جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه "شورای امنیت" در نشریات گروه "علوم سیاسی"

Considering the critical role of the United Nations in maintaining international peace and security, this research analyzes its performance during the Gaza War. The analysis examines the specific actions and inactions of the Security Council, the General Assembly, and the Secretary-General in the context of this conflict. Through the lens of realism theory, the findings reveal that the pursuit of international peace and security is inextricably intertwined with the interests of major global powers. The Gaza War serves as a stark example of the difficulties the UN faces when these interests are in conflict with its primary objectives. This situation highlights the reality that international institutions, despite their formal authority, often play a secondary role to dominant political forces. The study concludes that effective peacebuilding requires acknowledging and addressing the concerns of major powers, which often leads to political considerations outweighing legal principles. This research utilizes an explanatory-analytical approach, drawing on library and internet-based sources.

The purpose of this study is to examine the reform of the United Nations Security Council. The research method is descriptive-analytical, and the findings show that, given the fundamental changes in the global political, security, and economic arenas—creating a vastly different environment from the time of the United Nations’ establishment in 1945—reforming the structure of the United Nations, particularly the Security Council, to make this international body more efficient, is an undeniable necessity. However, since the nature of the relationships within the United Nations, especially the Security Council, reflects the structure and distribution of power at the international level, the interests of major powers serve as a significant barrier to changing the structure of this international institution. Factors such as the United States' unilateralism within the UN, the veto power, and the lack of agreement among members on a specific reform plan suggest that achieving reform in the Security Council will be challenging. The absence of a unified stance among members further complicates the issue.

The Missile Technology Control Regime (MTCR) is a group of like-minded states that was established to prevent the proliferation of missiles and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) capable of delivering weapons of mass destruction. The originating documents of the MTCR are not legally binding. Nevertheless, in the past two decades the UN Security Council has been on the path of making the MTCR binding through its sanctions resolutions under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. In this context, Resolution 2231 (2015) is unique insofar as how the MTCR was incorporated into its structure and the tensions those MTCR-related provisions created between Iran and the Western powers. Thus, the question this paper aims to answer is how has the MTCR been applied in the practice of the UN Security Council especially in case of Resolution 2231 (2015)? The research findings indicate that by incorporating the MTCR Annex control list into the structure of its sanctions resolutions, the Security Council has used the MTCR as a tool to establish hard-law obligations for the purpose of non-proliferation of missile and UAV technology; obligations that are by far more rigorous than the MTCR’s own guidelines.

Terrorism is one of the most important global dangers, which has been carried out for a long time either in the form of actions against ordinary people or political and military officials. With the formation of the nation-state in the modern era, violent acts in the form of terrorism entered another stage, and in this new procedure, countries tried either directly or by using forces in rival or enemy countries, do life against them. However, the approach of international organizations, including the United Nations and its related institutions, plays an important role in preventing or spreading terrorism in the world. Therefore, the present research aims to investigate and analyze the decisions of international organizations regarding state terrorism after the Islamic revolution. The question is, what role has international law, which is reflected in the decisions of international organizations, played on the challenge of state terrorism against the Islamic Republic of Iran? The hypothesis is that international law has a weakness due to the non-authoritarian and advisory aspect of its rulings and laws, as well as the lack of sufficient independence to deal with the political demands of its influential members, as well as the dual treatment of terrorism cases, which results in not addressing Terrorist activities against Iran have also had an effect.

Mansorel's article (2021) entitled "Fighting terrorism in East and North Africa; "Regional Perspective" has stated that the experience of political terrorism and violence in the Middle East during the years 1980 to 1990 indicates the adoption of an anti-terrorism strategy in the region, which also gives us valuable experiences. Among other things, based on the rules of the case that are used by the international assemblies and the member countries of these assemblies, in many cases, it is wrong strategies that are not only not effective, but sometimes have the opposite result. Yazdan-Panah Daro's article (2018) entitled "Tracing the root causes of the creation and growth of extremist and terrorist groups in the West Asian region" states that although terrorism has spread globally and has caused international concern, the causes its formation and fighting against it in a hasty and piecemeal manner has not worked. Basiri and Aghamohammadi's article (2016) under the title "The future of Middle East research in the next three decades; Analyzing the trends of countering terrorism at the international level", has addressed the role of the cooperation of the international community with the role of the United Nations. The authors concluded that strengthening solidarity, cohesion of the international community, more serious leadership of the United Nations, commitment to respect human rights in the fight against terrorism, acceptance of the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, are among the best strategies for fighting terrorism in the future. Aghaei (2012) in the article "Analysis of Political-Legal Solutions to Counter International Terrorism" has paid attention to the political and legal dimensions and the role of great powers in countering terrorism. Also, the international legal mechanisms, which appear to be very powerful in theory, but in practice have problems in fighting terrorism. Eftekhari and Shabestani's article (2013) entitled "Strategy of the Islamic Republic of Iran in Countering Terrorism" has concluded that the security of the Islamic Republic of Iran is linked to the phenomenon of terrorism and has been damaged by terrorism in a dual way.

In this article, critical theoretical framework and descriptive-analytical method are used.

the decisions of international organizations, including the United Nations, the Security Council, the Human Rights Council, and the International Court of Justice, show disregard for international principles and rules on the one hand, and the violation of rights and obligations towards member countries due to damages. Life and money are caused by terrorism. In some cases, for terrorist killings, the Security Council has initiated a special court (the case of Yugoslavia and Rwanda) and in the case of the assassination of Sardar Soleimani and even Iran's nuclear scientists, it has not even tried to convict. International institutional double standards show the relative weakness of countries' political influence and the use of terrorism as a tool, which drives its spread worldwide and the spread of terrorism victims. Violation of political sovereignty of countries, violation of independence and encroachment on their territory are among the achievements of this approach. It seems that the solution is to upgrade the judicial actions from the domestic level to the international level and give them a legal aspect. The country's diplomacy should focus on filing lawsuits in international legal institutions from a specialized aspect and refrain from accepting the positions of influential governments as rhetoric. Even filing a lawsuit to identify and introduce the perpetrators is a positive step, and you cannot refrain from filing these complaints on the pretext that powerful countries have international legal institutions to answer for their actions. Considering that the physical removal of the country's scientific, military and security capitals, taking action to increase the cost of terrorist acts for its perpetrators through proposals in legal forums or mutual response, can be on the agenda of legal diplomacy and military approach of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

According to the "doctrine of the responsibility to protect", every government must protect its population against genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. When a country loses its ability to protect its population against such crimes. This responsibility will be delegated to the international community. Due to the widespread lack of human rights in the Syrian crisis, the international community has considered itself to intervene in this country. However, the international community, especially the United Nations, has not been able to act effectively. Considering the current conditions, this article seeks to answer the question of how the "doctrine of the responsibility to protect" has caused the ineffectiveness of the United Nations in the Syrian crisis. To explain the ineffectiveness of "responsibility to support" in Syria, the deadlock puzzle in game theory has been used. Based on this theory, the interests and political considerations of the great powers in the Security Council as the main mechanism for applying the responsibility of protection have prevented the effective and desirable functioning of the doctrine of the responsibility of protection in the Syrian crisis. The hypothesis of the article is that the lack of specific criteria for the implementation of the responsibility to support on the one hand, and the conflicting and complex interests of the great powers in the Syrian crisis on the other hand have affected the performance of the UN Security Council and it faced inefficiency in the serious test phase in the case of the Syrian crisis.

The United Nations Security Council, as the pillar responsible for international peace and security, after more than a decade and until the beginning of 2023, has not yet managed to end the Syrian crisis or find a lasting solution to it, which has been on its agenda since 2011. In this regard, the performance of the Security Council has been clearly affected by internal and external factors; During this period, the Council, contrary to the existing organizational obstacles, including the conflict of interests of the permanent members, specifically on the one hand Russia and China and on the other hand the United States, England, France and other non-permanent members of the Council, has tried to use the means at its disposal, inter alia, issuing a resolution, to find a solution for this crisis. Nevertheless, the Council has not achieved comprehensive success in this regard. In this article, the main question is answered, why and how the Security Council failed to end this crisis due to the actions of its members? In order to answer this question, while examining the interests of the members of the Security Council in this crisis, the overlap and differences between these interests are evaluated.

Considering the growing number of human casualties that peacekeeping operations have entailed in recent years, protection and support for peacekeeping forces have drawn further attention. There are fundamental questions in this regard. What are the measures and mechanisms of the international legal system to protect UN peacekeepers? How successful have they been in protecting these forces? This descriptive-analytical study hypothesized that the international legal system used the Security Council resolutions, the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA), the Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel (1994), the Geneva Conventions of 1949, the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (1998), and other documents to devise certain mechanisms and measures for protecting UN peacekeepers. Nevertheless, these mechanisms and measures have failed to yield efficient and satisfactory outcomes as expected. Although all member states are obliged to obey the resolutions of the UN Security Council, the wording and tone of some of these resolutions do not oblige the member states to do so. The SOFA is a bilateral agreement with a limited scope of action in most cases. Moreover, the Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel is a multilateral agreement that has not been welcomed and supported properly by member states, especially those that host UN peacekeepers. Finally, it is difficult to generalize the provisions and protocols of the Geneva Conventions (1949) and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (1998) to the issue of protecting UN peacekeepers.

Adherence to the obligations resulting from international treaties such as the United Nations Charter and the obligations arising from it, including the Security Council resolutions in the legal system of the Islamic Republic of Iran, which is influenced by the powers of the legal guardian, has different theoretical foundations from other states. Although Article 25 of the United Nations Charter obliges the member states to accept and implement the decisions of the Security Council, and the organization's practice considers at least the resolutions issued based on the seventh chapter of the Charter to be binding, however, the Islamic Republic of Iran has always been critical of the actions of this organ due to the fact that it sees most of the Security Council's decisions as detrimental to itself. Resolutions 598 and 2231 of the Security Council, the first of which ended the war and the second of which temporarily ended the nuclear conflict between Iran and the West, although it has finally been approved by the highest political authority in Iran (supreme leader), this acceptance was not done out of commitment to international obligations and requirements arising from the Charter, but simply by adhering to and appealing to political-jurisprudential standards. The investigation of this research is analytical-descriptive and the method of collecting information is library. The question of this article is about the position of the resolutions of the Security Council in the fundamental rights of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and the hypothesis that is raised is that since the system governing the Security Council is unfair, oppressive and a reflection of the system of domination in the eyes of the leaders of the Islamic Republic, therefore, the possible acceptance of the aforementioned resolutions is not based on international obligations and its norms, but on the basis of politics.

The establishment of no-fly zones in recent decades has been one of the significant political and geopolitical issues in various global events, as it has triggered a series of changes and other developments. Among the important events in the Middle East that have brought about transformations in the region was the creation of a no-fly zone in Iraqi Kurdistan. This event served as a prelude to the establishment of the Kurdistan Regional Government, paving the way for the Kurds' first experience of governance with international recognition and de jure status. In this article, by reviewing the various experiences of no-fly zones in different countries worldwide —such as in the former Yugoslavia and Libya— and the normative reasons cited for the establishment of such zones from a legal perspective, an effort is made to shed light on the ontological and fundamental dimensions of the issue from the perspective of energy security and Israel’s security. The authors, by examining historical developments in this regard, with an emphasis on factors such as power accumulation, geographical proximity, offensive capabilities, and aggressive intentions, explore this issue in depth. Thus, this article poses the following question: What were the reasons and motivations behind the agreement of the permanent members of the Security Council to establish a no-fly zone? In response to this question, using a descriptive-analytical method and the theory of balance of threat, the hypothesis is formulated that Iraq's threats to Western energy security— manifested in its invasion of Kuwait, which allowed it to control 25% of the world's oil— and the country's threats against Israel in the years 1973 and 1991 were among the factors leading to consensus and agreement among the permanent members of the Security Council for the establishment of a no-fly zone in Iraqi Kurdistan.

The purpose of the present study is to review the principle of resorting to force from the view of international relations. The research method is descriptive-analytic and the results showed that resorting to force by any country against another one is condemned from the view of international documents including the United Nations Charter. No country is allowed to use force in international relations unless it is attacked and wants to defend itself by resorting to force. Peaceful intervention and resorting to force is permitted only if the Security Council of the United Nation detects a systematic and extensive fault in human rights which is threatening and against international peace and security. Resorting to force which involves threatening or using force without the official permission of the Security Council is regarded as a definite violation of the United Nations Charter. In case of violation of national sovereignty or human rights by any of the United Nations members, the principle of resorting to force in international relations should be applied with special care so that it won’t be regarded as a violation and unilateral application of force by more powerful countries.

This article introduces the concept of strategic culture and tries to investigate its relationships with the Iranian arms policy. strategic culture consist of a code of political values, cultural beliefs regarding threats, national security, the position of the military forces and the use of forces in the international security. In the view of some researchers, the Iranian strategic culture has a determining role in forming arms policy and national security of states. On this basis, the main question of the article is that “how Iranian arms policy and national security have been affected by the county’s strategic culture? The hypothesis of the research is that “based on historical experience, Iranian strategic culture has played main role in shaping the country’s arms policy and national security”.The present research with descriptive-analytical method proposes the hypothesis that several components are effective in shaping the strategic culture of Iran and it can be said that historical experiences, religious-Islamic teachings and geography have played a role in shaping the strategic culture of Islamic Iran more than any other component.

One of the important topics that was raised in diplomatic and academic circles after the Cold War was the discussion of reforms in the UN Security Council. At that time, two general objections were brought to the Security Council: illegitimacy and inefficiency. One of the suggested ways to solve this problem was to increase the number of members and various plans were also presented in this regard. India has been one of the contending countries for permanent membership, and for this purpose, it proposed the "Group of Four" plan. Population, size, democracy, nuclear capability, and effective cooperation with the United Nations have been among the reasons for India's candidacy for a permanent seat in the Security Council. The question of this article is why New Delhi is seeking a permanent seat? The hypothesis of the article, which has been examined in a descriptive-analytical way, is that India is seeking international status by becoming a permanent member of the Security Council. A country that achieves international status is able to take advantage of this status to acquire and exercise power and influence and elevate its position to a position beyond the current rank. The findings of the article showed that the efforts that India has made so far are insufficient and a new strategy is needed to achieve the goal.

The purpose of the present study is to review the judiciary mission of the International Court of Justice against the political performance of the Security Council in international disputes. The research method is descriptive-analytic and the results showed that the court should never avoid pursuit of solving important political disputes just because they are in terms of political issues and aspects, even though there were no provable principles in international laws.

After the Second World War and the formulation and stabilization of the new system governing the international community, the movement towards the formation and development of international institutions and the exercise of power on their part to punish the countries that oppose or disturb the international order was felt more than ever. The United Nations was the result of this type of view and sanctions have been one of the tools of this organization. Relations between superpowers during the Cold War practically prevented the escalation and repetition of this tool, but in the post-Cold War era, sanctions were used repeatedly. Comprehensive sanctions that were applied in many cases and with such intensity that it affected not only the governments but also the people. This issue and especially the criteria of human rights, caused a new type of sanction to be considered. This new type of sanction is known as smart embargo. This research tries to investigate the formation, legal foundations, criteria and principles governing smart sanctions and explain the goals and analyze the feedback of this type of sanctions in the context of use. The importance of this study lies in the essential role of sanctions and especially smart sanctions in international actions and reactions, and its necessity is also due to the lack of researches related to the literature of smart sanctions in the Farsi language.

The United Nations Security Council, as an institution responsible for maintaining and ensuring international peace and security, has played an effective role in the crisis of the Iraq war against Iran. The current research aims to examine the responsibility of the Security Council for the identification of the belligerent aggressor. The question of the article is: Based on the peacekeeping operation, what duties did the Security Council have regarding the war between Iraq and Iran? The hypothesis is: introducing and identifying the threat from the aggressor, establishing a cease-fire, determining damages and handing over the aggressor to international institutions to establish justice, are elements of peacekeeping operations by the Security Council, which have never been strictly implemented against Iraq. has not been The results of the research indicate that taking responsibility for the identification of war aggressors as well as ensuring international peace and security, in addition to being responsible for governments, also creates responsibility for international organizations such as the Security Council. . For this reason, in addition to the country of Iraq, which initiated the war against Iran, the United Nations Security Council is responsible, both during the war and today, when the question of receiving compensation for Iran is raised. In addition, the neutral countries that did not respect the principle of neutrality during the war are participants in the war and are therefore required to pay compensation. The current research has used the descriptive and analytical method and the theoretical framework of peacekeeping operations.

The right to life and citizenship as one of the most basic human rights and statelessness or not having an effective and legal citizenship is an acute and big problem. The right to life, as the most basic human right, cannot be taken away by other groups or individuals, and genocide, as an internationally known crime, is one of the shocking international crimes because it violates the most basic human right, the right to life. Article (15) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights stipulates that all people have the right to citizenship and no one will be arbitrarily deprived of their citizenship. Regulations developed in order to avoid or reduce statelessness are included in several international human rights treaties, including the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and Conventions on the Rights of the Child, citizenship of married women, reducing statelessness, the status of stateless persons, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Paragraphs 2 and 3 of the mentioned covenant also emphasized that governments should observe the provisions of the Convention on the Prohibition of Genocide and deviation from it is not allowed. The research method in this article is descriptive-analytical. The findings show that Rohingya Muslims are facing multi-dimensional problems, which are sometimes the cause and effect of each other. Statelessness, discrimination and harassment, illegal immigrants and genocide are among the human rights violations that Rohingya Muslims have faced due to the lack of citizenship protection from the government. Muslims of Myanmar are among the ethnic and religious minorities who are deprived due to discrimination in citizenship laws.

The equality of states in rights and obligations is a backbone component of the rule of law. However, veto power is against such equality. Global peace and security and political, economic, and cultural cooperation are essential for humans. The United Nations was founded to realize such objectives and contribute to international peace and welfare, while power-based politics arising from realistic strategies decelerates the implementation of international peace. The veto power is an effective mechanism of power-based politics that impedes the objectives of the rule of law. Therefore, this descriptive-analytical paper aims to identify solutions in order to constrain the veto power as a violation of the rule of law. To ensure the rule of law and preserve and promote multilateralism, the reform of the Security Council is the only solution rather than just an alternative.

The performance of the United Nations Security Council, in the nuclear case of the Islamic Republic of Iran, before and after the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) is the subject of research by the participants and it is answered that the legal performance of the Security Council regarding the nuclear case of the Islamic Republic of Iran, before And how was it after the JCPOA and how are its effects and legal loopholes explained? According to the United Nations Charter, the Security Council is the most important pillar of the United Nations in safeguarding international security and peace. Before the JCPOA agreement, the Security Council approved crippling sanctions against the Islamic Republic of Iran by approving six resolutions, and after the JCPOA agreement, it approved Resolution 2231 and formalized the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) as an appendix to the aforementioned resolution. He forgave and canceled all his previous resolutions with this action. Therefore, this researcher aims to first determine which of the situations against international security and peace regarding the nuclear activity of the Islamic Republic of Iran was exemplified under the seventh chapter of the United Nations Charter, when the case was referred to the Security Council and the aforementioned resolutions were issued. Secondly, how and on what basis has the legal performance of the Security Council regarding the nuclear case of the Islamic Republic of Iran been after the agreement on the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and the approval of Resolution 2231. Thirdly, what shortcomings, ambiguities and controversial points did the above-mentioned agreement contain, which created the ground for the withdrawal of the United States of America as the main negotiating party from the JCPOA, and as a result, the withdrawal of the United States of America from the JCPOA collapsed based on the JCPOA agreement. Iran's diplomatic efforts to resolve the propaganda concerns of the West, especially the United States of America, against peaceful nuclear activities by actively participating in the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) negotiations, finally by changing the presidency and transferring power from the Democrats to the Republicans, and the U.S. foreign policy turn America has practically prepared the ground for the escalation of hostilities and threats to international peace and security with the unilateral withdrawal of the United States of America from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) and the status of this international multilateral agreement has been left in an aura of ambiguity and impasse until now.