sovereignty

The relevance of the subject of this research is based on the need to find new ways of solving the problems of ongoing ethno-political conflicts in the post-Soviet space. The study is devoted to the problems of resolving the ethnopolitical conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh. The purpose of the study is to develop the principles for resolving the ethnopolitical conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh. The conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh remains relevant because of its incompleteness and the possibility of entering a dangerous stage of armed confrontation, which requires a continuous search for ways out of the situation. In this regard, there is a lot of research made on this matter from different positions. As a result of the study, the principles of resolving the ethnopolitical conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh were revealed. The significance of the study is due to the relevance of the problems of research of unrecognized states in conditions when their appearance on the world map is becoming more and more frequent.

By causing a serious gap in the optimistic literature on European integration processes, Brexit has provided numerous challenges for international relations theorists. In this regard, in the present article, three influential theories that best explain Brexit will be discussed: neorealism, constructivism, and the English school of international relations. Notwithstanding that both neorealism and constructivism are able to raise important issues, it seems that there are still certain shortcomings in the two theories in explaining Brexit. Neorealism relies too much on macro-analysis and material factors, and, on the other hand, constructivism tries to account for essential factors from the domestic or secondlevel analysis. Therefore, the paper's central question is how does the English School provide a convincing explanatory framework for understanding Brexit? In response to the question, the paper adopts a theoretical perspective to analyze and explain both the micro-level and macro-level of the Brexit phenomenon by utilizing the English School’s central assumptions: institutions, the great power status, pluralist-solidarist debate, and the balance of power. It is concluded that English School is able to explain Brexit more satisfactorily. According to the school’s assumptions, Brexit is not an oddity, but a natural consequence of internal and external equations in the United Kingdom.

The question of dominance in human thoughts was associated with the formation of the first governmental organizations in the history. In this direction, a fundamental question that emerged in political and legal realm is search for the origin of power and sovereignty of government. There are two viewpoints on this matter, namely the perspective of God's sovereignty and the viewpoint of people's dominance. This paper will study the concept of sovereignty along with its impressions, beside explanation of the meaning of political sovereignty, and theories related to it in the constitutional laws of the Islamic Republic of Iran.

This paper critically examines the international legal and political precedents surroundingthe principle of self-determination, beginning with the dissolution of Yugoslavia, particularlythe Kosovo War, and juxtaposes it with the global responses to analogous separatist claimsin Abkhazia, South Ossetia, Crimea, Luhansk, Donetsk, as well as the ongoing situations inPalestine and Somaliland. Through a comparative analysis of these cases, the paper exposesthe international community’s selective recognition of independence movements, wheresimilar claims are met with divergent responses based not on consistent legal standards buton geopolitical interests and strategic alignments. The study argues that the recognition ofKosovo as an independent state, despite bypassing the UN Security Council, has created aprecedent that is now invoked selectively to either support or delegitimize other secessionistclaims. This inconsistency reveals an underlying double standard in the application ofinternational law, wherein the principles of territorial integrity and self-determination areinstrumentalized to serve the hegemonic objectives of powerful states, thereby eroding thenormative coherence and credibility of the United Nations Charter and the internationallegal order it was designed to uphold.

This study examines the legal foundations, legitimacy, and effectiveness of Western sanctionsimposed on Russia in response to its actions in Ukraine. It assesses these measures underinternational law, evaluating their compliance with principles governing economic coercion,state sovereignty, and lawful enforcement. Through doctrinal analysis, the study explores thesanctions’ influence on Russia’s foreign policy and military strategy. Findings suggest thatwhile early sanctions induced considerable economic strain, Russia has adapted by diversifyingits economy and deepening trade relations with non-sanctioning states. Though often framedas lawful countermeasures under international law, the actual effectiveness of these sanctionsin constraining Russia’s military ambitions remains contested. The study identifies key legaland policy considerations affecting the impact of sanctions, including proportionality, globaleconomic interdependence, and the mitigating role of major powers such as China. Ultimately,this inquiry calls into question the long-term viability of both unilateral and multilateral sanctionsas reliable instruments of coercive diplomacy within the framework of international law.