Afsahin Mottaghi; Mosayeb Gharehbeygi
Abstract
Possibilities for improvements of water resources management exist because of Iran’s vast areas of cultivable lands, big rivers and suitable sites for construction of dams in Zagross and Alborz mountain ranges, extensive aquifers, and suitable climatic conditions for cultivation of different plants. ...
Read More
Possibilities for improvements of water resources management exist because of Iran’s vast areas of cultivable lands, big rivers and suitable sites for construction of dams in Zagross and Alborz mountain ranges, extensive aquifers, and suitable climatic conditions for cultivation of different plants. In addition to existing exploitation of the water resources of the country, there is some capacity for physical development of up to 30 bcm of water resources for consumptive uses and up to 50 bcm for energy production, while still observing all economic, social, and environmental limitations. Cultural support for developments in water resources management includes traditions and social institutions that have adapted over time to different geographical conditions, especially in arid and semiarid regions. The best adapted of such institutions allow for effective water resource utilization. Political conditions conducive to developing water resources management include extensive citizen participation in public affairs, strengthening of the parliamentary system, creation of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs), support of local management, and suitable political background for developing the water and agriculture sector. Existing installations and equipment include large and small reservoir dams, extensive irrigation and drainage networks, water transmission pipelines and pumping stations, treatment plants and water reservoirs, urban water distribution networks, and other facilities. Institutional capacity includes the possibility for experienced national experts to provide consulting and construction services in order to reduce foreign exchange expenses to a considerable extent.
Dorreh Mirheydar; Mosayeb Ghareh-Beygi
Abstract
Extended Abstract
1. Introduction
The recent visit of Saudi King Salman bin Abdulaziz to Egypt (April 2016) under which sovereignty over the two islands of Tiran and Sanafir, located in the carter of the Gulf of Aqaba, has reportedly been transferred by Egypt to Saudi Arabia. According to the Egyptian ...
Read More
Extended Abstract
1. Introduction
The recent visit of Saudi King Salman bin Abdulaziz to Egypt (April 2016) under which sovereignty over the two islands of Tiran and Sanafir, located in the carter of the Gulf of Aqaba, has reportedly been transferred by Egypt to Saudi Arabia. According to the Egyptian State Information Service, this agreement was signed on 8 April 2016 by the Egyptian Prime Minister, Sherif Ismail, and Saudi Deputy Crown, Prince Mohamed bin Salman bin Abdulaziz , in the presence of the Egypt’s president, Abdel Fatah al-Sisi, and Saudi King Salman. While the text of the agreement has not been disclosed yet, Egyptian officials have reportedly made available documents supporting Saudi claims over the two islands. It was reported that the Egyptian Cabinet Information and Decision Support Center (IDSC) had asserted that all documents show Tiran and Sanafir are two Saudi islands according to geographic charts.
2. Theoretical Framework
Sovereignty over the islands of Tiran and Sanafir has long been a matter of controversy between Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Egypt had asserted, for instance, before the UN Security Council in 1954 that the islands of Tiran and Sanafir were under its sovereignty, having been occupied in 1906 at the time of the delimitation of the boundary between Egypt and the Ottoman Empire. Further, Egypt had referred to the evidence that the two islands had been used by it as a part of its war efforts during World War II. However, the Saudi government also claimed that the islands pertained to it, and in fact, the question of sovereignty over Tiran and Sanafir was left unaddressed in the Saudi-Egyptian agreement of 1949, under which the islands were occupied by Egypt with the consent of Saudi Arabia, in order to exercise control over the transit of ships bound to Israel.
3. Methodology
The methodology of this study is descriptive-analytical and the required information has been collected through library research. The information was gathered from sources such as books, magazines, online articles, newspapers, etc.
4. Findings and Discussion
As increasing a geopolitical tension between Arabs and Zionists from May 15, 1948, Israel occupied the islands of Tiran and Sanafir along with Sinai Peninsula in 1952 and again in 1967. As the result of the Camp David Accords and its framework in 1979, Israel withdrew its forces from the islands and Sinai Peninsula in 1982. The statement cited a number of sources in support of its argument, including a number of screenshots. The statement referred to a letter sent by Saudi King Abdulaziz in February, 1950 to a Saudi minister in Cairo, as well as the letters between the Egyptian and Saudi foreign ministers in 1988 and 1989, which ask that the two islands are returned to Saudi sovereignty. The cabinet also referred to a letter sent by the American ambassador in Egypt to the American secretary of state in 1950 proving that Tiran and Sanafir are Saudi. “Foreign Office informed Embassy that because of certain pretensions manifested by Israel authorities recently toward Tiran and Sanafir Islands in Red Sea at the entrance of Gulf of Aqaba, the Egyptian Government, had occupied the islands,” the American ambassador's letter reads.
The statement also refers to the 1973 map which shows the islands are Saudi according to the international law and UN maritime law. The statement also is linked to a New York Times article on 19 January, 1982, which describes that Israel's fears that the Egyptians would give the islands back to their Saudi owners after Egyptian-Saudi relations return to normal”. According to the article, "The two islands were transferred by Saudi Arabia to Egyptian control in 1950 because the Saudis feared an Israeli attempt to seize them. Along with the rest of Sinai, they fell under Israeli control in the 1967 war, but Saudi Arabia's Crown Prince Fahd said recently that he would ask Egypt, after regaining them in April, to return them to Saudi sovereignty". Mohamed ElBaradei, an international lawyer and the former Egyptian vice president, also makes an appearance in the statement. A screenshot of an article by ElBaradei, taken from an unspecified international legal journal, is also included. The article, “The Egyptian-Israeli Peace Treaty and Access to the Gulf of Aqaba: A New Legal Regime,” states: “The islands of Tiran and Sanafir, have been under Egyptian occupation since 1950”. The article also says that the Strait of Tiran is “within the territorial sea of Egypt”. The cabinet’s statement also refers to a presidential decree in 1990 that mentions the maritime borders of the country, and cites the two islands as being outside Egypt's borders. According to the statement, the maritime border demarcation announcement came last week because of an agreement to build a bridge between Egypt and Saudi Arabia.
Simultaneously UNCLOSIII declared the strait of Tiran as "international" to give Israel the right of transit passage to the Israeli port of Eilat. Two significant events have affected the sovereignty of the islands from April 8, 2016 to January 16, 2017: first, the transfer of sovereignty of Tiran and Sanafir from Egypt to Saudi Arabia by the head of the state; second, the Egyptian Court and the House of Representatives' announcement to block the islands handover to Saudi Arabia. The aim of this paper, however, was mainly to draw the changes that may occur in case of handing over the islands to any party.
Seyed Abbas Ahmadi; Mosayeb Gharehbeygi; Sajjad Pourali Otikandi
Abstract
Extended Abstract
1- INTRODUCTION
New media and cultural identity are the issues of utmost importance, because the political, economic and social dimensions of human life have undergone a visible and prominent change from the new media developments. In the process of cultural change, innovation ...
Read More
Extended Abstract
1- INTRODUCTION
New media and cultural identity are the issues of utmost importance, because the political, economic and social dimensions of human life have undergone a visible and prominent change from the new media developments. In the process of cultural change, innovation plays a special role. The roots are changing, the process is continuous, yet the fusion of newer concepts and ideas regenerates newer forms of creative expressions to do away with the older ones which get degenerated. The essence of creative existence is defended in many forms. Therefore, the aim of this paper is to search for identity in a virtual space: appearance, behaviors, community affiliations, and the need to have more than one avatar (a user’s three-dimensional digital representation). The questions we hope to answer as part of this study are: (a) what are the values, social conventions and moral compasses behind some of the choices we make as we construct identities in a virtual life? (b) How are these values tested when one creates an identity with complete anonymity? (c) How do the communities that a member chooses help to establish an avatar’s identity and how does this association affect the real life of the user? The first part of this paper will examine the identity theory and how identity is formed, how community affiliations and activities impact our identity, and what happens to our identity (even if we remain anonymous) once we enter virtual spaces. This will give way to an introduction of Cultural Historical Activity Theory (CHAT) and a conceptual framework for analyzing identity theory and activity, particularly in virtual environments. Finally, discussion for future research about how identity formation, visualization in virtual spaces, and our sense of self can impact our real-life identities will be provided.
The Internet, with around 200 million people globally being online, seems to speed up the messages across all kinds of boundaries. Expanding communication space has given way to global communication processes in which knowledge, values and ethics, aesthetics and lifestyles are being exchanged, hence it is giving rise to a third culture. Such a generative framework of culture is being shaped into a global world culture by new media.
2- THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
Positive dimensions reveal optimistically that new media, i.e., the Internet is a tool of development for developing countries. It provides easy access to any information. It improves horizontal as well as vertical flows of information. It provides a platform for understanding issues with wider viewpoints. It also provides democratic expressions of individuals in the society. Therefore, the new media enriches the indigenous cultures and provides the deep cultural roots which adhere to their identities with the culture.
3- METHODOLOGY
Methodology of this study is descriptive-analytical and required data have been collected through library research. Sampling is based on cluster sampling and was done using semi-structured interviews with the methodology of "Q" that measured attitudes about national identity in cyber-space.
4- RESULTS & DISCUSSION
This study aimed to investigate the impact of cyberspace on the national identity. Participants in the study included 50 graduate students of political geography at University of Tehran, Tarbiat Modares and Kharazmi. The concept of national identity in this study in terms of three indicators of national language, national history and the territorial belonging were investigated. The research is an applied one in terms of aim of research and it is carried out on the phenomenological approach. The results showed that the index of language and national history has decreased because of the interaction in cyber space and the index of land belonging has increased due to lack of cross-border nature of cyberspace. However, increasing the sense of belonging to the language and national history in terms of the validity of the documents available on the Internet is undesirable. Therefore, the phenomenology of national identity in cyberspace showed that the discourse of national identity has faced with ruptures due to poor education and lack of infrastructure
