homeira moshizadeh

The history of International Relations (IR) as a discipline has been characterized by periods of more or less —but never absolute—theoretical agreement or rather “theoretical tranquility” and the periods characterized by theoretical debates representing deep gaps within the discipline. Yet what we can see in all these periods is the continuation of the plurality of theories. Even when there was no debate, consensus was not attained nor could significant theories of the time be ignored. At present, the discipline is still theoretically plural and the theories differ in meta-theoretical terms leading to various explanations and conceptualizations of the international. There are now at least eight or nine major theoretical approaches including realism, liberalism, the English school, Marxism, critical theory, feminism, postmodernism, constructivism, and sometimes, green theory within the discipline. All of these have internal divisions; hence even categorizing them in one single approach may become problematic. The question here is how this theoretical plurality can become a strong point for the discipline. According to Ree (2014), there have been five strategies in dealing with plurality in the discipline: zero-sum approach with an emphasis on the correctness of one’s approach and absolute denial of others —practically not fully followed by IR scholars, inviting all to compromise while insisting on the correctness of one’s approach, representing one’s approach as a middle-ground and, hence, more correct, “regrounding” the discipline through developing a framework for maintaining plurality, and finally celebrating plurality.
Here on the basis of the fourth, and specifically the fifth strategy, I show how plurality is inevitable and it can even be considered to be an important value. First of all, none of the existing IR theories can fully respond to —even fundamental—questions in the discipline as even their most insistent proponents admit that their theories are not flawless or complete. Thus, no single approach can be seen as privileged. Secondly, none of the theoretical approaches is dominant in the field. Many studies in recent decades have demonstrated this. My main argument here is that the plurality of theories is a fact, and that from various points of view it can be seen as favorable —or at least harmless— as far as individual scholars’ concerns, accumulation of knowledge, and policy/objective needs are concerned. Individual scholars normally see their own theoretical stance persuasive. They may have a major claim about the explanation of an important dimension of international life or see their work as complementary to the existing literature but rarely anyone claims that his/her theoretical stance explains everything in international relations. Scientific modesty is an agreed upon value in IR.
Positivists see the value of plurality within the limits of “scientific standards” that should be applicable to all. Yet, as scientific/naturalist approach is not recognized as the only or even the privileged one, it may easily lead to unjustified de-legitimization and marginalization of certain theoretical endeavors. Furthermore, as far as substantive aspects of theorization are concerned, considering complexity of international life and the fact that causal relations are not necessarily uni-directional, under-determination and over-determination are pervasive. Even positivists do not deny that reaching a single paradigm is impossible. At the same time, the way out of this dilemma is certainly not a model in which all identifiable variables are included, as such a schema cannot go beyond an analytical model which is neither parsimonious nor falsifiable and may lack consistency. As far as post-positivists and interpretivists are concerned, plurality is itself a justified value. 
One of the reasons of skepticism about theoretical plurality is practical and policy concerns. If knowledge is to be a useful instrument and be applicable in decision making, it should be “problem solving”. Yet it is most often theoretically inspired research that can be helpful in practice or policy, and one may easily show that studies based on specific theories including explanatory and constitutive one —and even most radical approaches such as post-structuralism— can shed some light on certain aspects of international life, and thus help decision-makers understand it better. Of course, as far as critical approaches are concerned, their applicability is not necessarily for states —especially great and dominant powers— but the forces that seek radical changes. Thus, dependent upon type of theory and the questions asked, theories and theory-based studies can serve various international actors in practice.
This article sees theoretical plurality as plurality of lenses or spotlights that concentrate on specific dimensions of international life and argues for a dialogical approach in which this plurality is recognized at both theoretical and meta-theoretical levels, it is valued as an expression of various experiences of the world and the knowledge produced on the basis of that reflects those experiences, and “truth” —even if partial— is seen as being attainable through dialogue. Such an approach to plurality can, on the one hand, justify plurality without relativism or exclusion of any particular theory and, on the other hand, can pave the way for the inclusion of non-Western theories in the discipline.

Human rights have been the concern of not only activists and governments but also the scholars of international relations for decades. With its emphasis on civil and political rights and its individualist underpinnings, human rights discourse appeared to have become dominant in the last two decades of the twentieth century. However, it now faces significant, and perhaps very consequential challenges. Although it has been challenged from various perspectives for decades, it seems that these challenges have become more articulated and multidimensional. Moreover, in the aftermath of the decline of the US, the emergence of China as a great power, and the formation of a post-liberal international order, security concerns have become more significant compared to ethical or normative concerns. This might eventually be followed by the emergence of a non-liberal, non-individualistic set of international norms and values. In this article, the authors show that theoretical reflections have not led to any agreement among various thinkers over the justification of human rights in spite of the fact that they may be its advocates. Communitarianism as an important rival for universalism challenges natural law tradition as a fundamental justification for universal human rights, and many theorists, even with cosmopolitan inclinations, do not find natural law as an appropriate justification for universalism. Furthermore, the dominant liberal conception of human rights itself has been criticized by influential figures such as Hannah Arendt, Alasdair MacIntyre, Onara O'Neil, and Makau Mutua for being abstract, individualistic, Eurocentric, and with little concern for human obligations. These authors suggest a more contextual understanding of human rights, more attention to collective rights, public awareness of the significance of community bonds, more consideration of obligations towards others besides right claims, and becoming more aware of the need to end Eurocentric conscious or unconscious assumptions, methods, and understandings. These theoretical debates have become more significant in the post-liberal order in which security concerns have taken precedence over human rights promotion, and have led to violations of the universal narrative of human rights. On one hand, western powers, as the major advocates and promoters of liberal norms and values may not see human rights violations in the world as their main concern. On the other hand, China, as an emerging power is not part of the western world and its cultural Confucian tradition is characterized by being more collectivistic than individualistic. Therefore, it may eventually call for more emphasis on communitarianism and/or human obligations and collective rights. The combination of these two challenges have not been fully discussed by IR scholars. The main objective of this paper was to contribute to current debates on human rights and its significance for international relations by identifying threats and opportunities associated with the marginalization of the universalist account of human rights at both theoretical and practical levels. Finally, the authors conclude that the main threat is that the process may destroy the existing international arrangement without creating any alternative mechanism for defending individuals' rights. The only substitute for international mechanisms is the codification of human rights norms in domestic legal systems. However, since many countries in the world have not attempted to ensure upholding and protecting these rights in their own legal systems, this alternative may prove to be ineffective. However, the new world order may lead to a good opportunity for providing practical solutions to address the theoretical criticisms. The emerging international arrangement may provide new capacity for non-western cultural traditions such as Confucianism to play a role in the expansion of the notion of human rights and more obligation-based norms, in addition to more emphasis on recognizing and accepting differences in opinions in order to promote pluralism.

Nationalization of oil industry in Iran is one of the most important events in the contemporary history of Iran and can somehow be regarded as the first significant engagement of Iran in international politics. In the course of the events leading to and resulting from it, there were long serious discussions between Iran and Western partners, i.e. Britain and the US. While the former sought to change Iran’s policies through threats and rewards, the latter looked for compromise between the two parties. Despite threats, however, Iran did not change its behavior in a drastic way. The sole major objective of the Mosaddegh administration was to implement the law called Dispossession (of AIOC) when he could reach an agreement with the AIOC to increase state revenues, nullify the threats, and save the government. Although this has been emphasized in most analyses, it has not been addressed systematically. On the basis of the theory of ontological security and through discourse analysis, this article seeks to demonstrate how, despite the seriousness of material threats, the nationalization of oil became possible and all other options were ignored.

Following the 9/11 attacks, the US, as a part of its "war on terrorism", attacked Afghanistan and Iraq to lead what was called a campaign to liberate all the people from terrorism and direct them towards freedom and democracy. In the years that followed, thousands of people were killed, injured, and lost their homes; thousands of people tried to find refuge in other countries; and incalculable losses were incurred. Terrorism, however, was not stopped and terrorist activities spread all over the world. This costly and damaging policy with all its negative consequences was made possible by legitimizing strategies of US administration. This article seeks to analyze the legitimizing discourse of the Bush administration through metaphor and predicate analysis. The findings show how American officials and in particular President Bush, by relying on hegemonic discourses such as liberalism and American exceptionalism, constructed a new representation of the self and the other through which US practices and policies could be justified.

In the post-Constitutional Revolution, Iran has followed a variety of nationalist formulations resulting in various models of foreign policy. During Mohammad Reza Shah’s era, a particular version of nationalism shaped Iran’s domestic and foreign policies. This led to a struggle for power at the regional and international levels. This article, on the basis of a conceptual framework based on Jacque Lacan’s psychoanalytical approach and discourse analysis seeks to show how this ambitious foreign policy was constituted in the period between 1953 and 1978. The texts produced by the Shah could be regarded as a social event that within a cultural framework sought to shape Iranians’ subjectivity within his own desires. The construction of fantasies and acting upon them in foreign relations can be thus considered as his response to his own desires.

States in international society, like people in domestic societies, have various social positions which render different levels of power, security and welfare. In this article, after the introduction of the concept of “international social capital”, different aspects of this capital i.e. trust, participation and social networks of the states in the international arena are discussed. Meanwhile, the necessity of paying attention to normative trust besides the strategic one, to real participation as opposed to the nominal one, and to the centrality of states in international social networks is emphasized.

Iran has been constructed as the enemy other of the United States and this has had serious implications at various levels. The way in which Iran has been constructed through various metaphors in American media is the focus of this article. It is argued that applying specific metaphors about Iran and/or US-Iran relations together with their particular articulations have led to representing Iran as the enemy of the United States and this has affected American public attitude towards Iran. On the basis of discourse theory and metaphor theory and by applying metaphorical analysis as an appropriate method, the article shows how major American newspapers, i.e., the New York Times, Washington Post, and Wall Street Journal have made a specific narrative of Iran and its relations with the US possible. The analysis shows how the meaning structure is similar in all three newspaper depite their rather different political attitudes.

One of the bases for the development of an Iranian theory of international relations is the intellectual and practical traditions found in the course of Iran’s history. The ways in which Iranians have perceived and understood world politics, however, have not been monolithic and have changed in the course of time due to particular historical circumstances inside Iran as well as at the regional and international levels. Yet, this article argues that one may see the persistence of some ‘realist’ element in many of these various perceptions. Exploring into these understandings may pave the way for the generation of ‘Iranian Realism’ as an endogenous Iranian theory of international relations based on Iranian culture and historical experiences. It may also shed light on Iran’s foreign policy behavior in different periods. The article shows that four main types of Iranian ‘realism’ can be recognized on the basis of Iranian politicians’ attitude and their practice in foreign affairs. They include regional, submissive, pragmatic, and critical/confrontationist realisms.

During the last few years، IR scholars in Iran have been called to develop International Relations theories from an Iranian point of view. This article seeks to examine the structural context within which such an attempt is going to be made. The five components of this context have been recognized: the international position of Iran، basic Islamic/Iranian sources، dynamism of IR community in Iran، political context، and intellectual autonomy. An evaluation of this structural context suggests that even if theorizing IR from an Iranian point of view is both possible and preferable، this cannot be done unless structural constraints are overcome.