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

Europe witnessed the largest military conflict since World War II when Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022. Examining the internal events and divisions of this country on the one hand, as well as examining the changes in Ukraine in the interactions between Russia and America and the European Union countries, on the other hand, can be useful in explaining the and military confrontation between Russia and Ukraine. In this article, using the components of the aggressive realism theory, the contexts and factors of Russia's military intervention in Ukraine, as well as the role of other effective powers, namely the United States and the European Union, in the formation of this crisis and its continuation will be investigated. The main question is, what role did each of the effective actors play in the formation of the Ukraine crisis and its continuation? The hypothesis of the research is that the expansion of NATO to the east over several decades and the lack of balance in relations with the East and the West by the authorities of Kiev, as well as Russia's attempt to increase its share of global power and regain its former power in order to become a hegemon. Europe has provided the grounds for the formation of the crisis. The continuation of this crisis was also due to the adoption of American policies in line with the erosion of Russia and Europe.

The political upheaval known as the Islamic Awakening, which has gripped the Arab Middle East since 2011, in one case led to the overthrow of the ruling regime in Libya through Western military intervention. The military intervention came as Gaddafi's foreign policy shifted from an anti-Western orientation to voluntary engagement with the West, and relations seemingly normalized. But despite these changes, the onset of the internal Libyan crisis led to a practical and immediate response by the Western coalition aimed at overthrowing Gaddafi. This study, while theoretically studying Libyan foreign policy in the framework of James Rosena's theory and using a descriptive-explanatory method, seeks to answer the main question of why Gaddafi pursued an interactive and participatory foreign policy with the West in the last decade of his rule. But after the beginning of the popular uprising, the Western countries in the form of NATO began to intervene militarily in this country? The main hypothesis is that despite pursuing a policy of interaction with the West; Lack of trust between the parties and the lack of social, economic and political reforms and the continuation of internal discontent led the Western countries to support the fall of Gaddafi as the crisis in Libya began.

The issue of the legitimacy of military intervention and the legitimacy of the inviting authority are among the most controversial issues in the contemporary world. These types of interventions have theoretical and practical examples in Islam and the West with differences that have not been studied. Thus, the legitimacy of military intervention and the legitimacy of the inviting authority are in a haze. Now the question is: What is the basis of the legitimacy of the intervention and the legitimacy of the inviting authority in Islam and the West? (Question). In the West, the issue of country and the legitimacy of the inviting authority are at stake in the call for intervention, but in Islam, the issue of the religion of the country being invited is the criterion (hypothesis). Therefore, in the leading article, the author uses an analytical and comparative method (method) to portray the legitimacy of military intervention with the legitimacy of the inviting authority (goal). Western member states of the Security Council have acted more tastefully and with different political goals, and Islamic countries have not considered the religion of the invited country (findings).

On 16th of March 2014 following a referendum held under support and military intervention of Russia, Crimea declared its independence and unilaterally separated from Ukraine which was instantly recognized by Russia. Then after The Parliament of Crimea called for the accession to Russia and in a short time the accession treaty with Russia was signed and practically Crimea became part of Russia. The authorities of Crimea and Russia in Justifying their actions referred to the principles of International law including self-determination of the people of Crimea and implicitly referred to the theory of remedial secession in other to build a legal base for the military intervention of Russia in Crimea and consider a right to secession for the people of this region. Coincidence of this secession with political developments in Ukraine and dominance westerners over the government of Kiev strongly enhances the political nature of this secession. This research examines the legitimacy of unilateral secession of Crimea from Ukraine within the framework of the international law Theories. Also the military intervention of Russia and the use of force in Crimea’s crises will be reviewed. the findings of this study indicate that Crimea’s secession from Ukraine does not possess any legal base and the Russia’s actions in the process of secession and holding the referendum for the independence, due to violation of the principles of Jus-Cogens Like “non intervention” and “non use of force” is considered to be a violation of international law and consequently The “Crimean Declaration of Independence” Can not be Justified in The Context of established international law.

Yemen since the beginning of formation, internal and regional crises that we can continue to have wars between North and South Yemen in 1994, as well as military aggression and oppression of Shiites in 1962 Gamal Abdel Nasser pointed out. Since Yemen in southern Arabia, Oman West, East, Red Sea and Gulf of Aden is located in the north. The importance of the strategic Strait of Bab-el-Mandeb they have doubled and the country has mastered the lifeblood of the countries of the Horn of Africa, especially Egypt and Saudi Arabia is the transfer of energy. Yemen has long been among the Shia and Sunni religious tendencies that have already Yemenis are Sunni Shafi'i and Zaidi Shia. In this descriptive-analytic method seeks to answer the main questions are: What is the root of the crisis in Yemen is affected by factors that led to broaden the scope of the crisis? It seems geopolitical Yemen, and total chaos within the scope of the crisis Anonymous has expanded internationally.

Annexation of Crimea to the Russia refers to the separation of part of the Crimean peninsula, which was recognized as part of Ukraine. Russia annexed it to the mainland through a referendum after a military operation and help of pro-Russian local authorities in March 2014. A process which was considered by many international leaders and institutions as illegal and consequently sanctions were imposed against Russia. On the other hand Russia and pro-Russian Crimean people of Russian origin consider their action as legitimate and in the direction of right of self-determination. They cite the International Court of Justice (ICJ) opinion on Kosovo. The present article raises the question that how the action of Russia in separating Crimea from Ukraine and annexing it to herself can be evaluated from the perspective of international law? The methodology used in the research is descriptive-analytical. The finding of the study shows that international law cannot explain it with a no or yes answer whether this action had been legal or illegal but this practice can become a precedent which will certainly jeopardize the world security in future.

Ten years has passed since the US military intervention in Afghanistan. Despite the initial claim of fighting terrorism as the reason for the military attack، actually terrorist activities have been accelerated ever since. Thus، the real intention of the US for the military intervention has been dubious and questioned by many political analysts. They argue، there must be other reasons for spending billions of dollars in Afghanistan by the US administration. This article examine the hypothesis that the interests of the Military Industrial Complex is the determinant factor of defining or creating ''critical situations'' as a pretext for justifying military intervention in a country like Afghanistan.

As for Syrian developments, several solutions have been introduced by regional and trans-regional players. Among them is the possible military intervention at the guise of international humanitarian law principles, the responsibility to protect and the ban on applying weapons of mass destruction. In spite of opposition by Iran, China, and Russia, the Western countries look for a military intervention in Syria to obtain their goals. Similar to the NATO intervention in the former Yugoslavia in 1999 and the US strike to Afghanistan and Iraq in 2001 and 2003, which are clear patterns of unilateral and multilateral interventions, there are debates on the possibility of military intervention in Syria justified by international law. The present article aims to assess and criticize the legal justifications for possibility or refusal of humanitarian intervention in Syria.

The United Nations Security Council has been playing a more active role in global issues and disputes under the existing international system and influences the fate of countries and sovereignty of the states as an independent variable. Since widespread popular uprisings started to sweep through the Arab countries and due to frequent human rights violations committed by rulers of those countries in dealing with their opposition in 2011, the Security Council has been gradually assuming a more active role in these issues. By massacring the Libyan people, Qaddafi initiated the process of the Security Council’s interference in internal affairs of this country due to frequent and systematic violations of human rights. Since 2011, some dictators in the Middle East and North Africa have been trapped in the iron cage of their behavior and any violent reaction to their people has elicited the international community’s reaction as well as rapid and serious reaction of the Security Council. The goal of this paper is to explore reasons and method of intervention of the Security Council and NATO in the Libyan crisis. One of the most important changes in the global management method is seen in the relationship between the Libyan developments and international politics as embodied by two resolutions adopted by the Security Council against Qaddafi’s government and their consequences. The main goal of this research is to analyze interference of the Security Council, followed by Western and international players, in the uprising of the Libyan people from different viewpoints. This paper focuses on the relationship between adoption of the Security Council resolutions and the fall of the Qaddafi regime. It also analyzes the contents of two resolutions which were approved during the Libyan people’s protests against their ruler from the viewpoint of their impact on the sovereignty of the Libyan government.

Bahrain is one of the countries which under the impact of unsuitable political and social conditions and also under the inspiration of Islamic-Arabic awakening in the Middle East and North Africa is witnessing people’s uprising. The present paper is of the view that the real cause of people’s uprising in Bahrain is in domestic factors and the structure of society and politics of that country. Saudi Arabia with a different motivation and interpretation on the morning of 14 March dispatched its forces and militarily intervened in Bahrain. The United States also for different reasons kept silent about these developments and in other instances it merely suggested holding of talks between the oppositions and Bahraini government and implementing reforms. The present article wants to answer three basic questions: 1.What are the grounds of people’s uprising in Bahrain? 2. On what logic and basis the United States has kept silent about Bahrain crisis? 3. What are the motivations of Saudi Arabia in militarily intervening in Bahrain? The underlying hypothesis is that the struggle for power and national interest at the macro and regional level for the United States and in regional and internal level for Saudi Arabia is basis of the United States and Saudi Arabia behaviour in Bahrain. The finding of the study shows the main cause of people’s uprising in Bahrain is the cleavage between the government and people due to unequal distribution of wealth, power and position. The United States wants to sustain its hegemony in international system by controlling the lifeline of energy in strategic Persian Gulf region. In this direction the United States wants to retain its security links with the countries of Persian Gulf Cooperation Council by military presence and opposition to Islamic Republic of Iran. To sum up, power and national interests justify the logic of the United States policy in Bahrain. On the other hand, the nature of political system of Saudi Arabia and the resultant fear of expansion of democracy to Saudi Arabia along with competition and regional opposition to Iran is the main motivation of Riyadh in question of Bahrain. The present paper by a descriptive-analytical method wants to study the above issue.