Analyzing the behavioral pattern of US and UK in dealing with the Azerbaijan crisis from the perspective of World-systems theory

پژوهش نامه ایرانی سیاست بین الملل

Article 6, Volume 12, Issue 2 - Serial Number 24, June 2024, Pages 125-143   

Document Type: Original Article

DOI: 10.22067/irlip.2024.85193.1456

Authors

Javad haghgoo¹; Mohammad Radmard^{* 2}

¹Associate Professor, University of Tehran

²Assistant Professor of Political Science, University of Mazandaran

Abstract

 
crisis of Azerbaijan was an event that is very important to investigate. The beginning and the end of Azerbaijan's crisis can be discussed at three levels: individual level and emphasis on the actions of those such as Ja'far Pishevari and Ahmad Qavam, national level; The role of oppression of the first Pahlavi government to the people of Azerbaijan as the cause of the crisis and the approaches of national institutions (army, parliament and government) in ending it; And finally, the international level, where the role of the Allied leaders in World War II should be emphasized as an important factor in the beginning and end of the crisis.  In this regard, this article has tried to analyze this event in the framework of the international order and the confrontation of great powers. In this framework, the question that is investigated in this research is as follows: How can the similarities and differences between the behavior of the United States and UK in the Azerbaijan crisis be analyzed? This research emphasizes that considering that the Second World War is a time when the former hegemon gives its place to the new hegemon, within the framework of Wallerstein's World-systems theory and emphasizing the concept of hegemony, it is possible to compare the behavior pattern of the two great powers of the world in this event. In this framework, this article has investigated this important event with a comparative approach and through the collection of library data.
 
 
 

Keywords

Azerbaijan crisis; England; America; Soviet Union; Hegemon

References

Abrahamian, E. (2002). Iran Between Two Revolutions, Tehran: Markaz. (in Persian).
Abrahamian, E. (2012). A history of modern Iran, Translated by Mohammad Ebrahim
Fattahi, Tehran: Ney. (in Persian).
Aghabakhshi, A., & Afsharirad, M. (2004). A dictionary of political science, Tehran:
Chapar. (in Persian).
Ahmadi, H. (1997). structuralism in international relations theory; From Wallerstein to
Waltz, Politics quarterly, Vol.37, No.1063, 113-139. (in Persian).
Amini, A. (2002). Political and social developments of Iran during the Pahlavi era,
Tehran: Sedaye moaser. (in Persian).
Azimi, F. (1994). Iran the crisis of democracy, Translated by Abdoreza Hushang
Mahdawi & Bizhan Nowruzi, Tehran: Alborz. (in Persian).
Bill, J. (1992). The eagle and the lion: the tragedy of American - Iranian relation,
Translated by Foruzandeh Berelian, Tehran: Fakhteh. (in Persian)
Braudel, F. (2009). dynamique du capitalism, Translated by Mehran Payandeh et al,
Tehran: Ameh. (in Persian).
Fawcett, L. (1993). Iran and the cold war: The Azerbaijan crisis of 1946, Translated by
Kaveh Bayat, Tehran: mfa Publication. (in persian).
Foran, J. (2001). Fragile resistance: Social transformation in Iran from 1500 to the
revolution, Translated by Ahmad Tadayon, Tehran: Rasa. (in Persian).
Gasiorowski, M. (1992). U.S. Foreign policy and Shah, Translated by Fereydun Fatemi,
Tehran: Markaz. (in Persian).
Goldfrank, W. (2000). paradigm regained? The roles of wallerstein, s world-systems
method, journal of world system research, No. XI, pp. 95-150.
Hopkirk, P. (1999). The great game: the struggle for empire in central Asia, Translated by
Reza Kamshad, Tehran: Nilufar. (in Persian).
Jami. (2006). The past is the beacon of the future, Tehran: Qoqnoos. (in Persian).
Lalavy, M. (2008). England and the crisis in Azerbaijan, Journal of historical studies, No.
22, pp. 145-155. (in Persian).
Maghsudi, M. (2000). Social political developments in Iran 1941-1979, Tehran: Rozaneh.
(in Persian).
Moshirzadeh, H. (2006). World System Theory: Capabilities and Limitations of a Radical
Perspective, Politics quarterly, No. 71, pp. 253-276. (in Persian).
Rahmanian, D. (2019). Iran between two coups, Tehran: Samt. (in Persian).
Saei, A. (2009). Criticism and evaluation of world system theory: Proponents and critics,
Journal of Political Studies, No. 5, pp. 1-25. (in Persian).
Shawkat, H. (2008). Political life of Qawam al-Sultanah, Tehran: Akhtaran. (in Persian).
Smith, A. (2010). Dependency Theories and the Icelandic Pension Crisis, Journal of
Alternative Perspectives in the Social Sciences, Vol. 2, No. 1, pp. 446-454.
Smith, D. (2007). , Translated by Hashem aghajari. Tehran:The rise of historical sociology
Morvarid. (in Persian).
So, A. (2013). Social change and development: modernization, dependency, and -world
, Translated by Mahmud Habibi, Tehran: risstudies. (in Persian).systems theories
Stewart, R. (1991). Sunrise at abadan the British and Soviet invasion of Iran, 1941,
Translated by Abdoreza houshang mahdawi & Kaveh bayat. Tehran: Moein. (in Persian).

Sutton, E & Laurence, P. (1993). Persian oil: a study in power politics, Translated by
Reza Raeistousi, Tehran: Saberin. (in Persian).
Wallerstein, I. (2003). U.S. Weakness and the Struggle for Hegemony, MONTHLY
REVIEW, Vol. 53, Issue. 03.
Wallerstein, I. (2006). The Curve of American Power, New Left Review, pp. 77-94, at:
https://newleftreview.org/issues/ii40/articles/immanuel-wallerstein-the-curve-of-american-
power
Wallerstein, I. (2008). World-systems analysis: an introduction, Translated by Hossein
Askarian, Tehran: Abrar. (in persian).
Wallerstein, I. (2010). The world system after 1945, Eurozine, at:
https://www.eurozine.com/the-world-system-after-1945/