جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه « عدم مداخله » در نشریات گروه « علوم سیاسی »

The economic diplomacy of China in the Middle East in general, and Syria in particular has entered a new stage. Proposing a new type of international relations and a society with a shared future for mankind, China is strengthening energy and infrastructure cooperation with Syria and expanding cooperation in finance, post-war reconstruction, the sanitation and health industry. Technological innovation and green development have become new motivations for improving cooperation, and a pattern of multi-level and multi-faceted cooperation between China and Syria has been formed.
 This research was conducted with the aim of China's economic diplomacy in post-ISIS Syria and with a descriptive-analytical method. Based on the results which obtained from the research, China adjusts its economic diplomacy in the Middle East in the new era by considering multi-dimensional factors: First, to respond to the new demands of both sides for economic development, looking for solutions to accelerate the growth of the model Economic cooperation with Syria and increasing high-level cooperation and promoting a peaceful and stable regional environment and strengthening diplomatic support. The results of the research show that Beijing's economic diplomacy, despite adhering to the principle of non-intervention, has more flexible and pragmatic approach. China's economic diplomacy is basically in such a way that it uses its diplomatic resources to intervene to protect its investments and assets when is necessary, and uses economic incentives to advance its defined foreign policy goals at critical points and in specific circumstances.

The principle of non-interference is the fundamental rights and obligations of each state, which originates from the principle of equality of their sovereignty. One of the principles that follows the principle of non-intervention is the rule of non-use of force. One of the fundamental rules of international law is stated in various international documents and treaties, specifically in paragraph 4 of Article 2 of the UN Charter. But the principle of non-intervention has exceptions, one of which is the invitation to intervene. Intervention based on the invitation is basically used in the case of military assistance of the foreign states's forces in an internal armed conflict with the prior consent of the legitimate and legal government of another state and with the aim of supporting the government's efforts against any non-state entity or real persons in the territory and the insurgent group does not have the right to invite foreign forces in international law, and only the legitimate government has this right. Therefore, the consent of the ruling government is the basic element regarding the concept of an invitation to intervene and the international responsibility of the third country will be fulfilled in the absence of this factor, and the action of that state will be considered an act of aggression. In this regard, it has provided the important theories for the legal validity including recognition, effective control, and democratic legitimacy. Of course, the issue of inviting intervention and its connection with the right of people to self-determination is one of the controversial issues in contemporary international law. So, this research has tried to investigate the legal aspects of the issue of consent to military intervention by a third state.

Crises are an integral part of the international system. Even during the Cold War that was expected there was a peaceful world, we witnessed many crises. Therefore, crisis management aiming at preventing the intensification and expansion of crises has taken a significant importance. When crises occur, some actions are taken by effective actors including states and organizations such as NATO. NATO has tried to define crisis management functions for itself to maintain it survival. Its cooperation with the Security Council in accordance with the chapter eight of the Charter and its role in various crises were in the same direction. However, its failure to play a role in the Syrian crisis raises the question that which factors influence it in playing a role in the crises. In response to this question, the author makes the hypothesis that the role of NATO in crisis has been affected by past experience and the policies of great power. The findings of this research indicates that limited achievements, the costs of previous interventions, the requirement to obtain a permit from the UN Security Council for intervention and obstacles in its way have led that NATO adopts a policy of non-intervention in this crisis and don't play an active role in crisis management.

When crises take place anywhere in the word, different actors take action to manage them. Actors such as organizations that most important of them is the security council as main responsibility of peacekeeping and international security. In addition to the Security Council, some organization have essential mechanisms. So they, based on the chapter 8 of UN Charter, play role in crisis management. One of these organizations is North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO). NATO after the end of the cold war and the collapse of the Soviet Union faced with identity crisis, try to use various mechanism to expand itself mission and strength itself position. One of these mechanism was taking over tasks in the field of crisis management. So that NATO has played role in various crisis such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya. But in crises that have occurred in recent years such as Ukraine crisis hasn’t played active role. This situation raised the question what factors affect the role of this organization. To answer this question, this hypothesis is raised that nature of the crisis, past experience and achievements and the policies of the great powers affect NATO’s role. Research finding indicates that new policies, insignificant achievements and abundant costs of pervious interventions and the requirement to obtain a permit from the security council for intervention while Russia is the main actor of crisis led NATO didn’t play an active role in Ukraine crisis.