Note: Dr. Seyyed Mohammad Sadatinezhad is one of those who has made the greatest scholarly efforts to develop the jurisprudence of international relations. The authorship of the three-volume collection “Jurisprudence of International Relations,” alongside numerous articles, has established him as one of the most diligent figures in this field. We spoke with him regarding the distinction between the jurisprudence of international relations and similar concepts. He believes that although the jurisprudence of international relations does not overlap or coincide with an international approach to jurisprudence, it is inextricably linked to it. The full text of the exclusive interview conducted by Contemporary Jurisprudence with this senior researcher at the Center for Political and International Studies of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs is presented below for your review:

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

Sadatinezhad: The jurisprudence of international relations, as its name suggests, is that branch of jurisprudence which addresses the international domain. Jurisprudence refers to the extraction of Sharia rulings on various subjects, encompassing categories such as obligatory, prohibited, recommended, and discouraged. The jurisprudence of international relations is the discipline that examines international relations from a Sharia perspective, with the aim of extracting Sharia rulings regarding international phenomena. For example: Are relations between Muslim and non-Muslim states permissible or not? Are they permissible, prohibited, or unobjectionable? Is a relationship between an Islamic state and a Christian state permissible? What is the nature of relations between an Islamic state and a state located in the realm of Dar al-Harb? In the event of war between two Islamic countries, what is the duty of an Islamic state? What is the status of trade between an Islamic state and other states? In other words, all topics concerning relations between states fall within the domain of international relations, and the discipline of jurisprudence extracts Sharia rulings regarding these phenomena and issues surrounding interactions between Islamic states and other states.

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

Sadatinezhad: These are two distinct branches. International law is a modern discipline that elucidates legal relationships among international phenomena; that is, it examines international issues from a legal perspective. The difference between international relations and international law is that in international relations, the thinker seeks to understand phenomena—why certain events occur between states, why war or peace emerges—whereas international law does not seek to understand the relationship but rather to provide its legal elucidation. For instance: If country A enters the territory of country B, what is the legal status? If countries A and B dispute over an island, which side holds the legal right? If country A attacks country B and fails to observe humanitarian rights, what should be done? What is humanitarian law, and what rights must be observed during war? What rights must be observed in peacetime? What rights exist in maritime and navigation matters? What rights pertain to trade? These are issues that fall within the domain of international law.

International law has various branches: public international law, private international law, international trade law, international economic law, law of the sea, international migration law, international refugee law, and international humanitarian law, each of which elucidates the legal aspects of issues in its respective domain.

The difference between the jurisprudence of international law and international law is that international law has no concern with Sharia or religion and merely elucidates the legal aspects of issues in that scientific branch, extracting legal rulings based on legal precedents, prior practices adopted by states, and established customs, without regard to religion or Sharia. However, the sources of the jurisprudence of international law are the Quran, the Sunnah, reason, and consensus, and the ruling on an issue must be derived from these sources. More precisely: International law may utilize jurisprudence to elucidate legal phenomena, but the jurisprudence of international relations cannot necessarily employ legal evidences, as the evidences in the discipline of jurisprudence are limited to the Book, the Sunnah, reason, and consensus.

Contemporary Jurisprudence: Does the acceptance of the jurisprudence of international relations also entail an international approach to jurisprudence, or is it a distinct matter?

Sadatinezhad: Yes, although it is first necessary to explain these two terms. Regarding the jurisprudence of international relations, I must initially note that there is limited literature in this field, and this chapter of jurisprudence remains underdeveloped, whereas we ought to have a substantial volume on this jurisprudential chapter. One of the few books addressing the jurisprudence of international relations is “International Relations in Islam,” authored by Ayatollah Javadi Amoli. However, in my doctoral dissertation, I mentioned that the first to address the jurisprudence of international relations was the late Imam Khomeini, who referred to it in his jurisprudential rulings. Nevertheless, the number of such books is very limited and should increase, after which they should also be translated into other languages to promote the international perspective derived from Islam. The importance of promoting an Islamic perspective on international relations lies in the fact that the discipline of international relations is a Western science that originated in the United States and predominantly adopts a secular and laïc viewpoint toward international relations. Consequently, certain aspects of it may not be acceptable to a Muslim thinker, such as relativist theories or the theories of idealism, liberalism, simplification, and postmodernism. Therefore, a Muslim thinker must propose alternative theories to these, which necessitates the prior development of the jurisprudence of international relations.

As an example, I am currently working on a theory called “Just Peace,” which aligns with international standards while also being endorsed from the perspective of the jurisprudence of international relations and approved by jurists.

However, in defining the jurisprudence of international relations, it must be stated that it is the branch of jurisprudence that examines the phenomena of international relations. Internationalizing jurisprudence, on the other hand, means that we can elucidate the contents of jurisprudential chapters, such as the jurisprudence of international relations, after they have been enriched and developed, for an international audience as well. The importance of this lies in the fact that this approach can lead to the creation of theories in the international arena that are also endorsed by the discipline of jurisprudence.

Contemporary Jurisprudence: Does international relations pertain solely to political relations among states, or does it also regulate the economic and social relations of states and nations with one another? In that case, what is its relationship to the jurisprudence of politics, the jurisprudence of economics, and the jurisprudence of society?

Sadatinezhad: The difference between the jurisprudence of international relations and the jurisprudence of politics, economics, and society lies in the fact that political jurisprudence addresses politics qua politics, economic jurisprudence addresses economics qua economics, and social jurisprudence addresses society qua society. However, in the jurisprudence of international relations, the international dimension of these phenomena is crucial, particularly where it pertains to states and actors in the international arena. That is, it does not address economics qua economics but rather economics insofar as it impacts relations among international actors. It also addresses social and psychological discussions, but not qua society and psychology, rather insofar as they can influence relations among international actors; the same applies to politics.

For example, developments in country A that lead to the rise of a particular political party, which in turn exhibits specific behavior in international relations and affects ties with other states and international developments, fall within the domain of international relations. Suppose that when Trump comes to power in the United States, certain domestic developments occur that are unrelated to international relations; however, the approach that Trump adopts toward NATO, relations with Europe, Russia, Iran, and the Zionist regime upon his election pertains to the domain of international relations. Here, it enters the realm of international relations.

Therefore, economic, social, and political discussions, insofar as they pertain to the domain of international relations, constitute part of the jurisprudence of international relations; but insofar as they address domestic domains or the concepts of politics and economics qua those concepts, they do not relate to the jurisprudence of international relations but rather to the domains of political, economic, and social jurisprudence.

Contemporary Jurisprudence: Is the jurisprudence of international relations inextricably linked to an international approach to jurisprudence? What are the areas of overlap and divergence between these two concepts?

Sadatinezhad: They are not identical, but it can be said that they are inextricably linked. You see, the prerequisite for developing the jurisprudence of international relations is that the jurist possesses an international perspective and is aware of global events—how relations between Islamic states and states of the People of the Book, Christians, Jews, and non-believers are configured; the direction of the international system; and what events are unfolding.

In fact, if a jurist lacks an international approach to jurisprudence, there may be no motivation to engage with the jurisprudence of international relations; for if the jurist focuses solely on domestic and individual rulings, their perspective will remain confined to individual issues in explanatory treatises. However, when the jurist adopts an international approach to jurisprudence—considering other countries and regions, commercial relations among states, and issues of peace and war between states—this is when motivation arises to extract jurisprudential rulings on international matters, such as issuing appropriate rulings regarding oppression against Palestinians, Yemenis, Iraqis, and Syrians. Therefore, these two do not overlap but are in a sense inextricably linked: until the jurist has an international approach to jurisprudence, there will be no motivation to enter the issues of the jurisprudence of international relations.

In my doctoral dissertation, I examined the opinions of six jurists on jurisprudential rulings concerning international relations. Regarding the late Shaykh Tusi, one must search diligently to find jurisprudential material on the jurisprudence of international relations, but in the works of contemporary scholars—from the late Imam to the Supreme Leader and other jurists—numerous issues on this topic are found. This is owed to the international perspective these jurists hold toward the discipline of jurisprudence. Fundamentally, in the era of the Islamic Revolution, the international approach to jurisprudence has increased significantly and is incomparable to the perspective held by earlier jurists, as in that period, Shiites and Shiite jurists were confined, in the minority, and often persecuted, with neither the opportunity nor the necessity to adopt an international approach to jurisprudence on international topics. However, now, with the establishment of the Islamic Republic system, the approach to jurisprudence has also expanded, as reflected in the works and articles of contemporary scholars.