درخت حوزه‌های تخصصی

When analyzing the histories of nations, it becomes clear that times of crisis often give rise to various figures who position themselves as problem solvers. Among these, authoritarian leaders are particularly notable. While certain aspects of their childhoods are frequently cited as significant, the geopolitical contexts and global shifts during their rise to power are equally crucial. These leaders typically emerge in countries experiencing similar external pressures, regional conflicts, or transformations in the international balance of power. By examining these shared geopolitical circumstances alongside personal histories, we gain valuable insight into the emergence and appeal of such figures during turbulent periods. This study identifies eight widely recognized cases from 1919 to 2011, including Adolf Hitler, Manuel Noriega, Idi Amin, Muammar Gaddafi, Benito Mussolini, Saddam Hussein, Pol Pot, and Tojo Hideki. Using a descriptive, analytical, and comparative approach, it seeks to answer the question: how do authoritarian figures exploit geopolitical environments to consolidate and expand their power? The findings suggest that such leaders often use ongoing crises to legitimize their actions, manipulate public sentiment, and push territorial or ideological agendas. To enhance accuracy and pattern recognition, artificial intelligence (AI) techniques were employed in the analysis phase. These tools helped reveal recurring behavioral and geopolitical patterns that may otherwise remain unnoticed. The study emphasizes the importance of identifying these dynamics early to prevent future international crises.

The complexity of global order is often obscured by the oversimplified representations of international relations, illustrated through political maps. These maps, while seemingly objective, are subjective projections that reflect the ideology of their creators and fail to capture the nuanced dynamics of power and control among states. Such a misrepresentation contributes to a distorted understanding of global dynamics. Meanwhile, the origins of political geography can be traced back to the 18th century, particularly with the establishment of the first school of political geography in Saint-Petersburg, Russia, between 1720 and 1750. Political geography, however, is not entirely homogenic; it encompasses several competing theories regarding the perception of space. It has developed gradually with the changes in perception of space: as an absolute, relative and cognitive space respectively. Recognizing the complexity and evolutionary features of a political map and political geography as whole thus appears to be crucial for understanding global politics.

The relationship between Identity and stability occupies the core of consensus democracy philosophy, as this governance model is designed to ultimately realise stability by addressing societal fragmentation in divided societies. In Iraq, this relationship shapes a complicated trajectory, mainly because the society moved fast from identity politics (transition) to issues politics (post-transition), which turned the consensus democracy itself that succeeded in realising stability in the transition by functioning well in addressing identity-related crises paradoxically into a driver for instability in the post-transition, for its dysfunctionality beyond the identity sphere. This article argues that this dysfunctionality is primarily linked to flaws of Arend Lijphart’s theory of consensus democracy more than problems stemming from the Iraqi context. It reviews and analyses the existing literature on the nexus of identity and stability under consensus democracy, taking Iraq as a case study. As a review article, this research uses the qualitative method; its data are collected from secondary sources. It found that the philosophy of consensus democracy is designed to primarily meet transition demands, which makes rapid societal transformation beyond transition raise bottom-up pressures expressed in new demands that this democracy cannot accommodate, creating a growing gap between the post-transitional social dynamics and the transitional politics, which generates chronic instability. Further research is needed on stabilisation mechanisms in post-transition, as most studies of consensus democracy focus on stability in transition.

The regionalisation of international trade rules represents a significant evolution in the global trading system, characterized by the increasing prevalence of regional trading agreements (RTAs) alongside multilateral frameworks like the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). These arrangements aim to enhance trade relations and reduce barriers within specific regions, reflecting localized approaches to trade liberalization. Different regional trade agreements may have conflicting rules and standards, leading to a fragmented global trading system. This can create barriers for countries outside these agreements, making it harder for them to access markets. This paper aims to explore the regionalisation of international trade rules, examining the development and impact of various regional trading arrangements (RTAs) within the framework of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). A doctrinal method is used in articles which discuss the regionalization of international trade rules and the impact of various regional trading arrangements (RTAs) within the framework of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT). The research found that the increase in regionalization of international trade rules has transformed the global trade landscape. Despite their benefit, the interconnectedness of numerous trade agreements can lead to complexity and inefficiencies that can weaken the multilateral trading system.

The Middle East has witnessed many identity conflicts and rising violent extremist groups after 2003. The most prominent one has been the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS), which has come to the sphere of politics, in the post Arab Spring era. The goal of this paper is to examine the roots of the emergence of violent extremist groups, principally with reference to ISIS rising in Iraq. To do this authors propose “the four-dimensional thick recognition” model that consists of four concepts i.e., 1) historical narratives, 2) self-esteem 3) ontological security, and 4) hubristic identity. This model highlights that historical narratives of conflict, along with lack of self-esteem leads to feeling of ontological insecurity. This, in turn, leads to a kind of hubristic identity crisis, which often paves the way through struggle for regaining it. By content analysis of major texts published by the ISIS through two major magazines, namely Dabiq and Rumiyah, we try to demonstrate how the rise of ISIS was rooted in the issue of thick recognition failure. The paper concludes that thick recognition failure in these four phases, led to the establishment of violent extremist groups particularly in regions with memories of conflict.

Conducting a special military operation in Ukraine has created a crisis in legal and geopolitical order. Political documents such as ``On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians`` and ``on conducting a special military operation`` cannot be truly re-read except by re-interpreting the geopolitico-theological texts of the Heideggerian theoreticians of the Russian Katechonic identity. By re-visiting the theory of Katechon, this article aims to examine the so-called Katechontic identity of Russia in the geopolitics of crisis and the dimensions of the Russian mindset in intervention in legal rule making in the global state of war. In fact, the main question of this article is how the Katechonic identity of Russia is defined in apocalyptic geopolitics, and theories such as neo-Eurasianism and National Bolshevism, based on theological and philosophical foundations, have worked to prepare an anti-legal order beyond the international legal order? The Russo-Ukrainian War is the main case. This article is in the framework of radical political theology, critical theory in international law and critical geopolitics.

The African continent has, to date, been mostly perceived as a “marginalized” geographical or geopolitical foundation and is represented in international relations (IR) so narrowly in the definitions provided by classical geopolitical knowledge or hegemonic knowledge of international relations. Nevertheless, efforts must be made by intellectual and practical elites worldwide for a more realistic representation of the opportunities and potentials of this continent by relying on conceptual-theoretical formulations. To address the main question of the relationship between Africa's geopolitical position and its conceptual and theoretical representation within the discipline of International Relations. The author suggests examining the pathology of conceptual-theoretical formulations in International Relations (IR) and Geopolitics.  this requires a new reading of critical geopolitics drawn on the works of Andrew Linklater, which can provide more basic explanatory ideas with the critique of epistemological foundationalism, state-centrism, narrative-based approach, and nature of the disciplines. This paper is a theoretical research that proposes a new conceptual framework. It adopts an explanatory-critical analytical method to explain the theoretical approach of global critical geopolitics. The results of the paper emphasize that the theories and texts of IR and Geopolitics must be reviewed and reformulated with innovative evaluations centered on the position and role of Africa in the international history of the world. It highlights the importance of considering the distinct lived experiences of the continent which can serve as a basis for developing a methodological, epistemological, and ontological research program for participation in global politics and non-western international relations.

Malaysia has been a key trading partner with the US and China since its independence. However, the US's imposition of safeguard tariffs has triggered a trade conflict with China, indirectly impacting Malaysia's supply chains and global pricing. This paper aims to explore the implications of the US-China trade war on Malaysia, focusing on the resulting international trade tensions among the involved countries. Using a doctrinal-qualitative approach, the trade policies of these three nations are analysed. With China's investment in Malaysia growing under the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), the potential for investment diversion from China is high. However, Malaysia faces strong competition from ASEAN countries for this investment relocation, necessitating proactive economic development measures. This paper suggests that Malaysia needs to anticipate the future of multilateral trade with the US and China to effectively navigate these challenges. By addressing these issues, Malaysia can better position itself in the evolving global trade landscape.

The Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) is a ground-breaking free trade agreement that encompasses fifteen Asia-Pacific nations, including significant economies such as China, Japan, South Korea, and Australia. The Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), which was signed in 2020, is one of the most significant free trade agreements in the world. It is comprised of 15 nations, including the ASEAN countries. The primary objective of the paper is to investigate the RCEP as a geopolitical strategy, examining its formation and significance, as well as elucidate on the issues and challenges associated with its implementation in order to effectively promote global trade and regional stability. This article also examines the strategic benefits that are crucial to RCEP member’s interests and the motivations that underlie their participation. The paper employs a doctrinal legal approach to analyse the strategic significance, implications, and formulation of the RCEP. The results indicate that the RCEP substantially improves regional economic integration, reduces economic dependencies, and decreases susceptibility to external trade conflicts. China’s leadership in RCEP, which establishes it as a central participant in regional trade and counters Western influence, supports the Belt and Road Initiative. The agreement enhances intra-regional trade, reduces Western leverage, and cultivates a collaborative framework that transforms the geopolitical landscape of the Asia-Pacific region.

This article explores the concept of critical geopolitics to understand how international trade laws influence access to medicines within the framework of the TRIPS agreement. Classical geopolitics traditionally emphasizes how geographical features shape state strategy and global power dynamics, whereas critical geopolitics interprets geographical arrangements as constructs shaped by political, economic, and technological forces. By adopting a critical geopolitics approach, this article investigates how developed and developing nations use their ideas, actions, and interpretations of international trade laws to influence the implementation of TRIPS provisions in their favor. The TRIPS agreement, a multilateral treaty aimed at standardizing global intellectual property laws, often benefits developed nations by strengthening patent protections, which in turn restricts access to affordable generic medicines in developing and least developed countries. Despite the inclusion of safeguards and flexibilities designed to promote broader access to medicines, significant inequalities in access persist. This article examines the differential application of TRIPS across diverse national contexts, focusing on how developed and developing nations collaborate—or conflict—in balancing the need for strong patent protection with the imperative of public health access. By analyzing these geopolitical dynamics, the study illuminates the strategic actions employed by nations to navigate the intricate relationship between international trade law and access to pharmaceuticals. The findings offer important insights into the power imbalances that shape global health outcomes under the TRIPS regime.

Since the beginning, Indonesia’s foreign policy has adhered to the “free-active” principle. Nevertheless, the facts demonstrate that during President Sukarno’s administration, Indonesia’s foreign policy was considered to be leaning left and close to communist countries. During the Suharto era, Indonesia, on the other hand, grew closer to the West, specifically the United States and its allies. The succession of post-Suharto leadership, from Habibie, Abdurrahman Wahid, and Megawati to Yudhoyono, major countries particularly the United States, continues to influence the pattern of Indonesia’s foreign policy. This pattern of foreign policy appears to have also had an effect on Indonesia’s defence posture and orientation. The question that should be addressed is: to what extent do great powers influence Indonesia’s defence policy during Jokowi administration? In the midst of various issues ranging from the maritime fulcrum, the sink the vessels’ policy, the issue of purchasing Russian-made fighter aircraft, the Sukhoi Su-35, and China’s Belt and Road initiative projects, have triggered reactions from neighbouring countries and major powers. Using a historical explanatory approach, this article argues that Indonesia’s defence strategy has been influenced by great powers since its foundation. Furthermore, despite Jokowi’s efforts to show that Indonesia is an independent and neutral country it remains under the influence of great powers.