Note: Hujjat al-Islam wa al-Muslimin Dr. Mansour Mirahmadi is among the first to have addressed the jurisprudence of international relations. His article titled “The Jurisprudence of International Relations,” written in the early 2010s, was one of the initial steps toward establishing this new branch of jurisprudence. We discussed with him the nature and dimensions of the jurisprudence of international relations. He considers international relations neither an interdisciplinary nor an independent discipline but rather a relational discipline. The full text of the exclusive interview by Contemporary Jurisprudence with the professor of the Political Science and International Relations Department at Shahid Beheshti University in Tehran is presented for your consideration:

Contemporary Jurisprudence: What is the jurisprudence of international relations, and what topics does it address?

Mirahmadi: The jurisprudence of international relations is considered a branch of the discipline of jurisprudence. This discipline, based on jurisprudential foundations and presuppositions and employing the method of ijtihad, engages in the derivation and formulation of rulings regarding international relations. The main subject of this discipline is international relations, though international relations is sometimes regarded as a discipline and sometimes as a real phenomenon.

In the jurisprudence of international relations, international relations is not understood as a discipline but as a real phenomenon—that is, the relationships that exist in reality and are formed among international units are considered international relations.

If we consider international relations as the main subject of this branch of jurisprudence, then topics that are somehow related to this subject fall within the scope and domain of the jurisprudence of international relations. Any kind of relationships that national and international units have with each other are recognized as topics under the jurisprudence of international relations.

Contemporary Jurisprudence: What is the relationship between the jurisprudence of international relations and the discussions of international law?

Mirahmadi: The jurisprudence of international relations and international law share one common aspect: both adopt a normative approach. Both the jurisprudence of international relations and international law have a normative approach to international relations; they both discuss the norms governing international relations or the norms that should govern international relations. The difference between the two lies in the basis of this normative approach. In the jurisprudence of international relations, these norms are derived based on jurisprudential foundations and an ijtihadi approach to religious texts. In contrast, the normative approach in international law is based on the modern discipline of law and is considered one of its central topics. Therefore, in international law, the normative approach is shaped based on the foundations and presuppositions accepted in human rights.

Consequently, the difference between the two should be understood in terms of their foundations, presuppositions, and methodological approaches. However, their significance lies in the fact that both adopt a normative approach.

Contemporary Jurisprudence: Is international relations an interdisciplinary field or an independent discipline?

Mirahmadi: I believe it can neither be considered an interdisciplinary field nor an independent discipline. The correct term, in my opinion, is a relational discipline. In other words, some disciplines are relational, and their identity depends on relationships. The two-way relationship that this discipline establishes with jurisprudence on one hand and international relations on the other gives it a nature that is harmoniously relational and places it in a relational position. If one side of this relationship is ignored or removed, the identity of this discipline collapses, and it no longer possesses epistemological integrity. From this perspective, we can say that this discipline is relational. Its connection with jurisprudence is in terms of foundations and methodology—that is, it derives its foundations, presuppositions, and methods from jurisprudence—but in terms of subject matter, it establishes its connection with international relations, thus occupying a relational position.

Of course, someone might interpret this relational position as an interdisciplinary field. However, since I believe that in the jurisprudence of international relations, international relations does not refer to the discipline but, as I mentioned earlier, to the real phenomenon and what exists in reality as international relations, the jurisprudence of international relations is thematically linked to international relations as a discipline, though it differs fundamentally because their approaches and theories are evidently distinct. Consequently, the jurisprudence of international relations has a relational nature. In this sense, it is an independent discipline, but its independence is formed through this relationship—it is neither solely jurisprudence nor solely international relations but the jurisprudence of international relations. Therefore, in the precise sense, it may not be an interdisciplinary field because, as I mentioned, it is a part of a discipline.

Contemporary Jurisprudence: Does the jurisprudence of international relations only address relations between states, or does it also discuss relations among citizens of different countries?

Mirahmadi: The jurisprudence of international relations addresses three categories of issues. The first category pertains to the relations between states as national units existing at the international level, which are examined as international relations.

The second category relates to the connections that states establish with international organizations. The relationships between these national units or states and international units or organizations can also be examined within the framework of the jurisprudence of international relations.

The third category concerns the relationships that citizens form outside their national territory, where their interactions are not merely national or within a single territory but take on a transnational form, establishing a type of activity or connection. Consequently, relationships among citizens within a state do not fall under the discussion of the jurisprudence of international relations but should be examined within political jurisprudence, which is tasked with exploring the jurisprudential analysis of relations among citizens.

Contemporary Jurisprudence: Does the jurisprudence of international relations encompass economic, religious, and social relations between countries, or is it solely dedicated to their political relations?

Mirahmadi: The discipline of international relations is a new field and is considered among modern disciplines, but it is distinct from international politics. The relationships that form between states, units, and national and international entities in the realm of politics are addressed and examined in international politics. However, if these relationships extend beyond the realm of politics to include economics, culture, and security, they are discussed within the framework of the jurisprudence of international relations. Therefore, international relations is broader than the concept of international politics. If we accept this distinction in the jurisprudence of international relations, we can say that the thematic scope of the jurisprudence of international relations goes beyond the political relations of states and units and includes economic, cultural, security, or military relations, and so forth. The jurisprudence of international relations addresses all of these from a jurisprudential perspective. If we reach this conclusion, it seems that the jurisprudence of international relations is a concept that can be defined alongside the discipline of international relations and encompasses a broad scope.