I made the above point in order to refer to a substantial difference between the diplomatic culture of Europe and the United States from my point of view. This difference in view of Europe and the US means the “law”. Apart from what views the politicians hold and how they think, the author believes that in diplomatic engagement with Europe, it is still possible to stick to the law and rights to some extent. While in a similar situation with the US, no other concepts work except pragmatism and utilitarianism.

And these two types of interaction are the product of history, civilizational and philosophical record of the two international units about which we are speaking. In fact, these two entities have differences in internal politics, election method, and administrative legal hierarchy. The symbol of the US politics and its embodied essence in our time is summed up in people like Trump and Pompeo.

In recent years, due to the collapse of the Eastern Bloc, the diplomatic culture of the world is under the invasion of the US culture. Choosing such a culture whose main core is lawlessness, immorality and absolute profiteering with completely contradictory behaviors and sudden turns is considered an identity problem for Europe and the world today. International order is threatened by the US disregard for international laws, customs and principles.

Will laws prevail?

With this introduction, we can say that not only European diplomacy but the whole world is facing an identity question. This is not only a diplomatic challenge but also a cultural and identity problem for all of us. Has the central sign of diplomacy only considered its own interest and today behaved as our interest requires, and tomorrow if the interest requires, we will conduct a completely contradictory behavior or not in any behavior we consider customs, principles, laws and common obligations, even if not absolute, but at the least level?

For example, if interests demand, we will justify and trivialize the killing, slaughtering and burning of Mr. Khashoggi at the barbecue of the Saudi Consul General’s residence but we consider a much simpler event in another country as a gross violation of human rights? Or, if we seriously interpret belief in human rights, we react appropriately and proportionately to any behavior within the framework of international law and customs and in compliance with the principles??

In the issue of terrorism, since the culture of American diplomacy has created this possibility, the American diplomat can have unprincipled and contradictory behavior and today considers a group or a person as terrorist, criminal and absolute evil, and tomorrow sits at the same table and laugh with him so brazenly as if the memory of the world has been erased from everything before his decision. But such a contradictory behavior is a difficult task for a diplomat who comes from a different culture and philosophical system, and it will require a lot of setup and complex terms and conditions.

Principle of Sovereign Equality

The Islamic Revolution’s Guards Corps (IRGC), apart from its image in the minds of many people and the sacrifices it made during the imposed war and maintaining the territorial integrity of our country, according to Article 150 of the Constitution, is legally considered as a part of the armed forces of the Islamic Republic of Iran and thus it is considered an integral part of Iran’s sovereignty.

According to Para 1 of Article 2 of Chapter 1 (Purposes and Principles) of the United Nations Charter, all governments are equal, at least from a legal point of view. The question is, if all sovereigns are equal, how can equal people judge each other’s nature? Legal judgment is the result of legal hierarchy, not the equality of different units. For example, if in a military barracks, all people have the same rank and conditions, for instance all are the soldiers who entered that barracks on the same day, on what basis can one or more of those people give military orders to others?

When from the point of view of the Iranian government, the IRGC is a part of the armed forces and a part of the government, how can another equal government define a different nature for it? Now another question arises. If so, what should be done when there is a dispute?

In this case, the international law and the United Nations Charter have provided the method. In general, Article 1 and 2 of the United Nations Charter, which state the principles of this organization; first, places the principle on the peaceful settlement of disputes; second, obliges the members to resolve their differences within the framework of international law in such a way that international peace and security and justice are not affected. The only exception to this method is when the United Nations Security Council recognizes an issue as a violation of international peace and security and enforces the arrangements contained in Chapter Seven of the Charter on a specific issue. Of course, in the implementation of Chapter Seven, the Council will not have the right to object to the fundamental principles of rights such as sovereignty or violation of fundamental human rights.

Therefore, if the European Union or the United States or any other country has a dispute with Iran over an issue, their first duty according to the United Nations Charter is to choose peaceful methods, negotiate with Iran and avoid actions that may endanger peace and security. It is not possible to carry out arbitrary measures under the pretext or assumption of threatening peace and security, which in fact do not endanger international peace and security. This is an abuse of the legal process.

Responsibilities of Revolutionary Guards

According to Article 150 of the Constitution, the duties of the Revolutionary Guards are determined by law. According to the IRGC Constitution, approved in September 1982, and other related laws, the IRGC is a clear and transparent military organization with clear and transparent hierarchy. In a way that people can complain about the IRGC to the Court of Administrative Justice or the Judicial Organization of the Armed Forces. The IRGC is equal to the army and other military and law enforcement forces in terms of judicial or administrative proceedings and other upstream issues, and no special advantage or privilege is envisaged for it in terms of the laws of the country.

According to its constitution, the IRGC has several specific duties, which are a combination of military and law enforcement duties:

• First, in general, as a military force, it has the duty to defend the country as a whole. Therefore, part of the country’s defense issues is the responsibility of the Revolutionary Guards, which performs this task in coordination with other armed forces. The defense of the country may be in any environment, be it land, sea or air.
• Second, the IRGC is responsible for the formation of popular mobilization and formation of popular resistance units to defend the country.
• Third, the IRGC is also responsible for protecting the Islamic Revolution. This is a double task assigned to the IRGC, which is actually a law enforcement and police duty and it should have its own unit in this regard, and probably all IRGC units will not be unnecessarily involved in it.
• Fourth, during unexpected natural events, natural crises and construction issues and so on, the IRGC has the duty to use its forces in order to resolve natural risks and crises.

IRGC responsibilities and some international legal assumptions

Now that we are familiar with the duties of the Revolutionary Guards, the European Union or any country should consider several legal assumptions in regulating their behavior. Suppose you declared the Islamic Revolution’s Guards Corps a terrorist organization based on a miscalculation and with a political view, in this case:

1. Part of the defense in Iran’s sovereign territory is under the control of the Revolutionary Guards. This realm includes land, sea and air. Let’s assume that you are going to coordinate your ship traffic, surface transit and air traffic with the responsible organization, which is the IRGC. Are you doing such transactions with a terrorist organization or a governing body of the Islamic Republic of Iran? Do you obtain a traffic permit from a terrorist organization or from the government of Iran?
2. Let’s assume that your ship committed a violation in the territory of the Islamic Republic of Iran and was seized by the Navy of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps. Is it acceptable that your ship was seized by a terrorist organization or a governing body of the Islamic Republic of Iran?
3. Suppose there was a conflict between your military ship and an IRGC vessel, is it acceptable that your ship was sunk by a terrorist organization or a governing body of the Islamic Republic of Iran? Who do you hold responsible? What about air and ground combat?
4. Suppose there was an armed conflict between your military forces and our forces and your forces were captured by the IRGC forces, do you think that your forces are in the hands of a terrorist organization that has no rights or were captured by the ruling force of the Islamic Republic of Iran and the Geneva Conventions should be observed in such cases?
5. In the fight against terrorism, let’s say you want Iran’s cooperation in fighting a specific terrorist group, and in Iran the IRGC is responsible for fighting it. Do you think you would ask for help and cooperation from a terrorist organization to fight another terrorist group?
6. In police cooperation, the fight against terrorism, drugs, goods smuggling, human trafficking, etc., should the European Union cooperate with a terrorist organization or with the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran?
7. In the description of the duties of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps there is fighting against natural disasters and incidents. Should we assume that during natural and human disasters when all countries help each other, the European Union is going to send part of its humanitarian aid to the territory of Iran, will it send the aid to a terrorist organization or to Iran?
8. Everything that has been said above can also be reciprocal and if Iran is supposed to interact with the Union in such cases, the same legal assumptions will still apply.

In addition to all such issues, as it is clearly stated in articles one and two of the Charter, countries should act by adopting peaceful methods to resolve disputes and avoid actions that may endanger peace and security, while the recent actions of Europe and the United States may clearly provide the ground for disrupting international security and peace.

The advice that can be given to the European Union is that as following US diplomacy increases everyone’s problems, the US has the ability to make contradictory turns in its diplomatic behavior, and this is not compatible with European culture, nor is Europe capable of complex and contradictory maneuvers in its own diplomacy.

Iran’s diplomacy will certainly welcome a dialogue together with mutual respect and with emphasis on mutual respect.

Based on diplomatic experiences, holding a political meeting between Iran and Europe and respectful and realistic negotiations can be a way forward and include the interests of both sides, otherwise, with the current approaches, there will be a possibility of increasing tension and harming the interests of all parties with its specific consequences.