-secularizing global decision‑making, and working toward the formation of a new world order. It seems the time has come for religious leaders to move beyond merely criticizing U.S. liberal policies in the management of international politics and to challenge the foundational principles of the U.S. liberal system shaped by structural patterns of oppression and discrimination.ConclusionThe study critically examined the complex challenges of managing the COVID–19 pandemic. Then, it analyzed the structure of the contemporary international order and explored the roots of its ineffectiveness in responding to crises such as COVID–19. It finally argued for a fundamental rethinking of the intellectual and strategic foundations of global governance in order to overcome its inefficiencies and profit-driven orientation. Reflecting on the COVID–19 crisis raises a central concern: Can the lessons learned this catastrophe help overcome the current state of global disorder and fragmentation, thereby revitalizing humane and cooperative international relations? The post‑COVID world may offer humanity an opportunity to build a just, resilient, sustainable, and trustworthy global order, or it may move in the opposite direction.
