Strategic Studies Quarterly

Abstract The hegemonic state usually creates and maintains a hegemonic order in order to achieve its interests. Thus, preventing major and central wars has become the most important goal of the hegemonic state in the hegemonic order. In contrast to the hegemonic state, there are emerging powers that, according to the variables of satisfaction, role, ideology and power developments and the role they experience, try to create regional order in accordance with their principles and rules and are considered as a challenge to the hegemonic order. The question of this paper is what principles are the main strategies of emerging powers in the hegemonic order? In response to this question, and considering the assumption of power dynamics and the effect of role and satisfaction variables on the design of actors strategies in the international system, it is hypothesized that the proximity of emerging powers to hegemony leads to role changes in actors behaviors and this leads to contrastive behavioral patterns and seizing the power gap will lead to the aggressive and challenging policies of the dissatisfied emerging actor. This study tries to explain the strategies of emerging powers in the hegemonic order by focusing on the theories of power cycle, hegemonic stability and power transition.

Abstract

Although terroristic actions are similar to war and crime actions, however, in terms of legal nature of terrorism, adoption of each of them will lead to different implications.

If terrorism is seen through guilt actions, the terrorist and his/her behavior should be focused on, however, if it is taken as equal to war crimes, the evaluation and judgment should be based on group or network actions. Obviously, at the first level, a rule has been violated and therefore the perpetrator is punished, however, in case of the latter, like Al-Qaida, it has got cohesion and solidarity, with specific purpose and program, supported by some entities and more than that it attempts to resort to brutality on imposing a belief and finally to pretend itself beyond of a group or individual.  IN this paper, given war and crime actions, terrorism is weighed and then the findings will be applied on theGazaincident in the end of 2008.

Abstract There are a variety of theoretical outlooks on war, military power and security that deal with this subject from a specific and different perspective none of which provides appropriate answers to the proposed queries. In this article, the author explains war and military power from the viewpoint of grand theories of international relations including realism, liberalism and the world system and along with them, he also extrapolates the outlook of constructivists as the theorists of the fourth debate in international relations. Within this framework, realists give priority to military hardware power and view war as a natural order of affairs. In contrast, liberals do not regard war as the natural order of affairs and while considering software power, they maintain that stability and security may be established through expanded economic relationships, free trade and enlargement of international organizations, thus in this way war could be avoided. The world system theory also considers the exploitative economic relations and injustice in international relations as the root cause of war and insecurity. The constructivist school seeks to link material affairs with non-material ones in the category of security. This outlook focuses on the change in perspectives, interpretations and understandings, and establishes a direct relationship among identity, interests and security. We face a combination of such theories in analyzing security at the international level, because none of them is lonely able to explain security.