Morgenthau outlines the “six principles of political realism” as follows:
• Politics is governed by objective laws which have their root in human nature.
• The key to understanding international politics is the concept of interest defined in terms of power.
• The forms and nature of state power will vary in time, place and context but the concept of interest remains consistent.
• Universal moral principles do not guide state behavior, although this does not rule out an awareness of the moral significance of political action.
• Moral aspirations are specific to a particular nation; there is no universally agreed set of moral principles.
• The political sphere is autonomous

Structural realism emphasizes four core elements of international politics:
• States are seen as rational actors and by far the most important actors in the international system.
• The international system is anarchic; there is no international authority that can prevent the use of force between states.
• Each state cannot take its security for granted and thus, is responsible for ensuring its own survival, most notably through the nurturing of material capabilities.
• The balance of power (the formation of alliances with certain states to counter the threat of other states) is the defining mechanism that regulates the international system and explains war and peace

September 11 and the wider threat of terrorism has highlighted the emergence of new security challenges that are particularly problematic because they arise from non-state actors and exploit the greater interconnectedness of the modern world. International security may, therefore, have given way to ‘global’ security.

The stress on interdependence that is basic to commercial liberalism has been further developed by neoliberals into what Keohane and Nye (1977) called complex interdependence. Complex interdependence reflects the extent to which peoples and governments in the modern world are affected by what happens elsewhere, and particularly by the actions of their counterparts in other countries. This applies not only in the economic realm, through the advance of globalization, but is also evident in relation to a range of other issues, including climate change, development and poverty reduction, and human rights.

“In the modern world, states, therefore, compete through trade rather than through the use of force. The realist understanding of hard power which encompasses both military and economic power is declined. Hard power is ‘command power’, the ability to change what others do through the use of inducements (carrots) or threats (sticks). By contrast, there has been a growth in soft power. Soft power is co-optive power; it rests on the ability to shape the preferences of others by attraction rather than coercion. Whereas hard power draws on resources such as force, sanctions, payments and bribes, soft power operates largely through culture, political ideals and foreign policies (especially when these are seen to be attractive, legitimate or to possess moral authority)”

Critical Security Studies is an academic discipline within security studies which rejects mainstream approaches such as realism and neorealism.
In May 1994, a small conference was held at York University in Toronto entitled Strategies and Conflict: Critical Approaches to Security Studies. It brought together from around the world a variety of scholars with interests in security and with concern about new security studies in the early post-Cold War era. This conference title was used as the title of the book, edited by Keith Krause and Michael C. Williams. In their 1997 book, Critical Security Studies: Concept and Cases, Krause and Williams suggested a broad definition of critical security studies which covered all “new approaches” from Constructivism through Feminism and “Copenhagen School” to Poststructuralism.
Krause and Williams helped shape critical security studies as a pluralistic field. In addition, they pose such questions to open a broad and complex agenda for security studies. Questioning the referent object of security, ‘who or what is to be secured’, Krause and Williams challenged the traditional state-centric understanding of security and instead put forward the individual as the object of security.
The term Critical Security Studies is also used to refer to the coherent theoretical school created mostly by the endeavor of Professors Ken Booth and Richard Wyn Jones, Andrew Linklater and their colleagues from the Aberystwyth University. Booth and Wyn Jones developed a brand of ‘Critical Security Studies’ that challenged the definition of security in terms of military threats to the state, and instead linked the study of security to human emancipation.
Critical Security Studies contributes to security studies by broadening and deepening the concept of security. T

Key Concepts in Critical Security Studies
Referent Object: It is an object that is taken as the focus for analysis in security studies. As to this concept, there are two main approaches to the security: state-centric security (the state is the referent object) and human-centric approach (human is the referent object).
Traditional Security Studies: It refers to Realist, Liberal, Peace Studies and Strategic Studies perspectives in the study of security. All of them prioritize the state as the referent object of security and focus on military threats to the security of the state.
Broadening: The broadening security agenda refers to Barry Buzan’s sectoral analysis that the security agenda includes not only military sector issues but also political, economic, societal and environmental issues.
Deepening: The state is not only the referent object of security but it also includes human individuals, institutions and groups.
Positivism: It claims that social sciences can be built upon the same model as natural sciences. Scientific principles such as objectivity, verification/falsification, and generalization can adapt to the study of society.
Post-Positivism: It rejects the idea that it is possible to analyze the natural world and the social world in the same way. There is no objective view

The Welsh School is a name that it is attributed to the security studies school at the Aberystwyth University. The Welsh School has been one of the leading critical security schools and it draws all the attention with the contributions of the scholars such as Ken Booth, Richard Wyn Jones, Andrew Linklater, and Pınar Bilgin. The school criticizes the approach of Traditional Security Studies that locates its analysis on a state as a central concern of the study and declares that traditional security approaches are not sufficient for the security needs of today.
Bary Buzan is a scholar from the Copenhagen School.

The Copenhagen School of security studies emerged at the Conflict and Peace Research Institute (COPRI) of Copenhagen. Its most prominent scholars are Barry Buzan, Ole Waever and Jaap de Wilde. They all claim that traditional methods are inadequate to describe the current security needs. Their main argument is the necessity of ‘broadening and widening’ the security agenda. In the school’s primary book, Security: A New Framework for Analysis (1998) Buzan, Waever and Wilde have built two important conceptual contributions to the study of security. Barry Buzan’s notion of sectoral analysis of security and Ole Waever’s concepts of securitization and societal security are the significant contributions of the Copenhagen School.

The Paris School treats security as a social construction as opposed to objective reality. It is argued that security is the result of what it refers to an (in) securitization process. The school questions the understanding of security as survival and as a positive value.

Realism defines international relations in terms of power.

Structural realism emphasizes four core elements of international politics:
• States are seen as rational actors and by far the most important actors in the international system.
• The international system is anarchic; there is no international authority that can prevent the use of force between states.
• Each state cannot take its security for granted and thus, is responsible for ensuring its own survival, most notably through the nurturing of material capabilities.
• The balance of power (the formation of alliances with certain states to counter the threat of other states) is the defining mechanism that regulates the international system and explains war and peace.

Self-help refers to a state’s reliance on its own capacities and resources, rather than external support, to ensure security and survival.

In ancient Greece, Thucydides wrote on the Peloponnesian War (431-404 B.C.), focusing on relative power among the Greek city-states. Power is regarded as a zero-sum game. According to the zero-sum game, “the actors in the international system must deprive one another of their power in order to add it to their own” (Molloy, 2006). This is not one of the six principles.

Offensive realism is a form of structural realism that portrays states as ‘power maximizers’, as there is no limit to their desire to control the international environment.

British scholar Susan Strange (1996) offers Structural Power Thoeory and defines it as “the power to decide how things shall be done, the power to shape frameworks within which states relate to one another, relate to people or relate to corporate enterprises”. She distinguishes between four primary power structures: • The knowledge structure, which influences actor’s beliefs, ideas or perceptions; • The financial structure, which controls access to credit or investment; • The security structure, which shapes defence and strategic issues; • The production structure, which affects economic development and prosperity

Bandwagon is to side with a stronger power in the hope of increasing security and influence; ‘jumping on the bandwagon’.

Liberalism has three different forms:
• Republican Liberalism
• Interdependence Liberalism
• Liberal Institutionalism

Having emerged in the 1980s, democratic peace theory is based on an assumption that there is an intrinsic link between peace and democracy; in particular, that democratic states do not go to war with one another.

Hard power is the ability of one actor (usually but not necessarily a state) to influence another through the use of threats or rewards, typically involving military ‘sticks’ or economic ‘carrots’.

Critical Security Studies (CSS) is an umbrella term for a range of approaches which seek to challenge the orthodoxy of ‘traditional’ security studies. Critical approaches apply post-positivist perspectives such as critical theory and post-structuralism and change the referent object of security.

Ole Waever and Barry Buzan along with other colleagues at the Copenhagen Peace Research Institute (COPRI) have introduced the concept of ‘securitization’ which emphasizes the role of threat discourses in the social construction of security.

Realism defines international relations in terms of power. The exercise of power by states toward each other is called power politics (Pevehouse and Goldstein, 2014). There are two main approaches of realism: classical realism that considers power politics in terms of egoism and neorealism, or structural realism, that explains power politics in terms of anarchy (Heywood, 2011).

Morgenthau outlines the “six principles of political realism” as follows:
• Politics is governed by objective laws which have their root in human nature.
• The key to understanding international politics is the concept of interest defined in terms of power.
• The forms and nature of state power will vary in time, place and context but the concept of interest remains consistent.
• Universal moral principles do not guide state behavior, although this does not rule out an awareness of the moral significance of political action.
• Moral aspirations are specific to a particular nation; there is no universally agreed set of moral principles.
• The political sphere is autonomous (Heywood, 2011).

Structural realism emphasizes four core elements of international politics:
• States are seen as rational actors and by far the most important actors in the international system.
• The international system is anarchic; there is no international authority that can prevent the use of force between states.
• Each state cannot take its security for granted and thus, is responsibleforensuring its own survival, most notably through the nurturing of material capabilities.
• The balance of power (the formation of alliances with certain states to counter the threat of other states) is the defining mechanism that regulates the international system and explains war and peace.

Self-help refers to a state’s reliance on its own capacities and resources, rather than external support, to ensure security and survival.
Security dilemma arises from the fact that a build-up of military capacity for defensive
reasons by one state is always liable to be interpreted as aggressive by other states.
The concept of relative gains refers to the position of states in relation to one another, reflected in the distribution of benefits and capabilities between and amongst them.
Offensive realism is a form of structural realism that portrays states as ‘power maximizers’, as there is no limit to their desire to control the international
environment.
Defensive realism is a form of structural realism that views states as ‘security maximizers’, placing the desire to avoid attack above a bid for World power

British scholar Susan Strange (1996) offers Structural Power Thoeory and defines it as “the power to decide how things shall be done, the power to shape frameworks within which states relate to one another, relate to people or relate to corporate enterprises”. She distinguishes between four primary power structures:
• The knowledge structure, which influences actor’s beliefs, ideas or perceptions;
• The financial structure, which controls access to credit or investment;
• The security structure, which shapes defence and strategic issues;
• The production structure, which affects economic development and prosperity.

Referent Object: It is an object that is taken as the focus for analysis in security studies. As to this concept, there are two main approaches to the security: state-centric security (the state is the referent object) and human-centric approach (human is the referent object).
Traditional Security Studies: It refers to Realist, Liberal, Peace Studies and Strategic Studies perspectives in the study of security. All of them prioritize the state as the referent object of security and focus on military threats to the security of the state.
Broadening: The broadening security agenda refers to Barry Buzan’s sectoral analysis that the security agenda includes not only military sector issues but also political, economic, societal and environmental issues.
Deepening: The state is not only the referent object of security but it also includes human individuals, institutions and groups.
Positivism: It claims that social sciences can be built upon the same model as natural sciences. Scientific principles such as objectivity, verification/falsification, and generalization can adapt to the study of society.
Post-Positivism: It rejects the idea that it is possible to analyze the natural world and the social world in the same way. There is no objective view (Peoples and Vaughan-Williams, 2010:4).

Security regions can be regarded as miniature systems of international politics where all International Relations theories can be applied such as alliance theory, polarity, and balance of power etc. A regional security complex is is based on four components as follows:
1. Regional boundaries, which differentiate itself from its neighbors.
2. Regional anarchical system, which consists of two or three independents states
3. Power differences among countries in the region,
4. The patterns of amity and enmity (Buzan and Waever, 2003: 53).

Military Sector refers to the two-level interplay between the armed offensive capacity and defensive capabilities of states and their perceptions of each other’s intentions. It is about relationships of forceful coercion. Here the referent object can be states.
Political Sector means the regime type of states and their ideologies that provide them with legitimacy and authority. It is related to authority, governing status and recognition. In this sector, the referent object can be national sovereignty or an ideology.
Economical Sector shows the welfare of the state and its access to natural resources and financial markets. It concerns trade, production, and finance. Its referent object refers to national economies.
Societal Sector relates to national identity, sustainable culture, customs, and religion. It is about relationships of collective identity. The referent object here is collective identities.
Environmental Sector includes the maintenance of the planetary biosphere. It refers to the relationship between human activity and planetary biosphere. Its referent object is species or habitats (Buzan, Waever, and Wilde, 1998: 8)

Thomas Hobbes is the writer of Leviathan.

Morgenthau outlines the “six principles of
political realism” as follows:
• Politics is governed by objective laws which
have their root in human nature.
• The key to understanding international
politics is the concept of interest defined in
terms of power.
• The forms and nature of state power will
vary in time, place and context but the
concept of interest remains consistent.
• Universal moral principles do not guide state
behavior, although this does not rule out
an awareness of the moral significance of
political action.
• Moral aspirations are specific to a particular
nation; there is no universally agreed set of
moral principles.
• The political sphere is autonomous
(Heywood, 2011).

Structural realism emphasizes four core
elements of international politics:
• States are seen as rational actors and
by far the most important actors in the
international system.
• The international system is anarchic;
there is no international authority that can
prevent the use of force between states.
• Each state cannot take its security for
granted and thus, is responsibleforensuring
its own survival, most notably through the
nurturing of material capabilities.
• The balance of power (the formation of
alliances with certain states to counter
the threat of other states) is the defining
mechanism that regulates the intern

Security dilemma arises from the fact that
a build-up of military capacity for defensive
reasons by one state is always liable to be
interpreted as aggressive by other states.
The concept of relative gains refers to the
position of states in relation to one another,
reflected in the distribution of benefits and
capabilities between and amongst them

Susan Strange distinguishes between
four primary power structures:
• The knowledge structure, which influences
actor’s beliefs, ideas or perceptions;
• The financial structure, which controls
access to credit or investment;
• The security structure, which shapes defence
and strategic issues;
• The production structure, which affects
economic development and prosperity.

Bandwagon is to side with a stronger
power in the hope of increasing security and
influence; ‘jumping on the bandwagon’

Liberal institutionalism is an approach to
study that emphasizes the role of institutions (both
formal and informal) in the realization of liberal
principles and goals. Liberal institutionalism
rejects a realist argument that international
politics is a struggle for power in which military
security issues are the top priority. In fact, the chief
‘external’ mechanism that liberals believe is needed
to constrain the ambitions of sovereign states is
international organizations. This reflects the ideas
of what is called liberal institutionalism.

Hard power is the ability of one actor (usually
but not necessarily a state) to influence
another through the use of threats or
rewards, typically involving military ‘sticks’ or
economic ‘carrots’. Soft power is the ability to
influence other actors by persuading them to
follow or agree to norms and aspirations that
produce the desired behavior.

Referent Object: It is an object that is taken as
the focus for analysis in security studies. As to
this concept, there are two main approaches to
the security: state-centric security (the state is
the referent object) and human-centric approach
(human is the referent object).

Postmodernism is an intellectual tradition
that is based on the belief that truth is always
contested and plural; sometimes summed up as
‘incredulity towards metanarratives’ (Lyotard,
1984).

Critical Security Studies (CSS) is an umbrella term for a range of approaches which seek to challenge the orthodoxy of ‘traditional’ security studies. Critical approaches apply post-positivist perspectives such as critical theory and post-structuralism and change the referent object of security. Doğrucevap " A " dır.

Realism defines international relations in terms of power. The exercise of power by states toward each other is called power politics (Pevehouse and Goldstein, 2014). There are two main approaches of realism: classical realism that considers power politics in terms of egoism and neorealism, or structural realism, that explains power politics in terms of anarchy (Heywood, 2011). Doğru cevap " B " dir.
DÜZELTME HAKKINDA
Soruda tanımlama kısmında "and neorealism " ya da structural realism ikincisini karşılıyor. Dolayısıyla gerekli düzeltmeyi yaptım. Seçenek doğru, " B " dir.

Morgenthau outlines the “six principles of political realism” as follows:
• Politics is governed by objective laws which have their root in human nature.
• The key to understanding international politics is the concept of interest defined in terms of power.
• The forms and nature of state power will vary in time, place and context but the concept of interest remains consistent.
• Universal moral principles do not guide state behavior, although this does not rule out an awareness of the moral significance of political action.
• Moral aspirations are specific to a particular nation; there is no universally agreed set of moral principles.
• The political sphere is autonomous (Heywood, 2011). Doğru cevap " C " dir.

Structural realism emphasizes four core elements of international politics:
• States are seen as rational actors and by far the most important actors in the
international system.
• The international system is anarchic; there is no international authority that can prevent the use of force between states.
• Each state cannot take its security for granted and thus, is responsible for ensuring its own survival, most notably through the nurturing of material capabilities.
• The balance of power (the formation of alliances with certain states to counter the threat of other states) is the defining mechanism that regulates the international system and explains war and peace. Doğru cevap " D " dir.

“Liberalism’s mentions on peace and international harmony. Liberals believe that the external behaviour of a state is crucially influenced by its political and constitutional make-up. This is reflected in a tradition of republican liberalism that can be traced back to Woodrow Wilson, if not to Kant. Doğru cevap " E " dir.

Critical Security Studies is an academic discipline within security studies which rejects mainstream approaches such as realism and neorealism. In May 1994, a small conference was held at York University in Toronto entitled Strategies and Conflict: Critical Approaches to Security Studies. Doğru cevap " A " dır.

Thinking about security in terms of sectors has widened the agenda of security. Buzan examines the dynamics of security in five sectors: military, political, economic, environmental and societal. Each sector is identified with specific types of interaction and determined by securitizing actors and referent objects. Doğru cevap " B " dir.

Since the late 1980s, major IR theories have been challenged by critical perpectives. Critical perspectives vary remarkably. The most prominent critical theories in IR are as follows:
• Marxism and Neo-Marxism
• Critical Theory
• Poststructuralism/Postmodernism
• Social constructivism
Doğru cevap " C " dir.

Postmodernism is an intellectual tradition that is based on the belief that truth is always contested and plural; sometimes summed up as ‘incredulity towards metanarratives’ (Lyotard, 1984). Doğru cevap " D " dir.

Social constructivism focuses on the nature of norms, identity, and social interactions. The constructivist approach is based on the belief that there is no objective social or political reality independent of our understanding of it. Constructivists hold that these state identities are complex and changing, and arise from interactions with other states-often through a process of socialization (Pevehouse and Goldstein, 2014). Doğru cevap " E " dir.

The roots of realism can be traced back to ancient times. Chinese strategist Sun Tzu advised the rulers of states on how to survive in an era when the war had become a systematic instrument of power for the first time (Chatturvedi, 2005). In ancient Greece, Thucydides wrote on the Peloponnesian War (431-404 B.C.), focusing on relative power among the Greek city-states. Power is regarded as a zero-sum game. According to the zero-sum game, “the actors in the international system must deprive one another of their power in order to add it to their own” (Molloy, 2006).

The notion of national interest has underpinned foreign policy since the advent of the Westphalian system. As posited by Morgenthau, “objectives of a foreign policy must be defined in terms of the national interest” (Morgenthau, 1960). He defines the national interest “in terms of power” (1993). That means power is the ultimate result and cause of the national interest taking its roots from the will to power inherent in human nature. Whatever the ultimate aims of international politics, power is always the immediate aim. Therefore, international politics is a struggle for power (Morgenthau, 1993).

For realism, the state is the most important actor in the international system and is, therefore, the primary unit of analysis. The state, as an actor, must ensure its survival in a self-help situation. Survival becomes the first objective of the state.

Self-help refers to a state’s reliance on its own capacities and resources, rather than external support, to ensure security and survival. Security dilemma arises from the fact that a build-up of military capacity for defensive reasons by one state is always liable to be interpreted as aggressive by other states. The concept of relative gains refers to the position of states in relation to one another, reflected in the distribution of benefits and capabilities between and amongst them. Offensive realism - Defensive realism Offensive realism is a form of structural realism that portrays states as ‘power maximizers’, as there is no limit to their desire to control the international environment. Defensive realism is a form of structural realism that views states as ‘security maximizers’, placing the desire to avoid attack above a bid for World power

British scholar Susan Strange (1996) offers Structural Power Thoeory and defines it as “the power to decide how things shall be done, the power to shape frameworks within which states relate to one another, relate to people or relate to corporate enterprises”. She distinguishes between four primary power structures: • The knowledge structure, which influences actor’s beliefs, ideas or perceptions; • The financial structure, which controls access to credit or investment; • The security structure, which shapes defence and strategic issues; • The production structure, which affects economic development and prosperity.

Adler and Barnett (1998) emphasize the potential impact of institutions, values and identities even in the high politics of international security. The concept of security communities is an attempt to find a remedy for the insecurity of states in the international arena. It is thus related to the concept of collective security, in the sense that security communities aim to provide collective security for members

Having emerged in the 1980s, democratic peace theory is based on an assumption that there is an intrinsic link between peace and democracy; in particular, that democratic states do not go to war with one another. Relied on a Kantian logic, democratic peace emphasizes three core elements, namely republican democratic representation, and ideological commitment to human rights, and transnational interdependence

Key Concepts in Critical Security Studies
Referent Object: It is an object that is taken as the focus for analysis in security studies. As to this concept, there are two main approaches to the security: state-centric security (the state is the referent object) and human-centric approach (human is the referent object). Traditional Security Studies: It refers to Realist, Liberal, Peace Studies and Strategic Studies perspectives in the study of security. All of them prioritize the state as the referent object of security and focus on military threats to the security of the state. Broadening: The broadening security agenda refers to Barry Buzan’s sectoral analysis that the security agenda includes not only military sector issues but also political, economic, societal and environmental issues. Deepening: The state is not only the referent object of security but it also includes human individuals, institutions and groups. Positivism: It claims that social sciences can be built upon the same model as natural sciences. Scientific principles such as objectivity, verification/falsification, and generalization can adapt to the study of society. Post-Positivism: It rejects the idea that it is possible to analyze the natural world and the social world in the same way. There is no objective view (Peoples and Vaughan-Williams, 2010:4)

Type of Security: Examples of Main Threats
Food Security: Hunger, famine
Health Security: Lack of access to basic health care, infectious diseases
Environmental Security: Natural disasters, pollution
Personal Security:Physical violence, crime, terrorism
Community Security:Ethnic-religious based tensions
Political Security: Political repression, human rights abuses.

As for security, the world-system theory holds that “the existence of security in the world-system theory is based on the continuity of relations between the peripheral areas and the core areas. In other words, a change in resource distribution is viewed as a threat to security of the system” (Soltani and Yusoff, 2012).

Thucydides, Machiavelli, Hobbes and Morgenthau can be considered to be classical realists. Waltz is a neorealist (structural realist). The correct answer is C.

Morgenthau outlines the “six principles of political realism” as follows:

• Politics is governed by objective laws which have their root in human nature.
• The key to understanding international politics is the concept of interest defined in terms of power.
• The forms and nature of state power will vary in time, place and context but the concept of interest remains consistent.
• Universal moral principles do not guide state behavior, although this does not rule out an awareness of the moral significance of political action.
• Moral aspirations are specific to a particular nation; there is no universally agreed set of moral principles.
• The political sphere is autonomous - not governed.

The correct answer is A.

Self-help refers to a state’s reliance on its own capacities and resources, rather than external support, to ensure security and survival. The correct answer is B.

Offensive realism is a form of structural realism that portrays states as ‘power maximizers’, as there is no limit to their desire to control the international environment. Defensive realism is a form of structural realism that views states as ‘security maximizers’, placing the desire to avoid attack above a bid for world power. The correct answer is B.

British scholar Susan Strange (1996) offers Structural Power Theory and defines it as “the power to decide how things shall be done, the power to shape frameworks within which states relate to one another, relate to people or relate to corporate enterprises”. She distinguishes between four primary power structures:

• The knowledge structure, which influences actor’s beliefs, ideas or perceptions;
• The financial structure, which controls access to credit or investment;
• The security structure, which shapes defence and strategic issues;
• The production structure, which affects economic development and prosperity.

The correct answer is D.

Bandwagon is to side with a stronger power in the hope of increasing security and influence; ‘jumping on the bandwagon’. The correct answer is D.

The key concepts in critical security studies are:

1. Referent object,
2. Traditional security studies,
3. Broadening,
4. Deepening,
5. Positivism,
6. Post-Positivism.

The correct answer is C.

The Welsh School originally identified emancipation as a key concept for security and placed it at the centre of their work. The concept was later taken up by the Frankfurt School consisting of a group of German social theorists. The Welsh School was inspired by the ideas of Jürgen Habermas on emancipation. The correct answer is E.

The world systems theory is an approach to world history and social change. The most prominent proponent of the world systems theory is Immanuel Wallerstein. The correct answer is E.

Deconstruction is a close reading of philosophical or other texts with an eye to their various blindspots and/or contradictions. The correct answer is A.

The permanent members of the UN Security Council, namely the United States, Russia, China, France, and the United Kingdom.

The Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) came into force in 1970 and on 11 May 1995 the states parties to the treaty have extended the NPT indefinitely. The NPT, which legitimizes the use of nuclear energy for peaceful reasons, bans the non-nuclear-weapon states to acquire a nuclear capacity while bringing an obligation on the part of the nuclear weapon states not to transfer nuclear-weapons technology to third parties.

Article 2/4 of the UN Charter is the main rule that regulates the use of force in international relations. Accordingly, “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”

Article II of the Decision, with regard to the legitimacy of the attack, lays the burden of proof on that state who first resorted to force. In other words, “the first use of armed force by a State in contravention of the Charter shall constitute prima facie evidence of an act of aggression.” However, Article II also demands that the Security Council consider other “relevant circumstances” while debating a specific act and argues that in order for this act to amount to an aggression, either the act or its consequences must be of “sufficient gravity.”

If the threat of an attack in imminent, does this justify the state to use force preemptively? This issue, which in the literature of International Relations is known as “preemptive strike” or “preventive strike,” is still controversial; however, the actual law is in conformity with the approach that the UN Charter should be interpreted rather narrowly.

As it is defined in Article 41, the Council can call for “ the suspension of all or part of the economic relations and of rail, sea, air, postal, telegraphic, radio, and other means of communication” under the circumstances of an international dispute or conflict. However, according to Article 42 “If the Security Council considers that measures provided by Article 41 would be inadequate or have proved to be inadequate, it may take what steps are seen as necessary by air, sea, or land forces in order to maintain or restore international peace and security. Such actions may include demonstrations, blockade, and other operations by air, sea, or land forces of Members of the United Nations. Therefore, according to Article 42, the Security Council can authorize the use of armed force in the international system.

The UN Operation in Congo (UNOC): started on July 14, 1960 with the Security Council Resolution 143 and continued until June 1964.

The Treaty of Guarantee was signed on August 16, 1960 among Turkey, Greece, and the United Kingdom. According to Article II of the Treaty “Greece, the United Kingdom and Turkey, undertake to prohibit, as far as lies within their power, all activity having the object of promoting directly or indirectly either the union of the Republic of Cyprus with any other State or partition of the Island.”

International terrorism is the threat of violence or the use of violence to create fear in a target group toward achieving certain political objectives. Therefore, an act of terror involves some sort of violence, has political objectives, and targets a certain group (Beck and Arend, 1993-1994: 162).

The Security Council passed Resolution 1540 where it adopted that “all States shall refrain from providing any form of support to non-State actors that attempt to develop, acquire, manufacture, possess, transport, transfer or use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons and their means of delivery.”The Council has also established a separate committee, the 1540 Committee, for monitoring the subject matter.

Page 67.
The legal key term in the wording of Article 2/7 is the domestic jurisdiction of states. This is so because which actions and issues fall under the legal and political domain of state and when the state can exclusively take decisions on these actions and issues have always been controversial. Therefore, many decisions that states take on issues related to use of force, self-defense, aggression, and political independence face opposition at international platforms. Therefore, the correct option is A.

Page 68.
The right of self-defense is enshrined in Article 51 of the UN Charter. Article 51 provides that “nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defense shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.” Therefore, the correct option is C.

Page 69.
Based on these two articles, the General Assembly lists several specific acts in Article III of the Resolution and decides that any of these acts “shall, subject to and in accordance with the provisions of article 2, qualify as an act of aggression.” These acts include (UN General Assembly, 1974):
• “The invasion or attack by the armed forces of a State of the territory of another State, or any military occupation, however temporary, resulting from such invasion or attack, or any annexation by the use of force of the territory of another State or part thereof,
• Bombardment by the armed forces of a State against the territory of another State or the use of any weapons by a State against the territory of another State;
• The blockade of the ports or coasts of a State by the armed forces of another State;
• An attack by the armed forces of a State on the land, sea or air forces, or marine and air fleets of another State;
• The use of armed forces of one State which are within the territory of another State with the agreement of the receiving State, in contravention of the conditions provided for in the agreement or any extension of their presence in such territory beyond the termination of the agreement;
• The action of a State in allowing its territory, which it has placed at the disposal of another State, to be used by that other State for perpetrating an act of aggression against a third State;
• The sending by or on behalf of a State of armed bands, groups, irregulars or mercenaries, which carry out acts of armed force against another State of such gravity as to amount to the acts listed above, or its substantial involvement therein.”
• “The invasion or attack by the armed forces of a State of the territory of another State, or any military occupation, however temporary, resulting from such invasion or attack, or any annexation by the use of force of the territory of another State or part thereof,
• Bombardment by the armed forces of a State against the territory of another State or the use of any weapons by a State against the territory of another State;
• The blockade of the ports or coasts of a State by the armed forces of another State;
• An attack by the armed forces of a State on the land, sea or air forces, or marine and air fleets of another State;
• The use of armed forces of one State which are within the territory of another State with the agreement of the receiving State, in contravention of the conditions provided for in the agreement or any extension of their presence in such territory beyond the termination of the agreement;
• The action of a State in allowing its territory, which it has placed at the disposal of another State, to be used by that other State for perpetrating an act of aggression against a third State;
• The sending by or on behalf of a State of armed bands, groups, irregulars or mercenaries, which carry out acts of armed force against another State of such gravity as to amount to the acts listed above, or its substantial involvement therein.”
Therefore, the correct option is B.

Page 69.
the critical legal question here is, whether a state when it has reasonable doubt and adequate information that another state’s attack against itself is imminent can first act and use its right of self-defense. In other words, if the threat of an attack in imminent, does this justify the state to use force preemptively? This issue, which in the literature of International Relations is known as “preemptive strike” or “preventive strike,” is still controversial (Bellier, 2006); however, the actual law (with the exception of recent grave situations such as terrorism) is in conformity with the approach that the UN Charter should be interpreted rather narrowly. Therefore, the correct option is B.