جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه « امنیتی سازی » در نشریات گروه « علوم سیاسی »

Intrudaction:

Despite lawyers’ and political scientists’ efforts to define terrorism over the last century, a consensus has not been reached, and no universal agreement on a precise legal definition of terrorism exists to date. As long as politicians need to address terrorism in varying security contexts, disagreements among lawyers seem unavoidable due to the overdependence of criminal law on States’ politics. Considering terrorism a crime against national security, it can only be analyzed by perceiving these actions as national security threats. The law itself is not capable of resolving these disagreements on the definition of terrorism per se. Therefore, to make sense of the existing disagreements, terrorism must be regarded as a security issue that has evolved into a legal concept.Traditional security studies lack an extensive perspective on security, often focusing solely on strategic threats, making them unsuitable for clarifying the terrorism concept. For this reason, the Copenhagen School, which divides security issues into five categories, has been applied as the theoretical framework for this research to answer this fundamental question: What are the impacts of security factors on states’ views of the legal concept of terrorism? This paper hypothesizes that the specific security vulnerabilities of each state have particular effects on that state’s perception of terrorism threats. To assess this hypothesis, qualitative content analysis method was employed by studying the definitions of terrorism in the legal documents of different countries, revealing the relevance of the motivation element of terrorist crimes in relation to state vulnerabilities using Buzan’s framework of political security. It is worth noting that the countries selected by the authors exhibit different vulnerabilities according to Buzan’s framework, which categorizes states based on their weaknesses.

The Copenhagen School provides two important theories to analyze terrorism: “Securitization Theory” and “Categorization of Security.” According to securitization theory, a security matter begins with a securitizing actor and is completed with the acceptance of the target audience. Thus, terrorism, as a security threat, must be an intersubjective matter dependent on both actors and audiences. In such circumstances, if criminal law is to be used as a tool for securitization, it cannot be done effectively within its traditional framework due to the Nullum crimen sine lege principle. Therefore, within customary instruments, politicians are unable to react differently to security matters through criminal law and must instead emphasize the excessive element of “motivation,” which does not play a prominent role in ordinary crimes. Therefore, If an actor intends to securitize the motives attributed to a political group, the most effective approach is to emphasize these motives. Consequently, a common crime is transformed into a terrorist act based on this element.

Another important question, which remains open even after implementing securitization theory, is when or under which circumstances actors securitize the terrorism threat. Since terrorism endangers the sovereignty of states within their own realms, it must be analyzed as a political threat. Buzan’s analysis of political threats to national security asserts that states’ vulnerabilities in the political sphere are related to the weakness of two elements: “nation” and “political ideology.” Therefore, in weak states suffering from a lack of political cohesion and national unity, political security matters are often associated with separatist movements. In such states, the motivation element in terrorist crimes often plays a role in securitizing political motivations attributed to separatist groups. This situation can occur in weak states that manage to consolidate various nations through a pervasive and entrenched ideology. Consequently, failed states, which lack a unifying ideology, are unable to securitize terrorism and are thus unable to securitize a political ideology. As a result, terrorism definitions in these countries may not reflect terrorism securitization. Conversely, for strong states with a united or consolidated nation, terrorism threats are linked to ideologies in tension with the government’s recognized ideology. In these circumstances, securitizing actors often trigger emergency measures against contested ideologies. The reclassification of ordinary crimes with political motivations into terrorist crimes is one of the emergency measures necessitated by the securitization process.

Coclusions:

The provision of security requires a different and more stringent approach to terrorist offences. This issue is one of the reasons that has led to diversity in the definition of these crimes, as each government has a different understanding of security according to its social and political concerns and needs. Since security is a subjective concept, definitions of terrorism have also differed because of their dependence on this subjective concept. Thus, in order to understand the differences, one should try to understand the different bases that have caused a change in the definition due to security concerns. It is evident from different terrorism definitions that the motivation element plays a significant role in terrorist crimes. This subjective element is not considered fundamental to a crime in classical criminal law, as it relates more to the perpetrator than to the actus reus. As a result of emphasizing the motivation element, states, depending on their capacity for securitization, adjust their approach to dealing with criminals based on their motivations, provided they have successfully securitized their vulnerabilities.

A retrospective analysis spanning over two decades of tensions between Saudi Arabia and the Islamic Republic of Iran indicates an escalating security dimension to these disputes. This article seeks to illustrate that despite substantial global community’s backing for Saudi Arabia in terms of military and security assistance, the surge in Iran's operational influence across the region, particularly since 2001, prompted Riyadh to adopt progressively Aggressive measures and approaches to undermine Iran's capabilities. Consequently, countering Iran's regional role and influence became a central concern, resulting in an upswing of insecurity in the Middle East. In response to the core query, "How have security threats impacted the aggressiveness of Saudi Arabia's foreign policy towards the Islamic Republic of Iran?” this paper has examined the hypothesis that "threat-oriented foreign policy of Saudi Arabia has led to increasing of the aggressive measures, crisis-creating and securitization from the Islamic Republic of Iran regional behaviors by Saudi Arabia." the research employs the framework of offensive realism, utilizes a qualitative approach to explain the causes, processes and consequences of Saudi Arabia's conduct towards Iran. The objective of this study is to demonstrate that Riyadh's aggressive foreign policy within the region wasn't solely a defensive response to alleged Iranian threats against Saudi interests.

Inherent dynamism, the interaction of interests, multiplicity of actors, and universal adjustment in the security patterns of countries has brought about radical security changes in the west Asia region in the last decade. Among them, however, the security contradiction between Iran and Saudi Arabia has been amongst the most important ones that, due to Saudi’s part role in constructing Iran as a security threat among Arabs, added to the security intricacies of the region and in addition to the parties involved, affected some Arab countries to a greater extent. Despite that, the literature studying this issue is scarce and the thin bulk of research conducted around it suffers from some methodological and epistemological deficiencies. Thus, the present research has been an attempt to employ the theory of security construction in Copenhagen school and employ some methodological innovations in humanities, particularly exploratory and structural interpretation, and validating findings through appropriate software and experts’ judgment to identify main components and variables in this threat construction. It was revealed that Saudi’s construction of Iran as a threat had three main components of ontology (including 2 variables), epistemology (including 4 variables), and methodology (including 7 variables). Also, structural interpretation showed that these variables are distributed in a group of critical variables, target variables, risk variables, output variables and leverage variables. These findings were discussed from a variety of perspectives.

The European Union is the largest donor of development aid in the world by providing about the half of global development aid by its members. Meanwhile, the biggest recipients are mostly found among the neighbors of the European Union. The main question of this research is: What role does the securitization of immigration play in European Union's development aid? The main hypothesis states the European Union's development aid has shifted its function from the poverty alleviation to the migration control due to the securitization of immigration. In this research, the qualitative method and statistical analysis with the documentary method as the method of collecting data are used within the theoretical framework of Buzan and Weaver’s securitization theory. The results of this research indicate that development aid has become a tool of the European Union's foreign policies in line with the migration securitization discourse, and the quality and quantity of the aid are both affected by the security concerns of the EU members. In fact, the migration securitization discourse has moved from the national to the supranational level in the European Union, and due to the amendments made in the Lisbon Treaty for the sake of a common security and foreign policy under the management of the European External Action Service and budgeting the development aid, development policy has been undermined and hollowed out by diverting its focus from poverty alleviation to migration crisis management.

After the insecurity in West Asia and the emergence of the extremist terrorist group ISIS, we have seen the acceptance of the European people from the extreme right-wing parties in Europe. Although apparently these two issues are formed in two different geographical regions, but from the point of view of this research, there is a relationship between the growth of Islamic fundamentalism in West Asia and the rise of extreme right in Europe; Therefore, this research has emerged in response to the question that Islamic fundamentalism in West Asia has had an impact on the rise of European far-right parties? The findings show that with the emergence of fundamentalism in West Asia, the middle variable of Muslim immigration to Europe caused the extreme right parties to turn the opinion of a significant part of the voters in the elections towards the security of immigrant Muslims and linking them to the insecurities of Europe. attract; Therefore, the emergence of xenophobia and anti-immigrant discourses in the sphere of European societies by far-right parties caused these slogans to be associated with a significant reception of the people in the elections and the victory of the far-right.

Since the election campaign, Donald Trump has introduced the JCPOA as a disastrous agreement for the United States, and after winning the 2016 presidential election and entering the White House, he accused the country of violating the JCPOA despite extending the suspension of sanctions on Iran. For Trump and his national security team, the JCPOA was an incomplete agreement that did not include Iran's missile program and regional policy. Therefore, the United States, after withdrawing from the JCPOA, tried to exert maximum pressure on Iran by restoring the sanctions related to the nuclear program and imposing additional sanctions. With this description, the aim of the leading research is to examine and explain the functioning, mechanism and goals of the maximum pressure policy of the United States during the Trump era, towards the Islamic Republic of Iran.

The research method is a qualitative type of causal explanation and the method of collecting the required data is library as well as written sources and virtual space.

Based on the findings of the research, the United States during Trump's presidency, through maximum "security" aimed at re-representing Iran as a major source of "threat", which this time included all of Iran's actions and introducing these actions as a threat to international peace and security, to apply maximum pressure against Iran. In other words, to legitimize the policy of maximum pressure against Iran, Iran's actions should be presented as an international threat. Based on this, the maximum security of the United States had three fundamental axes, which were: Iran's nuclear program, missile program, and regional policy.

Considering the different and heterogeneous positions of the audience of this policy, it can be said that this fact has been noticed and acknowledged by the West itself that the maximum pressure policy of the Trump administration has failed in practice and that diplomacy and agreement are the best way to deal with Iran.

In recent years, Russia's strategic influence in the Central-Eastern European region has led to a shift in British foreign policy priorities (transition from isolationism to extraversion). Britain believes that "the increase in Russian military movements in Eastern Europe", "the annexation of South Ossetia and Abkhazia", ​​"the annexation of the Crimean Peninsula to Russia, etc. are contrary to the rules and values ​​of the existing order in international politics. Therefore, the barrier of influence against Russia in the region is strategic. Poland is one of the countries in this area that, geopolitically (close to Russia), can play an utterly deterrent role to the Russian influence. Therefore, the primary purpose of the present study is to analyze British measures against Russia in Eastern and Central Europe, especially in Poland.

Consequently, the question arises as to how Britain seeks to prevent Russian influence in Poland?

The paper's hypothesis is based on the premise that Britain's main strategy in Eastern Europe, especially in Poland, is the securitization of Russia's influence in the country. Due to Eastern European countries' military and defense weaknesses, Britain distorts Russia's foreign policy d. In other words, Britain, with its tools such as diplomacy, the media, and research institutes, is demonstrating Russia's strategy as an existential threat to the security system in Eastern Europe.
The method of the present research is analytical and argumentative.The Methodology and Theoretical Framework: The present research method is qualitative. Data analysis will also be based on securitization theory.

Britain attributes the German invasion of Poland and the evolution of communism to the fact that their enemy (Britain and Poland) has been the same throughout contemporary history (ie, Germany and the Soviet Union). Consequently, Poland considers Russia its most important enemy in recent years. This common assumption between Poland and Britain has led Poland to see Russia as a threat to its values and independence and to equate the United States and Britain with its strategic allies. That is why the memorandum of understanding between the two countries mentions the two countries' cooperation in World War II and Britain's efforts to transition to democratization in Poland. These cases are referred to as common historical points between the two countries.On the other hand, Britain has blurred the line between "Polish" and "British" by accepting more than one million Polish workers in its own country. Today, Poles see the UK as a friendly country with better economic incomes than other European countries. So if the Polish government is given the power to choose between Russia and Britain to align its foreign policy orientations, it will undoubtedly be Britain; because Poland's foreign policy will be built in interaction with the country's economic interests with Britain. Britain is trying to make Russia a common enemy in its relations with Poland, so labels such as aggressor, enemy, hostile, etc. are given to Russia. Britain does this through three channels: First, Britain insinuates to Poland that Russia is NATO's number one enemy and that NATO is Poland's main guarantor of security. Second, Britain brings Poland and the United States into international alliances against Russia (a country that violates international order and security).

Britain is well aware that the Polish elite is strongly dependent on the United States for security and defense. Therefore, from the British point of view, the precondition for US defense and security assistance to Poland is its opposition to Russia's strategy in the region. Third, Britain has given itself and its allies the Role to play in countering Russia as a common enemy in the region and changing Russia's values and norms in the direction of the value foundations of allied countries. In this sense, Poland is one of these countries and the confrontation with Russia is considered legitimate for it. Since the annexation of Crimea by Russia, Western European countries, especially Britain, along with the United States, have sought to increase their security and defense cooperation with Central Europe (mainly Poland) and Eastern Europe. In some ways, this has strategic implications for NATO's influential countries; First, Britain and the United States have made the fight against Russia more acceptable by intensifying their military presence in those countries. Indeed, Russia's actions in the Ukraine conflict have provided an opportunity for Britain and the United States to secure Russian action in the region. This has given NATO leaders the power to impose heavy sanctions on Russia in 2014. This situation helps to stabilize the region in two ways. First, Russia sees the Ukraine conflict as a strategic victory and balances its position in Eastern Europe to avoid less possible damage from NATO. As long as Moscow has repeatedly stated that it is deeply concerned about the permanent presence of NATO on its borders, it considers it a hostile act. On the other hand, economic sanctions imposed on Russia by NATO member states could deter and stabilize Eastern and Central Europe.  Another consequence of the presence of British troops and the intensification of US military programs in Eastern Europe could lead to instability, contrary to the above assumption. Russia has proved that it is acting only in the face of developments in Eastern Europe, disrupting all NATO calculations. Aside from the Crimean Peninsula, South Ossetia is an example of this hypothesis. Although Russia and a limited number of countries in the world have recognized the independence of this region, the majority of states do not recognize the independence of South Ossetia from Georgia. Russia's intervention in Georgia was only on the pretext of defending Russian citizens in the region.

Security theory is one of the contemporary theories in the field ofsecurity studies using the philosophy of language and sociology, seeks to explain how security issues arise and solve them. This theory, first proposed by the Copenhagen school (especially Weaver), gradually encountered problems. In order to solve these problems, a new generation was formed - post-Copenhagen studies - which sought to promote this theory. The present article, based on documentary studies, seeks to explain the views of one of these experts in this field - Balzac. Using the teachings of Foucault and Bourdieu, Balzac seeks a new understanding of security. In his view, security is a process that results from power games and is formed in the interaction of social and habitual fields. This process can be both verbal and non-verbal, both intentional and unintentional. It has the power to do and write, but not as a self-referential act. Balzac's analysis of security also emphasizes the role of the three key components of empowering audience attention, the relationship between the security agent and the context, and finally, the role of the dispositive and its structuring force in security practices.

Historically, security developments in the South of Caucasus have had a direct impact on Iran's national security interests. The Southern Caucasus is reason for the formation of various threatening movements against the security and national stability of the Islamic Republic of Iran, some of which have an increasing threatening coefficient. Identification of threatening dynamics in the South Caucasus region against the national security of the Islamic Republic of Iran was considered as the central issue of this study and an attempt was made to prioritize these threats in the region to provide optimal solutions to deal with it. The main question is;” what are the most important threats to the Islamic Republic of Iran through the South Caucasus and what are Iran's strategies to curb them? “ The research method is qualitative-quantitative (mixed). The overall result is that security and economic / geoeconomic threats have a higher priority in the South Caucasus. The most important research strategies are to enhance cooperation with Asian powers, prioritize various cross-border infrastructure projects to deal with geopolitical depletion, establish a technical-engineering needs assessment office in the region, use local technical capacity and engineering to meet the technical-engineering needs of countries and finally Activation of defense diplomacy capabilities.

It seems that Islamic Fundamentalism is still one of the problematic issues of the world. Fundamentalists not only kill the “others” but also kill Muslims who are different from them. From my perspective, the fall of the Islamic State of Iraq and Sham(ISIS) does not mean the fall of Islamic Fundamentalism. The author of this article believes that Islamic Fundamentalism is still a threat to the world’s security. The main question of the article is that what has been securitized by Islamist Fundamentalists? I tried to examine this question through the “securitization theory of Bary Buzan”. I argued that “Modernity and Modernization” have been securitized by them. It seems that modernity is a kind of existential threat for Islamists Fundamentalists like the Taliban and ISIS

Securitizing theory is one of the most widely used and controversial contemporary security theories that has been used by researchers to explain various security phenomena and actions. This article seeks to apply and implement this theory in the field of neglected and less used internal security by examining a case study of securitizing social networks in the Islamic Republic of Iran based on the library-documentary research method. While acknowledging that securitizing internal issues are more difficult than external issues, the author believes that issues such as the multiplicity of decision-making actors and ambiguity in the competence of security-building actors, poor framing and proper depiction of threats, neglection or lack of attention to social context, audience diversity, inadequate policy-making and Desecuritizing are the most important factors that has challenged securitizing of social networks in the Islamic Republic of Iran.

along the years of relationships , these two countries have witnessed various kinds of engagement within political, economic and security areas. Among the most important issues between our two countries are, Hirmand River,the problem of narcotic,Taleban Terrorism and the problem of Afghan refugees as well as economic cooperation. Utilizing the descriptive-analytic method, this article provides true answers to the question of how the relationship between Iran and Afghanistan can be proceed within the De-security framework during 2000 to 2019. In order to test and evaluate the hypothesis of utilizing the theoretical concepts and parameters of securitization -desecuritization within the framework of Copenhagen Security School, endeavors have been taken place to understand better the relationship between two countries within the axis of dsescuritizstion. From this perspective, in answer to the main question, it should be said that with the gradual removal of security issues from the narrow military and political sphere and the transfer of foreign policy from the political-security layers to the economic-trade layers, Iran-Afghanistan relations is at the desired levels of their agents. The country will move towards insecurity. A look at the relations between the Islamic Republic of Iran and Afghanistan shows that these two countries are affected by each other due to their neighborhood. For example, the civil war in Afghanistan led to instability on Iran's borders and the influx of Afghan refugees into Iran. However, there are several factors in the formulation of security policies that have hindered the development of other relations and the emergence of challenges in Iran-Afghanistan relations. From the perspective of the Islamic Republic of Iran, US and NATO military movements in Afghanistan, political-consensus instability, and economic instability resulting from the presence of the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, along with drug trafficking, especially in the post-Taliban period from 2000 to 2019. It has been a collection of sources threatening the national security of the Islamic Republic of Iran. This issue has emerged in the formulation of Iran's political-security relations with Afghanistan. This approach has hindered the development of economic-trade relations as a first step of cooperation and coordination. From this perspective, getting out of the narrow military circle is criticized from the point of view of those who considered security one-dimensional and in military dimensions, and comprehensive security is discussed. For this purpose, the above research seeks to study the theory of the Copenhagen school and explain relations Economic and trade and its impact on foreign policy orientation in order to destabilize relations; To answer the question of how the relations between Iran and Afghanistan during the period 2000 to 2019 are in the process of becoming insecure? Theoretical Framework According to Buzan, security is a sense of security (mental security), protection against danger (objective security) and freedom from doubt (trust in the personal perceptions of others) .The process of securing issues goes through four main stages: first, the security discourse, which refers to the identification and urgency of existential threats against the government; second, the legitimacy and public acceptance; third, emergency security operations to deal with threats; These actions affect the internal and external relations of governments . According to the practical solutions of the Copenhagen School to make many phenomena and threats insecure, an efficient political system is necessary to discuss the process of generating security threats before considering the appearance of the threat. the concept of building security is one of the most important topics in the Copenhagen School. A phenomenon becomes a security phenomenon when the actor secures the phenomenon during the process and his audience accepts it. Belief in "manifestation of threat" and "public acceptance" are the two main pillars of "security logic".   History of Iran-Afghanistan relations The Islamic Republic of Iran is neighboring 15 countries, but due to historical and cultural commonalities between Iran and Afghanistan, the relations between the two countries are different. The two countries have a common history, culture, religion and language, and in many other cases there are many commonalities and even a common enemy. The Islamic Republic of Iran has always tried to pursue good neighborliness properly. During the years of holy defense, when Iran was facing many problems, it did not hesitate to cooperate with Afghan refugees, which shows the depth of relations between the two countries. After the victory of Jihad, Iran was aligned with the Mojahedin government and did not leave the Afghan people alone during the Taliban rule. After the fall of the Taliban, he also helped build and institutionalize the government. Iran and Afghanistan, despite having a common political border and common cultural and religious interests, are believed to have the greatest potential for expanding political, security, economic and cultural cooperation. Conclusion The economic diplomacy of the Islamic Republic of Iran in Afghanistan has been a common element of profit and profit and an effective and relatively sustainable lever in managing water disputes, if the two countries can define a package of mutual interests in the form of economic diplomacy, this dependence Bilateral economic, the two sides will share in the fair use of water resources. In these circumstances, when the outcome of the combination of economic diplomacy and the water issue forms a kind of win-win diplomacy and paves the way for a major deal, it is highly likely that the parties can reach a common solution to the management of the existing water dispute.

Human Rights issue, is among the fundamental achievements of the international relations and law. The Islamic Republic of Iran, as an actor with different norms and ideologies than the norms that shape human rights, has always been exposed to various accusations by human rights activists and institutions. To the extent that this issue has gone beyond the legal nature and has been raised in a security and political framework. Now, this article seeks to examine the security situation of the human rights case of the Islamic Republic of Iran within the framework of the Copenhagen School and then examining the current situation of Trump coming to power, and finally to provide a solution in this regard. Accordingly, the question of the article is how the human rights dispute between Iran and the West is progressing. The available findings show that, given the differences in the norms shaping human rights between the West and the Islamic Republic of Iran, the process of securitizing of human rights has always been a lever to put pressure on Iran and its isolationist policy in the international environment will be on the agenda.

Using effective tools and methods to create a positive image of a country is an important issue in public diplomacy. Given that Africa is one of the strategic areas of the Islamic Republic of Iran, Iran has failed to make good use of this capacity and to succeed in the field of public diplomacy. This is important because the presence of competing countries with Iran in Africa has been instrumental in creating challenges for Iran on the continent and has given a security perspective to Iran's actions in Africa and Iran cannot succeed. The field of influencing African public opinion and promoting its goals and interests is doing better. Now the question arises: what is the effective strategy of the Islamic Republic of Iran for the success of public diplomacy in Africa? In the present study, first, a descriptive-analytical approach, using library documents and resources, deals with the general diplomacy of Iranian diplomacy in Africa and the security outlook formed using the Copenhagen School. Then, using in-depth interviews (one of a series of surveys) with 20 experts in the field of Africa and public diplomacy, as well as using the Swat Matrix Analysis method, the data were analyzed. The results, therefore, imply that a reactive or rethinking strategy could weaken Iran's public diplomacy on the continent by weakening the security outlook on Iran's activities in Africa