Search results

This paper examines the main drives of encouraging Iranian investors in the Turkish real estate market, focusing on the interface between push factors and pull factors that drive them abroad.

This paper examines the main drives of encouraging Iranian investors in the Turkish real estate market, focusing on the interface between push factors and pull factors that drive them abroad. For this purpose, the trend of housing price growth in Iran and Turkey was compared. The review of the 11-year trend of rates shows that housing prices in both countries have been continuously rising, and these prices have undoubtedly experienced increasing shocks in Iran. For further analysis, 13 main variables leading to the repulsion of investment in Iran's housing market and 15 variables shaping the attractiveness of investment in Turkey were identified in this sector. Thirty experts subsequently ranked the significant variables based on a closed-end questionnaire using quantitative strategic planning matrix. Examining housing investment elasticity in Turkey also shows that “Turkey's economic stability compared to neighboring countries” and “acquiring Turkish citizenship through real estate investment” are among the most important variables. On the other hand, the pressure variables of housing investment in Iran were “decrease in the value of the Iranian currency in recent years,” “currency price fluctuations” and “severe fluctuations and instability in the Iranian housing market.”

Examining housing investment elasticity in Turkey also shows that “Turkey's economic stability compared to neighboring countries” and “acquiring Turkish citizenship through real estate investment” are among the most important variables. On the other hand, the pressure variables of housing investment in Iran were “decrease in the value of the Iranian currency in recent years,” “currency price fluctuations” and “severe fluctuations and instability in the Iranian housing market.”

From a theoretical standpoint, foreign investment is in support of Turkey and harmful to Iran because the Turkish government is bolstering investment attractiveness to bring increased capital inflows into this country. Practically speaking, Turkey has aimed to create a rational framework for investors by strengthening and changing its economic system, as well as amending existing constitutions in this domain. Nevertheless, Iran resists any changes in its economic system and legislation. Therefore, a wide range of attractiveness and repulsion variables has led to the migration of Iranian investors to Turkey. In the present study, such variables are illuminated.

This study aims to define a “technological statecraft” concept to distinguish tech-based measures/sanctions from an array of economic measures ranging from restrictions of rare earth elements and natural gas supplies to asset freezes under the wider portfolio of economic statecraft. This concept is practically intended to reveal the USA’s “logic of choice” in its employment of technology as an efficient instrument to deal with China in the context of the great power rivalry.

This study follows David A. Baldwin’s statecraft definition and conceptualization methodology, which relies on “means” rather than “ends.” In addition to Baldwin and as an incremental contribution to his economic statecraft analysis, this study also combines national political economy with statecraft analysis with a particular focus on the utilization of technological measures against China during the Trump administration.

The US rationale for choosing technology, namely, emerging and foundational technologies, in its rivalry against China is caused at least by two factors: the nature of the external challenge and the characteristics of the US innovation model based largely on radical innovations. To deal with China, the USA practically distinguished the role of advanced technology and followed a grammer of technological statecraft as depicted in the promulgated legal texts during the Trump administration.

Despite a growing volume of literature on economic statecraft and technological competition, studies focusing on countries’ “logic of choice” with regard to why and under what conditions they choose financial, technological or commodity-based sanctions/measures/controls are lacking. Inspired from Baldwin’s account on the “logic of choice” from among alternative statecrafts (i.e. diplomacy, military, economic statecraft, and propaganda). This study will contribute to the literature with a clear lens to demonstrate the “logic of choice” from among a variety of economic statecraft measures in the case of the US technological statecraft toward China.

This paper aims to investigate technological innovations within the crypto space that have engendered novel financial crime risks and their potential utilization amidst geopolitical conflicts.

The theoretical paper uses an analysis of recent geopolitical events, with a key focus on using cryptocurrencies to undertake illicit activities.

The study found that cryptocurrencies and the innovations made within the crypto domain are used for both legitimate and illicit purposes, including money laundering, terrorism financing and sanction evasion.

This research contributes to understanding the critical role cryptocurrencies play amidst geopolitical conflicts and emphasizes the need for regulatory considerations to prevent their misuse. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this paper is the first scholarly contribution that considers the evolving mechanisms afforded by cryptocurrencies amidst geopolitical conflicts in undertaking illicit activities.

This paper aims to discuss the positioning of international organisations (IOs) in the realm of international law. It proposes a more robust approach, arguing IOs have legal obligations akin to states to the extent which could be fulfilled by them. This paper suggests making IOs parties to international treaties like the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), International Covenant on Economic Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) and Geneva Convention 1949 to codify their international responsibilities. In addition, it proposes amending multilateral treaties to grant IOs membership and create binding legal obligations for them, thereby enhancing the overall legal framework for IOs.

The paper opted for qualitative analytical approach of research by referring to international treaties and scholarly papers.

The authors have evaluated the bindingness of international law on IOs. The authors argue that jus cogens and customary international law are equally binding on IOs. However, treaties could only be binding on IOs to the extent of their consent. The authors have assessed prior violations of IOs. The authors argue that, to prevent such violations by IOs, creating obligations is the first step. Second, amendments are required in the existing international treaties that reflect the foundations of international humanitarian and international human rights law like the Geneva Convention 1949, ICCPR, and ICESCR, to permit IOs to join these treaties, resulting in binding international legal obligations.

The most prominent assertion of this paper is that IOs as subjects of international law are bound by the principles of international law, including treaty law with consent, customary international laws, general principles of law and peremptory norms. To fulfil these obligations, a regime needs to be introduced wherein amendment is made in treaties to make IOs parties to them and structuring the law on responsibility for IOs. Considering the multifaceted nature of IO, the role it performs in contemporary times requires them to be bound by rules of international law just like states. There is a need to settle their position in global governance and give them more teeth to understand and fulfil their duties to ensure smooth functioning in the long run.

The paper fulfils an identified gap in the positioning of IOs under the international law.

The purpose of this paper is to advance our understanding of international crisis mediation by introducing and examining the nested insider-partial mediator (NIPM) concept, a nuanced perspective on IPM behavior. This study challenges the traditional view of effective mediators as external, unbiased entities by delving into the behavior and contribution of mediators who are deeply embedded in the conflict environment, such as South Korea’s unique position in navigating the US–DPRK crisis in 2017–2018. By analyzing South Korea’s dual role as mediator and negotiator and its employment of both nondirective and directive mediation strategies, the paper demonstrates the potential effectiveness of NIPMs in managing complex biases and contributing to de-escalation in intense crisis scenarios.

This paper uses a focused single-case study approach to analyze South Korea’s role as an NIPM. Using a process-tracing methodology, it examines how contextual factors such as relationships, interests and inherent biases influenced South Korea’s mediation strategies in this complex geopolitical scenario. Empirical evidence was retrieved from public sources, including official statements and press interviews, providing an empirical foundation for understanding NIPM behavior. This approach facilitates a detailed study of South Korea’s unique mediation role within the intricate dynamics of the Korean Peninsula conflict.

The study’s findings illustrate the pivotal role NIPMs can play in complex international conflicts, underlining the significant potential of NIPMs in crisis prevention. The findings highlight South Korea’s adept navigation through intricate geopolitical dynamics, leveraging its unique insider position and established relationships with both the USA and North Korea. This behavior was instrumental in mitigating a potentially explosive situation, steering the crisis toward negotiation and de-escalation. The research underscores the effectiveness of the NIPM framework in understanding the nuanced behavior of mediators who are deeply integrated into multi-level conflicts, influenced by their connections, interests and inherent biases.

This research not only broadens the theoretical framework of insider-partial mediation by introducing the concept of NIPM, but also has practical implications for policymakers and practitioners in leveraging regional mediation strategies for international crisis mitigation. The study underscores the importance of mediators’ deep-rooted connections, biases and vested interests in influencing their mediation tactics, thus offering a comprehensive understanding of the multifaceted nature of international mediation in complex geopolitical conflicts.