Note: Although international relations gained more structure after the end of World War II and the establishment of the United Nations, and the science of international relations took shape, the engagement of jurisprudence in this field has not been very significant thus far. It could be said that it is only in the last decade that the volume of jurisprudential writings on international relations has seen a notable increase. Regarding the nature of the jurisprudence of international relations and its distinction from similar concepts such as the jurisprudence of international law, we spoke with Dr. Seyed Mohammad Sadatinejad, Senior Researcher at the Center for Political and International Studies of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. He considers one of the major challenges in academia to be the conflation of disciplines such as international relations and international law. He has published numerous books and articles on the jurisprudence of international relations, including the three-volume work Jurisprudence of International Relations.

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

Sadatinejad: One of the issues we face at the academic level is that discussions such as the jurisprudence of international relations are mixed with topics in the science of international relations. The science of international relations has been formed within the framework of modern science. This science examines issues such as war and peace and similar matters. The actors in the science of international relations are states, international organizations, and intergovernmental organizations. This is the science of international relations. However, the jurisprudence of international relations does not seek to address the nature of war and peace or such issues; rather, it aims to derive Islamic legal rulings on jurisprudential matters and determine their rulings.

The jurisprudence of international relations examines the Islamic legal rulings of obligation and prohibition concerning international issues. Questions such as: Is waging war forbidden or permissible? Is peace obligatory or recommended? If peace is obligatory, under what conditions is it obligatory, and if it is recommended, under what conditions is it recommended? Is it permissible to establish relations with a non-Islamic country or not? The jurisprudence of international relations looks at these matters from a jurisprudential, Islamic, and religious perspective and seeks to determine which countries are considered Dar al-Harb (abode of war), Dar al-Islam (abode of Islam), or Dar al-Sulh (abode of peace). For instance, where does the United States stand? What about Israel? What about France? It should be noted that the distinction between territories as Dar al-Harb, Dar al-Islam, or Dar al-Sulh entails different Islamic legal rulings.

My doctoral dissertation was on the jurisprudence of international relations. Many people, in these discussions, talk about the science of international relations but turn to jurisprudence. Yes, if we are discussing the science of international relations, we can also discuss jurisprudential concepts; however, addressing jurisprudential issues directly within this science is problematic and inappropriate. These are two distinct sciences that form separate disciplines. There are similarities and differences between the two. Thus, the jurisprudence of international relations is about deriving Islamic legal rulings concerning phenomena.

Contemporary Jurisprudence: What is the relationship between international relations and legal issues?

Sadatinejad: International law is a distinct discipline, and the science of international relations is also a separate discipline. International law deals with human rights, maritime law, and environmental law. This science seeks to provide a legal explanation of phenomena, such as the rights involved in navigation. For example, what rights does a ship have when it enters a certain area? This science aims to legally clarify phenomena to be referred to in case of war. If human rights issues arise, what matters must a country observe? However, in the jurisprudence of international relations, we seek to establish an Islamic legal ruling concerning phenomena. In the jurisprudence of international relations, we are not concerned with legally clarifying international issues; in contrast, international law examines phenomena legally, considering what rulings they had a hundred years ago and what rulings they have today, without addressing their validity or invalidity from an Islamic perspective. In the jurisprudence of international relations, based on the four primary sources of Islamic jurisprudence, a jurist determines the ruling. However, in international law, the work of a jurist is not necessarily jurisprudential; they examine and analyze issues from a legal perspective. It is possible that the expert analyzing these issues in this science is a jurist, but they should not approach the issues as a jurist.

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

Sadatinejad: The science of international relations is an independent branch and is considered part of the family of political law. International relations examines the interactions between states. It may, at times, share commonalities with disciplines such as economics, domestic politics, and other fields, but this does not mean that this science is economics or domestic politics. In the science of international relations, one must study some foundational concepts from related disciplines as general units, as certain issues from political and economic sciences are raised; however, the discipline of international relations is independent and has its own experts.

Contemporary Jurisprudence: Does the jurisprudence of international relations solely address relations between states, or does it also cover issues related to citizens of different countries?

Sadatinejad: The jurisprudence of international relations seeks to derive Islamic legal rulings on international issues. In contrast, matters related to citizens’ relations pertain to the internal affairs of countries, which are distinct from foreign relations. Therefore, the jurisprudence of international relations does not address them. However, if citizens’ issues relate to international matters, we need the jurisprudence of international relations. For example, how does a citizen of Country A interact with a citizen of Country B? What rulings and conditions apply to this interaction? Thus, in cases where the relations of citizens from different countries pertain to internal affairs, the jurisprudence of international relations does not apply. But when they relate to international issues, the jurisprudence of international relations becomes relevant. For instance, when establishing a multinational company and issues arise that fall under the jurisprudence of international relations, or in cases involving war, insecurity, or similar matters, the jurisprudence of international relations applies. However, in other cases, it falls under international law. Alternatively, in cases where a peaceful relationship with another country is possible, this pertains to the jurisprudence of international relations. These are matters that fall under the jurisprudence of international relations because they relate to state interactions. Thus, issues concerning state relations are appropriately addressed within the jurisprudence of international relations.