Note: For the jurisprudence of international relations to become an established chapter in fiqh, certain matters need to be undertaken, one of which is the compilation of chapter headings and the network of issues. In this regard, we conducted an interview with Hujjat al-Islam wal-Muslimeen Dr. Mojtaba Abd Khodaei, Associate Professor in the Department of International Relations at Allameh Tabataba’i University. Having obtained his doctorate in international relations and authored numerous books and articles in this field, he endeavored to explain the differences between this fiqh chapter and similar concepts such as international law and political fiqh, while also highlighting some of its key chapter headings and important issues. The details of this exclusive interview by Contemporary Jurisprudence with the author of the book The Possibility of a Religious Theory of International Relations are presented for your review:

Contemporary Jurisprudence: What is the jurisprudence of international relations? What are its differences from similar concepts such as “jurisprudence of politics,” “jurisprudence of international law,” and “international approach to fiqh”?

Abd Khodaei: Discussing the nature and position of the jurisprudence of international relations engages us with the divisions and chapters of fiqh, because we want to see where the discussions of international relations from a fiqh perspective fit within fiqh.

Our jurists have had detailed discussions regarding fiqh divisions, tracing back to the late Shahid Awwal, who divided all of fiqh into four axes based on a specific reasoning: topics in which intention is a condition fall under acts of worship (ibadat); those in which intention is not a condition but require a formula fall under contracts and unilateral acts (uqud and iqaat); and those in which neither intention is a condition nor a formula is required fall under policies (siyasat).

Following him, Shahid Thani adopted the same approach. Other jurists have various methods in dividing fiqh, but among those who discussed the category of politics, the first was the late Shahid Awwal, and after him, the late author of Miftah al-Karama raised this discussion.

The late Fayz Kashani again presents a division of fiqh and a categorization in two branches, each divided into several keys.

However, in the jurisprudence of international relations, like other applied or contemporary fiqhs, the first discussion is which topics fall within this fiqh chapter and which are outside it. This requires determining a criterion.

The second discussion is defining the jurisprudence of international relations so that, after the definition, it becomes clear which issues fall under it and which are excluded.

If we view this fiqh chapter from a legal perspective and do not see it as an applied fiqh, the jurisprudence of international relations is an independent fiqh chapter because issues of international law are raised independently; but if we consider it an applied fiqh chapter, it falls under the jurisprudence of politics, since international relations itself falls under political thought. In any case, this term does not have a shar’i reality that we must adhere to; rather, they are merely established for organizing fiqh chapters.

An important point to note is that the topics of fiqh chapters have also emerged from their initial simplicity and acquired particular complexity. For example, in the past, the concept of “sale” (bay) was clear, but today we face concepts like “economy” that are truly complex, making their topical analysis difficult as well.

But in defining the jurisprudence of international relations, it can be said: International relations is a field of study that addresses all transboundary issues; or in other words, it addresses issues in a realm of power where there is no central sovereign authority. Of course, its issues must necessarily have a political nature, because if they lack political nature, they will not fall within the domain of international relations; hence, economic and cultural relations between countries that do not inherently have a political nature are not discussed in this fiqh chapter. Therefore, the jurisprudence of international relations is more specific than the jurisprudence of international affairs and more specific than the jurisprudence of politics.

Since in the definition of the jurisprudence of international relations, the condition of the necessity of “political nature” in relations was mentioned, it is necessary to clarify what is meant by the political matter. Initially, it may come to mind that anything related to governance falls under politics; whereas politics is far beyond governance. The political matter is one that addresses relations among humans in the realm of power: if these relations are within the country, it is domestic politics, and if outside the country, it is foreign policy.

Here, some imagine that when we depict the political matter as relations among humans in the realm of power, we intend to say that the goal of politics is the acquisition of power, whereas in Islamic politics, this is not the case. Addressing power relations does not mean that one necessarily sets the acquisition of power as their goal; rather, power can be acquired for Islamic purposes such as human exaltation. Therefore, if the subject of a discipline is social relations from the perspective of acquiring power, it falls under politics, just as if its subject is social relations from the perspective of financial profit and loss, it is the subject of economics, and if its subject is social relations from the viewpoint of reason, affection, and education, it will fall under the jurisprudence of family and education. With this definition, it becomes clear that non-power social relations have no connection to the jurisprudence of international relations; therefore, the international dimensions of economic fiqh are discussed under the same chapter of economic fiqh, and similarly, the international chapters of other fiqh chapters that have no relation to the category of power will be placed under those same chapters.

Another point is that in politics, we say that not every topic is political, but every category can become political, because the property of power is that it is diffuse and can enter various arenas; therefore, if part of international economic discussions relates to the category of power, it should fall under the jurisprudence of international relations, not economic fiqh; similarly for other fiqh chapters.

After defining the jurisprudence of international relations, we turn to topics that fall under this fiqh chapter. Some of these topics include: security, war, peace, foreign policy, international organizations, diplomacy, and intelligence.

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

Abd Khodaei: The difference between international relations and international law is very clear; international relations addresses the political matter, while international law seeks to legislate and shape a set of laws in the international arena. From the perspective of international relations, international law does not exist at all, because law means there is a sovereignty that enacts, executes, and guarantees the law; whereas in the international arena, we have no legal guarantee, and only power speaks first; hence, international law either has no meaning or is a very weak matter. However, the jurisprudence of international relations is conceivable because it has personal executive guarantee, which is divine retribution.

Of course, wherever international law enters, it is certainly different from international relations.

But the relationship between international law and international relations is one of general and particular with overlap (umum wa khusus min wajh). In cases where the discussion is both legal and international and addresses the aspect of power, it is the point of overlap between the two; but in cases where the discussion is international and legal but not from the aspect of power, it is the distinguishing aspect of international law, and cases where the discussion is from the aspect of power and international but does not address legal aspects are the distinguishing locus of international relations.