Note: As reported by Hawzah News Agency, the Political Jurisprudence Group of the Jurisprudential Center of the Pure Imams organized a specialized session titled “Distinctions Between the Discipline of International Relations and the Jurisprudence of International Relations.” Presented by Hujjat al-Islam Mojtaba Abd Khoda’i, head of the Political Jurisprudence Group at the Jurisprudential Center of the Pure Imams, the session was conducted in a hybrid in-person and webinar format.

During the session, Hujjat al-Islam Abd Khoda’i, head of the Political Jurisprudence Group at the Jurisprudential Center of the Pure Imams (peace be upon them), suggested that “interactions between the discipline of international relations and its jurisprudential counterpart” better captures the discussion’s essence. He structured his presentation around three axes: first, the scope of issues in the discipline of international relations; second, the scope of the jurisprudence of international relations; and third, the interrelations and mutual needs between these domains.

Elucidating the Scope of International Relations Through Micro and Macro Levels of Analysis

He commenced by outlining the historical contexts shaping international relations as an academic discipline, attributing its emergence to dual explanatory and prescriptive objectives. Regarding the scope of issues and research domains, he noted that the discipline’s boundaries are delineated by levels of analysis: micro-level analysis attributes international phenomena’s causes to the behavior of actor units and players; macro-level analysis locates causes within the international system itself, examining structural and procedural influences.

This seminary scholar elaborated: Corresponding to these levels, micro-level studies focus on unit events and performance, while macro-level studies address systemic structure and function. Accordingly, foreign policy pertains to micro issues, international politics to macro. Furthermore, investigating conflict and war causes constituted foundational concerns in the discipline’s formation, rendering international security a core topic.

The head of the Political Jurisprudence Group at the Jurisprudential Center of the Pure Imams (peace be upon them) highlighted economy and wealth’s significance in power dynamics, identifying international political economy as another key research domain.

He observed that, over the past four decades since the Islamic Revolution, religion, identity, and culture have emerged as pivotal influences, rendering secularism obsolete in international relations scholarship. Additional topics include environment, gender, poverty and injustice, colonialism, and domination.

Common Ground Among International Relations Theories

This religious researcher noted extensive theorizing in international relations, often marked by mutual contradictions, yet emphasized a shared foundation qualifying diverse theories as scientific: all concur that international events must be viewed theoretically—realities derive meaning solely through theoretical lenses—and all address identical core questions: What constitute international entities and phenomena? How are interactions structured, and what laws govern them? What causes war and conflict among units? On what basis form alliances, coalitions, friendships, and enmities? What laws regulate competition absent central authority? What formulas guide politics in anarchy?

Hujjat al-Islam Abd Khoda’i explained that each theoretical paradigm advances ideas responding to these questions, posing further inquiries within its framework. The Islamic theory of international relations similarly addresses these, drawing on selected core ideas to pose and resolve questions, seeking to comprehend political rules in anarchic international contexts.

He further distinguished the discipline’s theoretical scope (pursuing general formulas) from its practical scope (policy-making, planning, decision-making, and specific actions). Emphasizing their interconnection, he asserted that all theories engage practice, and no policy or action lacks theoretical underpinning—whether rigorously scientific or experientially incomplete. Thus, just as industry may diverge from science, policy-making risks non-scientific execution.

The Role of the Jurisprudence of International Relations Between “Value System” and “Calculation Logic”

Hujjat al-Islam Abd Khoda’i addressed: “What conception holds of the jurisprudence of international relations and jurisprudential knowledge, and what role does it play therein?” He replied: It must delineate the sharia status and duties of the legally responsible agent concerning international events, behaviors, situations, structures, processes, rules, and practices. Thus, it constitutes that branch of jurisprudence seeking knowledge of sharia rulings from detailed evidences regarding international phenomena.

He stressed: Given the discipline’s diverse domains, jurisprudential counterparts must develop in foreign policy, international politics, international security, international political economy, regional studies, and culture, identity, and ethnicity.

This seminary professor noted that every action possesses managerial and value foundations: knowledge governs the former, jurisprudence prescribes the latter. No action lacks value underpinnings; jurisprudence’s prescriptive role across policy-making, planning, decision-making, and execution stages is indispensable.

He contended: Viewing jurisprudence’s responsibility thus renders maximalist/minimalist debates or human expectations from religion meaningless.

Interrelations Between the Discipline and Jurisprudence of International Relations

Hujjat al-Islam Abd Khoda’i categorized interrelations as mutual assistance: the discipline aiding jurisprudence, and vice versa. He detailed jurisprudence’s needs in five areas:

1. Topic Identification: International relations topics, like many social issues, are complex, demanding specialized comprehension beyond encyclopedic definitions for valid sharia rulings. Contemporary entities—nuclear weapons, international organizations/treaties—require profound grasp of underlying logics (e.g., deterrence rendering nuclear arms diplomatic tools). Organizational functions defy simplistic contractual analogies (e.g., “fulfill covenants”).

Topic comprehension varies by theoretical frameworks. Faqihs must exercise ijtihād therein, not defer uncritically to “experts”—whose analytical rigor or compatibility with jurisprudential principles may be questionable or rooted in obsolete/incompatible theories.

2. Issue Identification: Jurisprudence requires the discipline for issue recognition across theoretical/practical domains (international politics, foreign policy, international political economy, security, regional studies), presenting general and specific issues necessitating sharia-based value frameworks.
3. Environment and Space Understanding: Impacts jurisprudential rulings multidimensionally: scientifically discerning hardship, necessity, compulsion, and secondary titles in complex governance; international anarchy and power logic shaping topic/issue comprehension and rulings, demanding distinct behavioral logics.
4. Power: Duty preconditions capability. Assessing legal agents’ (e.g., governments) power for specific duties requires objective scientific indicators.
5. Consequences: Actions entail consequences; where moderately and criteriologically influential in sharia duty deduction (complex/macro issues), the discipline identifies them.

At the session’s conclusion, Hujjat al-Islam Abd Khoda’i addressed the discipline’s needs from jurisprudence: Explanatory theory comprehends events and governing laws; normative theory seeks the ideal order and attainment path. Thus, the jurisprudence of international relations’ imperatives/prohibitions yield extractable value systems, aiding normative theory construction.