Abbas Mammad

Beynəlxalq Münasibətlər Assosiasiyasının 67-ci İllik Konvensiyası

---

International Studies Association 67th Annual Convention

The crisis involving the , , , and other actors reflects a persistent tension in international relations between power and law.

Implications of the U.S.–Israeli Strike on Iran The recent U.S.–Israeli military strike on Iran—conducted in the absence of an ongoing armed attack and without authorization from the United Nations Security Council—raises profound legal and geopolitical questions. At ...

Achieving a durable ceasefire in the conflict between and requires more than a temporary halting of hostilities. It demands a strategic framework that addresses the legitimate security concerns of all actors involved.

Toward a Sustainable Ceasefire Between Ukraine and Russia Achieving a durable ceasefire in the conflict between Ukraine and Russia requires more than a temporary halting of hostilities. It demands a strategic framework that addresses the legitimate security concerns of all acto...

The current trajectory of tensions between Iran, Israel, and the United States—with Russia and China in the wings—presents a perilous deadlock. Iran is unlikely to surrender its nuclear ambitions outright, just as the U.S. and its allies are unwilling to allow Tehran to cross the nuclear threshold unchallenged. , while militarily capable, cannot neutralize on its own, and Iran knows that a full-scale assault on Israel would invite direct intervention from Washington.

This is not a simple regional rivalry—it’s a precarious balancing act among global powers. If hostilities spiral into open war, the result won’t be a decisive victory for one side but a catastrophe for many. Civilian lives will be lost. Global markets will tremble. And international security, already fragile, could be shattered.

There is no short-term path to comprehensive victory, only the certainty of long-term suffering if diplomacy fails. As long as even the narrowest path to dialogue remains open, it must be pursued—not for the sake of any one nation’s supremacy, but for the sake of global stability and human life.

In an age of strategic ambiguity and nuclear thresholds, the greatest show of strength is restraint.

The United States, with its diplomatic reach, alongside the United Nations and responsible global actors, must take the lead in forging a renewed framework for dialogue. Their role is not merely to mediate but to prevent the collapse of a fragile peace and to champion solutions grounded in international law, mutual security, and shared humanity.

Achieving international peace and security is a formidable task, shaped by power dynamics and strategic calculations. Conflict often persists when one party perceives a power advantage, a strategic opportunity, and a net benefit in military aggression. Without a credible counterbalancing force—military, economic, or diplomatic—such aggression is likely to continue.

Realist scholars such as Hans Morgenthau and Kenneth Waltz emphasize that states act based on their interests and the structure of the international system. When power is unchallenged, aggressive actors are incentivized to continue their course. The ongoing Palestine-Israel conflict exemplifies this principle. Israel’s military operations in Gaza persist because there is no substantial counterbalancing force to deter further action. Without a shift in the strategic equilibrium—either through military deterrence or robust diplomatic and economic pressures—the cycle of violence is unlikely to abate.

Similarly, the Russia-Ukraine war highlights this challenge. Despite international calls for ceasefire, Russia’s operations continue because it still perceives a strategic advantage. Effective support for Ukraine is necessary to impose costs on Russia’s continued aggression. However, this support must be calibrated: excessive military backing may embolden Ukraine to pursue full territorial restoration, potentially prolonging hostilities, while insufficient support could allow Russia to achieve its objectives unopposed.

The key to lies in striking a balance—deterring aggression without exacerbating conflict. Through strategic diplomacy, economic pressures, and measured military support, the international community can influence actors to reassess the costs of war, making de-escalation the rational choice. While peace remains elusive, a nuanced and pragmatic approach offers the best path forward.

Elm adamları, xüsusən də politoloqlar öz emosiyalarını, şəxsi və ya siyasi kimliklərini tədqiqat və tədris işlərindən ayırmalıdırlar. Bunu etməmək onların işində qərəzlilik riskini artırır.

---

Scientists, especially political scientists, must detach their emotions and personal or political identities from their research and teaching. Failing to do so increases the risk of bias in their work.

The reliability of various polls in election forecasting should be seriously questioned. Consider how often scientists, think tanks, influential media organizations, and others have made significant errors in their predictions.

Amerika Siyasi Elmlər Assosiasiyasının 120-ci İllik Toplantısı və Sərgisi

---

120th American Political Science Association Annual Meeting and Exhibition

Ata

's military-economic superiority, along with a strategy of gradual destruction, is proving decisive in the conflict. For to counterbalance, it must either seek stronger support or consider a ceasefire to regain leverage, or it risks further losses.

Global polarization affects the effectiveness of the Security Council, which is the only organ with the authority to make decisions that member states are obligated to carry out under the UN Charter. This influence is particularly evident in the global community’s responses to conflicts, including those in , , and .

In light of this, the current global order, where the UN Security Council holds a pivotal role, requires substantial adjustments. Here are three potential scenarios for achieving more efficient global governance without relying on military intervention:

1. The “big five” must set aside their differences and unite around shared objectives for peace and security, thereby restoring the prestige of the Security Council.
2. The Security Council should undergo significant reforms, such as ensuring a more equitable distribution of power among member states and restructuring the “veto” procedure.
3. Consideration should be given to establishing an entirely new global order, one that would reconfigure international relations and law to preempt potential major conflicts.

The time to act is now, before it becomes too late to avert the next major catastrophe facing the world.

Aiming for global leadership requires great powers to abstain from taking sides that could escalate conflicts. Neglecting this imperative may result in a decline of the 's prestige, potentially allowing emerging powers such as to take on a more prominent role.