Journal of World Sociopolitical Studies

Abstract The 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP21) in Paris brought together 195 countries to reach an agreement. Regardless of the environmental issues discussed and agreed in the conference, what seems significant is the global role that France played as the conference hosting nation. The country managed to promote itself as "the" eligible place among many European cities to host the conference, creating a diplomatic prestige for itself, provoking new environmental ambitions worldwide and presenting Paris as the home city, whose name is attached to the agreement forever. Yet, environmental issues have not always been a driving force for diplomatic efforts and public policy initiatives in France. Indeed, environmental protection grew to appear in the national agenda throughout decades and developed as a notion worthy of political and diplomatic attention in a long-term process, the study of which is noticeable in the European context. Utilizing Issue Ownership and Green Soft Power theories, the research employs Theory-Testing Process Tracing method to analyze France’s environmental contributions resulting in its leader role in the Paris Agreement. Ultimately, this study seeks to illuminate how environmental concerns gained public and political attention in the French society and politics, leading to the country's position in the agreement process. The author argues that an interplay of domestic and external factors let France present itself as a responsible actor in environmental affairs, strengthen its soft power on the international stage, and reinforce both national policy and international influence on the issue of the agreement.

Abstract EU has developed a plethora of initiatives to deal with the southern shores of the Mediterranean Sea. From Euro-Mediterranean Partnership (EMP) and the so-called Barcelona Process to European Neighborhood Policy (ENP) and Union for the Mediterranean (UfM), different regional programs have been implemented in the Mediterranean region. The diversity and increasing number of countries involved have led to a feel of Mediterranean bazaar with diverging directions. Thus, one question appears to remain unanswered: In what ways have ideational foundations affected the EU initiatives in the Southern shores of the Mediterranean Sea? The research hypothesis states that differences in ideational foundations of the Mediterranean powers, namely, France, Italy and Spain, in moments of crisis have led to the multiplication of initiatives and brought in at times conflicting arrangements between the north and the south of the Mediterranean Sea. The research question was answered under the Constructivist Institutionalism using the qualitative methodology of content analysis.  Research findings reveal that when confronted with moments of self-doubt (crisis), each of the Mediterranean powers has effectuated an institutional change according to its established ideas and cognitive filters.

Abstract For over three decades, sanctions have been a consistent feature of United States policy towards Iran. Following the lifting of nuclear-related sanctions under the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) in 2015 and United Nations Security Council Resolution 2231, in 2018 the United States withdrew from the agreement through Executive Order 13846, reinstating previous sanctions. Consequently, Iran decided to bring its case against the United States before the International Court of Justice (ICJ) based on the 1955 Treaty of Amity. The present article analyzes the ICJ's substantive jurisdiction (Merits) over this case, as well as the political and legal implications of the United States' unilateral sanctions against Iran. The research employs an analytical methodology, utilizing library research and note-taking to collect data. The research findings indicate that the ICJ's opinion is based on the illegality of comprehensive economic sanctions imposed on national security grounds, and that the Court has substantive jurisdiction over this case. Furthermore, the findings reveal that the United States' unilateral and extraterritorial sanctions not only violate Iran's sovereignty, but also infringe upon the human rights of the Iranian people. The United States' sanctions policy aligns with liberal and realist theories of international relations.

Abstract The first paragraph of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) recognizes the right to freedom of expression and prohibits party states from any arbitrary interference. The second paragraph, emphasizing that exercising this right comes with certain duties and responsibilities, authorizes the party states to restrict this right for their citizens if the specified conditions are met. One such condition is achieving one of the legitimate aims listed therein. The courts of Turkey, as a member state bound by the ECHR, have invoked these goals to justify their decisions regarding the restriction of citizens' right to freedom of expression. Nevertheless, convicted individuals who appeal these rulings before the European Court of Human Rights argue that no such legitimate aim existed, and that their right to freedom of expression has been violated. This study investigates the primary challenges faced by Turkish courts in invoking legitimate aims as justifications for restricting freedom of expression. It also elucidates the precise meaning and conditions for the eligibility of these goals based on the interpretation provided by the European Court of Human Rights.

Abstract After establishing its jurisdiction in the case of the violation of the 1955 Treaty of Amity between Iran and the United States (hereafter U.S.) on February 3, 2021, the International Court of Justice (hereafter ICJ) took a stride towards the Merits stage. In the event of a final judgment and the failure of the U.S. government to comply, the primary question that was raised was the following: What are Iran's options if the U.S. does not act upon the final decision of the ICJ? This article endeavors to address this question. The research methodology employed in this article is descriptive-analytical; through document analysis of the Court's decisions, international treaties, and relevant books and articles, specific findings have been derived. The research results indicate that Iran's options can be within the framework of the United Nations (hereafter UN) or beyond it. Options within the UN framework are predominantly theoretical, lacking effective enforcement mechanisms due to the existing power structures, including the veto power in the Security Council (hereafter UNSC), thereby lacking a guarantee of proper implementation. These options tend to be idealistic. On the other hand, options outside the UN framework, such as bargaining power and countermeasures for Iran, carry a realist aspect, allowing Iran to leverage them for the assertion of its rights.

Abstract Among the significant issues of the subcontinental region, one can refer to the concern over Pakistan’s inability to maintain the security of its nuclear facilities, the illegal increase in its nuclear weapon production, extremist organizations’ access to nuclear weapons, as well as the fact that this country has not joined the NPT treaty. Meanwhile, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which was created to fulfill the two aims of promoting peaceful applications of nuclear power and preventing nuclear activities from edging toward military purposes, can play an effective role- within the framework of its legal authority- in preventing the potential threats of Pakistan’s nuclear activities from actualizing. Therefore, the main question of the present research concern the strong and weak points of the IAEA’s performance toward Pakistan’s nuclear activities. The findings of this essay will demonstrate the undesirability of the Agency accomplishments (drawing up several safeguard agreements), in comparison with its deficiencies, including cases such as the Agency’s silence regarding the uptrend in Pakistan’s nuclear weapons production, failing to persuade Pakistan to join the NPT, being affected by the great powers in observing Pakistan’s nuclear activities, as well as incorrect estimations of the security of its nuclear programs. 

Abstract The emergence of nuclear weapons as a new actor in international relations has introduced a new area in the international security arena. Since the appearance of these weapons, there have been increasing efforts to limit and destroy them in order to achieve global peace in the framework of disarmament and centered around the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. Along with the emergence of the non-proliferation system and the current trend, achieving nuclear disarmament has turned into an international demand, especially for the Non-Aligned Movement member states. The present study seeks to analyze the influence of the Non-Aligned Movement on disarmament in the framework of the mentioned Treaty. To this end, and based on the Neoliberal Institutionalism theory, this article studies the Non-Aligned Movement’s stance toward nuclear disarmament in the framework of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and the Review Conferences of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons. The study is written according to the descriptive-analytical method. The findings suggest that despite its inefficient influence prior to the 1995 Review and Extension Conference of the Parties to the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, the Non-Aligned Movement, as a major actor in international peace and security, has gained an influential position in the negotiations about the formation of the trends related to nuclear disarmament in the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.