The Influence of Elections on Governments' International Standing, Putting an Emphasis on the Islamic Republic of Iran
This article is trying to explain how holding general elections can promote a government's international standing and authority. This article is trying to explain four effective variants of democratic peace, importance of international legality, general diplomacy and clean slate principle to lead the audiences to find out prominent role of holding elections in stabilizing and improving the governments' standing in the international arenas.
A free general election, in fact, forms a portion of governments' international interactions, because such elections make other governments understand specific signs and concepts, paving the ground for the intended governments to carry out desired reactions.
The elections uses both techniques of representing democratic norms and paving the way for changing policies to help the countries reconstruct their international standing.
This way of tangible influence has been witnessed several times in history of the Islamic Republic of Iran, mainly in presidential elections.
For instance, while the Iran's international relations with certain world nations had been pushed towards tensions, actually, it was holding elections that restored stability to the country's diplomatic interactions with other nations on that hard time.
Theoretical basis of sanctions of Iran’s nuclear program: A comparison between diplomacies of Trump and Obama administrations
In the practical field of international relations, sanctions imposers have different motives for using this tool. The change in US administration’s policy regarding the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) is one of the remarkable examples to this end.
The present article seeks to answer the question that where was the theoretical the theoretical different between (Donald) Trump and (Barak) Obama administrations’ sanction policies regarding Iran despite the fact that the country has been compliant to its obligations based on JCPOA. The article’s assumption is that while the sanction policy of Obama administration was based on making Iran more committed to international norms, the main motive of Trump administration is to advance US maximum interests regardless of legal international restrictions. From this aspect, JCPOA was considered an efficient deal by Obama administration while according to Trump administration it is inefficient. This hypothesis is based on two theories about efficiency of sanctions in international relations e.g. liberalism and realism. It is examined through an analytical-exploratory method using reliable data.
This article tries to explain how a theodemocratic government, of course based on its own political establishment's characteristic and structure, can tend to conciliatory process in foreign policy field.
This Article further, in response to the abovementioned possibility or question, answers that accessibility to conciliatory in such forms of democracies would be materialized via two paths. The first path refers to religious teachings based on which the principle of peace or avoiding any engagement in wars, except for defense cases, will play a pivotal role in accessing to peace. The second path, meantime, is the influential role of democratic institutions in the theodemocratic establishments that will cause the governments to embark on defending people's interests that are defined and demanded freely by people, avoid any aggressive move and restrict waging war to only in emergency cases of defending the nation.
This article has used the Islamic Republic of Iran's historical records to define peace-seeking pattern of the theocracies as easier as possible.