Note: International relations and international law alongside international politics are knowledges or study arenas; but alongside these, an international approach to jurisprudential issues is also raisable; an approach that not as a jurisprudential chapter, but as an insight, helps understanding and solving all issues of jurisprudential chapters. Dr. Majid Kiani-Nejad believes this approach is not created by a knowledge like jurisprudential knowledge, but to understand it, it is necessary to seek help from greater jurisprudence. The detailed exclusive interview of Contemporary Jurisprudence with this international relations researcher is as follows:
Contemporary Jurisprudence: What does the international approach to jurisprudence mean and what necessities does it have?
Kiani-Nejad: Your discussion is the discussion of international relations jurisprudence. Before anything, the most important discussion is topic recognition. First, let us recognize international relations as a topic and then see what international relations jurisprudence is? However, before that, we must address jurisprudence itself: what do we mean by jurisprudence? Is it greater jurisprudence or the current conventional jurisprudence and issues of rulings and oughts and ought nots? If our purpose is jurisprudence in the sense of obtaining rulings of international relations, in my opinion this is not a correct term and is disputable; but if the principle of seeking understanding in religion and greater jurisprudence is intended – meaning the collection of beliefs, ethics, and rulings – then its relation with international relations can be a correct relation and then we will reach the result of what international relations jurisprudence is as a science and what maximum or minimum scope it includes. Of course, our purpose from international relations must also be specified: whether it means international politics or international system or international law or international relations; because the definition of each is different.
International system refers to polarizations that form the structure and nature of power and political units which are governments are influenced by this international system. On the other hand, in discussing the international system, this issue arises that the essence and inner nature of this system is anarchic; meaning this system itself is lawless, although from one perspective, it is this international system that shapes international relations. So one discussion is the discussion of the international system.
Another discussion is about international politics. International politics refers to actions and behaviors and interactions and reactions that two or more political units have with each other. In international politics, emphasis is on governments and political units.
Another position was international relations. International relations refers to the collection of actions and mutual interactions of governmental units and non-governmental institutions, organizations, associations, NGOs, unions, institutions that are in the international arena and even to political trends among nations. International relations is an issue separate from past topics, meaning international system and international politics.
The science of international relations deals with studying the regularities arising from properties of political behavior and this very matter causes its difference from international law. In international relations, you discover and look and observe what is, but its topic has no relation to oughts and ought nots of the international arena; whereas international law speaks of oughts and ought nots of the international arena. You come from these existing principles and these international assumptions and enter study and then extract the regularities of these behaviors; therefore the knowledge of international relations, while connected to international law, differs from it.
This knowledge also differs from international politics. Its difference with international politics is that international politics only studies the trend of relations among political units of governments; but international relations does not only examine governments’ relations but measures the interactions and reactions of all in the world with each other; meaning governments, international organizations, regional and trans-regional organizations and nations’ political trends, all are examined together.
An important point that exists is that in international relations discussion, we have very deep contents in the Ahl al-Bayt (peace be upon them) school. If the knowledge that has reached the followers of Amir al-Mu’minin (peace be upon him) is examined, much benefit can be derived from these sources and we can even have a specific international relations theory of the Ahl al-Bayt (peace be upon them) school.
Of course, before entering international relations jurisprudence, its foundations must be discussed. When values in international relations are spoken of, the knowledge of “international relations theology” comes up; therefore instead of starting from international relations jurisprudence, we must start from international relations theology and see what values are raised in this jurisprudential chapter. Currently, the existing values root in Western political thought and go back to Machiavelli and before him, Hobbes.
In Machiavellian discussions, we see that Western man has decided to change criteria; in his view, the criterion has shifted from perfection to ability and power. What is raised in political philosophy as a foundation for value foundations is mostly these thoughts that we must clarify our duty with this section too.
Of course, here too many studies and discussions raised suffer from excess and deficiency. Some introduce one side as the new world and owner of power and the other side as the old world that believes in right and truth and in the discussions they raise, they place power and truth against each other; whereas if attention is paid, power and truth are not against each other, but what are against each other are right and wrong, and power in this midst is a tool. Not paying attention to roots creates deficiency in discussions.
So in international relations, we are facing a collection that requires all dimensions of seeking understanding in religion and jurisprudence to engage with it, not just part of it; because simultaneously we are facing a collection of knowledge and insight and value and method, and if the science of international relations is also intended, we can benefit from many contents existing in the Ahl al-Bayt (peace be upon them) teachings.
International relations knowledge discussions, some are theoretical and some meta-theoretical. A very interesting discussion in international relations is also levels of analysis which has its own specific categorization that we do not want to express all of them here; like whether we ultimately analyze issues at regional and international level and seek remedy for it or analyze at domestic level and extend to international level? So those levels of analysis are important that we pay less attention to.
What has been done so far has not been much international relations jurisprudence (with greater jurisprudence approach). Also, except for the legal section, most of it has been international politics jurisprudence. In international relations knowledge, we have multiple theories and views that differ from each other; like “game theory” which says all international discussions are a kind of interaction whose sum total will be zero.
In international relations systems discussion too, we have multiple models. For example, one of the models is deterrence. How do we deal with the deterrence model? We must note that someone who wants to work in the international arena is facing an anarchic space and a lawless space; now how can we present legal cases to this person that at all in his space and surroundings such a space does not exist? We have other theories too, like globalism theories, imperialism theories, regime theories.
We mentioned that international relations foundations also go back to political philosophy, meaning just as in political philosophy and political thought you have realism, idealism and various isms, these same isms in international relations prepare the ground and turn into schools and theories, these require philosophical and scientific work. The trend of theories starts from realistic and idealistic and in the historical course of international relations thoughts, reaches regime theories and others. In international regimes theory, there is talk of norms. Although there the hegemon and dominance system comes and creates a series of norms but ultimately gets caught in these same norms which is also an important point and has much room for work.
Another point that is important and criticizable is that some presentations raised in this field are actually foreign policy jurisprudence but are raised as international relations jurisprudence; whereas foreign policy itself is a part of international discussions and its definition differs from international relations.
Relying on the collection of Ahl al-Bayt (peace be upon them) teachings, we find the possibility to present a worthy theory. The reality is that we can bring international relations science to that real and true point. Now what exists in reality is relations among states, what also shapes relations among these states is the international system, but do all in today’s world accept the existing international system? No, in international relations, theorists criticize existing theories and situations and give other theories. We too can have critical theory regarding these discussions and then say our own theory. So with the types of views in the Ahl al-Bayt (peace be upon them) school, international relations can reach its real position which is relations among nations. Now in the world, we have a United Nations where governments are members, but futuristic view and that authentic international relations view drives us to a point where in the future the United Nations is created with the presence of all nationalities and ethnicities not sovereignties. The question is what organization and with what structure will a United Nations really be in the framework of Ahl al-Bayt (peace be upon them) school theories?
Contemporary Jurisprudence: What effects will the international approach to jurisprudence have on jurisprudential knowledge, Shiite society, and international society?
Kiani-Nejad: This approach has clear and beneficial effects, provided that in a knowledgeable work we first correctly categorize these concepts; instead of international politics jurisprudence and also addressing governments’ behaviors on which much work has been done, let us see these same principles and specify our positions regarding these principles, examine international theories in international relations and then give our own theory. In this case, God willing, after a decade passes in reputable world universities in scientific processes and scientific relations, our theories will also be raised as a series of theories. We can reach that point; because we have teachings that can lead the world toward international relations and prevent it from this situation of relations among governments and an international system that has an anarchic and chaotic structure.
In the Ahl al-Bayt (peace be upon them) school, multiple paradigms exist; from jihad and martyrdom and resistance to interaction and unity and disavowal and taqiyya and expectation and occultation and…. In this school, we are facing an organic system where everything is in its place, in its position and depending on the type of Shiites’ situation in the world, we can benefit from these frameworks. Regarding Shiite minorities in the world, it is appropriate to create a jurisprudence under this very title “jurisprudence of Shiite minorities and their interaction method in the international arena” and work on confronting the existing international system and its specific futurism which of course will differ from jurisprudence related to countries where Ahl al-Bayt (peace be upon them) followers are in majority.
Some ask: considering the minority of Muslims especially Shiites in global society, can international relations jurisprudential rulings be changed and inferred according to conditions? The answer is that it differs by place. Regarding this question, attention must be paid to political units: in a political unit where Shiites are minority, taqiyya must be spoken of; but regarding political units where Shiites are majority, it must be dealt with differently.
Taqiyya can be a very fundamental help for the growth of Shiism in today’s world just as it was said: “Taqiyya is my religion and the religion of my forefathers.”
That we set aside this important framework because we have become powerful is a kind of naivety in power discussion in the international system; because someone may have power and precisely use this taqiyya to gain more power.
Considering the time and era we live in and considering that the concept of citizenship is currently a very important topic both inside countries and in the international system collection and cities and managements are on this axis, if in Shiite jurisprudence we also have an examination regarding citizenship jurisprudence, it will help the international relations field. This citizenship jurisprudence can help us a lot. Until now, our emphasis has mostly been on dar al-harb and dar al-Islam, whereas currently, this Muslim who has become a citizen of a non-Muslim country or a non-Muslim who is a citizen of a Muslim country can be brought under citizenship jurisprudence view.
Contemporary Jurisprudence: To create an international approach to jurisprudential knowledge, what executive and knowledgeable actions are necessary?
Kiani-Nejad: Instead of addressing non-knowledgeable issues, we must pay attention to international relations knowledge, if you in the institute come to work specifically on international relations and examine international relations from various dimensions and theories and studies and methods that exist and examine its study course and explain this system and implement this on various dimensions of international relations, in the future international relations will reach its true position.
In our collection of jurists, we set aside the state where we say with realistic confrontation that these international assemblies have no position at all or not say with idealistic confrontation that whatever exists is in this collection; we must come and work on our own norms and explain for the international system. In my opinion, if we enter this arena and reach those relations with international relations knowledge and explain international relations knowledge jurisprudence, we will certainly have a very bright future in this arena and we hope to help form that real United Nations, a place where no government is a member. In that real United Nations, nations and races and various tendencies are members and that saying of Amir al-Mu’minin who said: “Either a brother to you in religion or a peer to you in creation.” If we correctly explain this saying and other infallibles’ (peace be upon them) sayings and show what view we have, we will reach that theory and in practice there will be several thousand seats in the United Nations and various nationalities and nations will gather and existing norms will be corrected and repaired.