To the extent that regulating international relations based on Shi’i jurisprudence is challenging, placing the chapter of the jurisprudence of international relations among the jurisprudential chapters also faces challenges. The jurisprudence of international relations encounters challenges both in definition and in its placement among the chapters of Contemporary Jurisprudence.
What emerges from the title of this jurisprudential chapter is that it addresses the rulings on relations among nations from the perspective of jurisprudence; however, the reality is that, if we do not say this jurisprudential chapter entirely deals with the rulings on relations among “states,” at least most of its issues revolve around relations among states. Perhaps this very factor has led to the title of this discipline and this jurisprudential chapter among Arabic speakers being “al-‘alaqat al-dawliyyah,” which explicitly pertains to relations among states. In any case, whatever title we assign to this jurisprudential chapter, it cannot be denied that the issues raised in it concern relations among nations, relations among states, and relations between nations and the states of other countries. However, relations between the state and the nation of each country are examined in the jurisprudence of politics or the jurisprudence of governance.
In this context, there is another discipline known as “international law,” which is entirely distinct from international relations; but is this distinction crystallized in “the jurisprudence of international relations” as well? In other words, are we confronted with two separate chapters in jurisprudence, namely “the jurisprudence of international relations” and “the jurisprudence of international law”? In the books written on the jurisprudence of international relations, as well as in the classification of chapters in Contemporary Jurisprudence that has thus far served as the basis for operations at the Research Institute for Contemporary Jurisprudence Studies, these two jurisprudential chapters have not been separated from one another; therefore, “the jurisprudence of international relations” encompasses the jurisprudential issues of international law as well. Of course, to address this challenge and the verbal ambiguity—given that “international relations” and “international law” are two independent academic disciplines—it may be appropriate to change the title of this jurisprudential chapter to “international jurisprudence” or “the jurisprudence of international affairs.”
Combining the issues of these two jurisprudential domains under a single chapter, although it resolves the challenge of placing these topics under one jurisprudential chapter, introduces a new issue: the excessive expansion of the chapter on “the jurisprudence of international affairs.” When the law of international waters alone comprises more than 100 articles, the totality of issues in international law, alongside those in international relations—which themselves entail a multitude of questions in relations among states and nations with one another—forms a jurisprudential chapter encompassing several thousand jurisprudential issues; a matter that, although unobjectionable in itself, leads to disparity among the chapters of Contemporary Jurisprudence. Perhaps the very fact that one jurisprudential chapter exhibits abnormal and extraordinary expansion compared to other chapters indicates that we are in fact dealing with multiple jurisprudential chapters under a single title, and combining these chapters under one unified title has been fundamentally mistaken.
In any case, “the jurisprudence of international affairs” is recognized as one of the chapters of Contemporary Jurisprudence; however, not everyone agrees with this. Evidence for this is that this jurisprudential chapter is either not mentioned at all in the titles of scientific groups within jurisprudential research institutions or is addressed under the title “political jurisprudence”; therefore, thus far, there has been no consensus among jurisprudents regarding the independence or subsidiary status of the jurisprudence of international affairs among jurisprudential chapters.
All this is in addition to the various challenges that each of the issues in the jurisprudence of international relations entails, as well as the novel issues that are added to this jurisprudential chapter every day.
The totality of these ambiguities and challenges prompted the Research Institute for Contemporary Jurisprudence Studies to title one of its electronic journals “The Jurisprudence of International Relations: Essence, Dimensions, and Challenges.”
The first chapter of this journal is dedicated to elucidating the essence and dimensions of this jurisprudential chapter. Ayatollah Seyyed Nur al-Din Shari’atmadar Jazayiri, who wrote an article on this topic years ago; Dr. Seyyed Mohammad Sadati-Nejad, who has authored a three-volume collection under this title; and Hujjat al-Islam wal-Muslimeen Dr. Mansour Mir-Ahmadi, who has been engaged in teaching and research in this field for years, presented their views on the essence of this jurisprudential chapter.
As mentioned in the lines above, the jurisprudence of international relations has similar concepts, such as the jurisprudence of international law, and it is necessary to precisely clarify its differences from these similar concepts. Dr. Sadati-Nejad, Dr. Majid Mobaleghi, and Dr. Abdulwahhab Farati, in three separate interviews, presented three different approaches in this regard.
The articulation of the headings and the network of issues in this jurisprudential chapter has been addressed in the third chapter of this journal. Two professors of political thought familiar with its international orientation, in two interviews, outlined the headings and the most important issues of this jurisprudential chapter.
It can perhaps be said that the root of many disagreements in the fatwas of jurists concerning international relations lies in their jurisprudential foundations and presuppositions. These foundations and presuppositions were discussed in three interviews with three professors and experts in the jurisprudence of international relations.
One of the most important tasks required for establishing and consolidating a nascent jurisprudential chapter is the production and development of its jurisprudential rules. In the fifth chapter of this journal, Hujjat al-Islam wal-Muslimeen Dr. Mas’ud Ra’i, professor at Najafabad University in Isfahan, and Hujjat al-Islam Dr. Mohammad Malekzadeh, assistant professor at the Research Institute of Islamic Culture and Thought, in two separate interviews, mentioned some of these rules.
Indeed, one of the most challenging chapters in Contemporary Jurisprudence is the jurisprudence of international relations. In the seventh chapter, through interviews with Dr. Rezaei-Nejad, Dr. Sadeq Haqiqat, and Amin Rezaei-Nejad, these challenges have been addressed.
The jurisprudence of international relations is not the only deductive and jurisprudential system among religions that addresses this topic. The question now is whether Islamic jurisprudence of international relations introduces new contributions, innovations, and solutions for regulating international relations that the jurisprudence of other religions has not articulated. The former deputy for international affairs at the Research Institute of Islamic Sciences and Culture, who has extensive experience in the international arena, discusses this topic.
Many confuse the chapter “jurisprudence of international relations” with an international approach to the discipline of jurisprudence, whereas the former is a jurisprudential chapter and the latter is an approach to all chapters and issues in jurisprudence. The jurisprudence of international relations only organizes relations among states and nations, but an international approach to jurisprudence influences even the chapters on acts of worship. In the eighth chapter, which addresses this topic, Dr. Kiani-Nejad and Dr. Akhavan Sarraf have outlined the requisites of this approach, and Dr. Farati has critiqued the approach of jurisprudence of international issues.
The ninth chapter explores the future of the jurisprudence of international relations. Dr. Tayyebeh Mohammadi Kia, who holds a PhD in international relations, and Dr. Kiani-Nejad, in two separate interviews, discussed their vision of the future of this jurisprudential chapter.
The final chapter of this journal, like other electronic journals of the Research Institute for Contemporary Jurisprudence Studies, is dedicated to the background of this jurisprudential chapter. The index of jurisprudential and legal articles on the jurisprudence of international relations, the index of books on the jurisprudence of international relations, and detailed reports on two important books written on this jurisprudential chapter constitute the sections of the tenth chapter of this journal.
It is hoped that this modest effort will count as a step toward the development and deepening of contemporary Shi’i jurisprudence and will bring about the satisfaction of our master, Imam al-Zaman (may Allah hasten his reappearance), Amen.