Conference Program

In March 2023 Iran and Saudi Arabia agreed to normalize diplomatic relations which had been severed in 2016. The event caught the attention of the international community due to the mediation of China. The United States, the main security guarantor of the region, did not participate in talks. As such, the increasing role of Beijing in the Middle East and gradual disengagement of Washington from the region is perceived as a change in the Middle Eastern order. Also, recently the region has been affected by the war between Hamas and Israel, having a detrimental effect on security in the Middle East.

Iran and Saudi Arabia’s position in the region are diversified. Authorities in Teheran are facing domestic economic and political problems due to imposed international sanctions, while the latter is pursuing an innovative vision which aims at transforming Saudi Arabia into a modern state. For years Iran-Saudi relations have been dominated by rivalry and enmity. Despite the unresolved problems between the states, the normalization deal can be considered a chance to reduce hostility and enhance bilateral ties.

The aim of the paper is to analyze the current state of Iran-Saudi relations amid ongoing war between Israel and Hamas and other disputes. It intends to assess Iran and Saudi Arabia’s role in ensuring stability in the Middle East vis-a-vis impact of Israel on the regional order. It is necessary to consider factors such as great powers’ role in the region, domestic and regional challenges, and ongoing war in the Middle East.

In the realm of global governance, the influence of gender inequality on international security has often been overlooked. This paper explores the proposition that domestic gender inequality might be a significant predictor of a state's international crisis behavior, particularly from the perspective of the Global South. The traditional dichotomy of 'peaceful women' versus 'conflictual men' oversimplifies the complex interplay between gender dynamics and global security. This paper delves into the growing body of literature that connects gender-based violence and the outbreak of violent conflicts, arguing that gender inequality within a nation can be a critical factor in shaping its foreign policy and crisis behavior. Using a combination of the premises from Feminist International Relations Theory, this paper examines how asymmetrical power dynamics, especially prevalent in the Global South, contribute to differing perceptions and realities of gender roles in governance and conflict. In this context, the paper scrutinizes the traditional ways of looking at international conflict and explores non-Western International Relations theories to better understand and address global challenges. By focusing on the intersection of gender politics, human rights, and international relations from a Global South viewpoint, this paper aims to provide a nuanced understanding of international security concerns.

The article analyses the establishment process, led by Brazil, of the Zone of Peace and Cooperation of the South Atlantic (ZOPACAS). The empirical data analysed focuses on dispatches and telegrams from the Brazilian Foreign Ministry Archives and documents from the United Nations Digital Library, providing a detailed consideration of the negotiations, meetings and steps taken by Brazil in the lead up to the official establishment of the ZOPACAS by the United Nations General Assembly in 1986. This article is significant in demonstrating the manner in which Brazil sought to ensure its interests were upheld, prior to, and during the drafting of commitments included in the founding Declaration of the ZOPACAS, A/Res/41/11. It also provides an understanding of how Brazil’s membership of the ZOPACAS, a maritime zone of peace, began. In the context of a recent return of the ZOPACAS, with the Mindelo (2023) ministerial meeting, to the South Atlantic’s geopolitical stage, I seek to determine and demonstrate the international and geopolitical scenario around the time of the establishment of the ZOPACAS.

The seven states of Northeast India are connected to mainland India via the narrow Siliguri Corridor which is 20 to 22 kilometers. In comparison, they share a larger border with China; 1126 km in Arunachal Pradesh and 220 km in Sikkim. Therefore, China’s influence on their economy and security cannot be ignored. The Northeastern region is of strategic significance to the bilateral relation between China and India factoring in China’s claim to Arunachal Pradesh and its renaming of 15 places in the state. China’s plans of diverting the Yarlung Tsangpo River (Brahmaptra River in Assam) is a cause for concern. Attempts can be made to trace China’s involvement in the insurgencies in Northeast India. Small arms and ammunitions that are made in China reaches northeast India through transit countries like Myanmar and Bangladesh. The stapled visas controversy in which China refused to grant visas to officials from Arunachal Pradesh and stapled Visas to non-official is a blatant disrespect of India’s sovereign power over Arunachal Pradesh. The Northeastern region is geographically isolated, its terrain makes accessibility to other parts of the country difficult. In fact, due to its porous borders, it has easier access to Myanmar and China. Therefore, China can effortlessly affect India’s link to South East Asia and ASEAN Countries through this gateway. India has been looking to develop this economically backward region through Look East and Act East Policy. This paper seeks to analyze the different ways China affects the security dynamics in the Northeastern region

The approach to stabilization within the context of UN peacekeeping operations has come under scrutiny from recipient states like the Democratic Republic of Congo and Mali, to the extent that they are now calling for the demobilization of stabilization missions, even amidst a backdrop of increasing instability within their territories. Addressing the numerous questions arising from these events, this article aims to tackle two key inquiries: how does the lack of clarity on the norms and rules of stabilization within the United Nations contribute to this legitimacy crisis? With these dissenting movements reaching their peak in 2023, how might expressions from the Global South regarding the stabilization and transformation of peacekeeping operations, particularly as manifested through statements from non-permanent Security Council members, contribute to approaches more closely aligned with the complex realities of the conflicts at hand? For the analysis of contributions from the Global South, this article focuses on the engagements of Brazil, India, and South Africa in the United Nations Security Council between 2004 and 2023.