Jump to content

International Institute for Strategic Studies

From Wikivahdat
Revision as of 11:17, 25 November 2025 by Peysepar (talk | contribs) (Created page with "= International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) = The '''International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS)''' is a leading global think tank specializing in defence, security, and strategic studies. Founded in 1958, it has become internationally recognized for its analyses of military capabilities, geopolitical trends, and regional security dynamics.<ref name="IISSAbout">{{cite web |title=About IISS |url=https://www.iiss.org |publisher=International Institute...")
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS)

The International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS) is a leading global think tank specializing in defence, security, and strategic studies. Founded in 1958, it has become internationally recognized for its analyses of military capabilities, geopolitical trends, and regional security dynamics.[1]

Overview

The institute is known for its flagship publications, including The Military Balance, Survival, the Adelphi series, and Strategic Comments, as well as for hosting high-level security dialogues in Asia and the Middle East.

Identification and Metadata

Official name: International Institute for Strategic Studies Acronym: IISS Founded: 1958 by Michael Howard, Denis Healey, and Alastair Buchan[1] Legal status: UK-registered charity; private company limited by guarantee Headquarters: Arundel House, 6 Temple Place, London Regional offices: Washington, D.C.; Singapore; Manama; Berlin[1] Staff size: Estimated 100–250 (2024)[2] Budget: £25.03 million income (2023)[3]

Governance

The IISS Board of Trustees is chaired by Bill Emmott and includes high-profile figures such as Caroline Atkinson, Hakeem Belo-Osagie, John Brennan (former CIA Director), and Florence Parly (former French Minister of the Armed Forces).[3] Numerous former staff and trustees have held senior government or diplomatic roles.

Mission, Vision and Structure

The IISS states its mission is to serve as a “primary source of accurate, objective information on international strategic issues” and asserts that it “owes no allegiance to any government or political organisation.”[1]

Organisational Structure

The institute is divided into thematic divisions:

  • Defence and Military Analysis
  • Geo-economics and Strategy
  • Regional Security (Middle East, Asia, Europe, Americas)
  • Conflict, Security and Development
  • Consulting and Advisory Services

Funding Model

IISS receives funding from:

  • governments
  • corporations
  • philanthropic foundations
  • membership subscriptions
  • events and conferences

Major corporate donors include Airbus, BAE Systems, Lockheed Martin, and Raytheon.[4] Past transparency studies (e.g., Transparify) have rated IISS as relatively opaque compared with other think tanks.[5]

Thematic and Methodological Profile

IISS specializes in defence policy, regional security, military inventories, conflict dynamics, non-proliferation, and geopolitical analysis. Research on Muslim-majority countries is primarily focused on:

  • Middle East geopolitics
  • Islamist militancy
  • defence spending and procurement
  • Türkiye’s defence industrialisation
  • Gulf regional security

Methods

Methods include:

  • policy analysis
  • open-source intelligence (OSINT)
  • expert interviews
  • defence-economics modelling
  • case studies and scenario analysis

IISS publishes both peer-reviewed (e.g., Survival) and non-peer-reviewed materials (e.g., policy briefs, Strategic Comments).[6]

Publications and Outputs on Islam / Muslim Affairs

Representative Outputs

  1. The Defence Policy and Economics of the Middle East and North Africa (2022).

Summary: Analysis of defence budgets, procurement trends, and regional military competition.[7]

  1. Adapting Security: Türkiye’s Foreign Policy and Defence Industrialisation (2024).

Examines Türkiye’s growing defence industry and its foreign-policy implications.[8]

  1. From Client to Competitor: The Rise of Türkiye’s Defence Industry (2024).

Analyses Türkiye's transition to major defence exporter.[9]

  1. Turbulence in the Eastern Mediterranean (Strategic Dossier).

Regional tensions involving Muslim-majority states; uses scenario modelling.[10]

  1. Tactics before Strategy: Understanding Today’s Middle East (2018).

Argues Middle East strategy suffers from short-term tactical decision-making.[11]

Most reports are publicly accessible, though underlying datasets are usually not available.

Policy Impact

IISS has high policy salience. Its events include:

  • Shangri-La Dialogue (Asia)
  • Manama Dialogue (Middle East)

These forums are attended by heads of state, defence ministers, and military leaders.[12]

IISS’s Military Balance is referenced by defence ministries, NATO, and the EU.[1]

Government citations and uses include:

  • ministerial speeches at IISS events
  • parliamentary references to The Military Balance
  • commissioned advisory work
  • contributions to regional security dialogues (e.g., Manama Dialogue 2024)[13]

Stakeholder Engagement and Research Ethics

Engagement with Muslim communities is limited, as IISS focuses on state-level actors rather than civil society or religious institutions. Much research is desk-based, reducing requirements for fieldwork consent protocols.

The organisation has not been prominently associated with research-ethics controversies relating to Muslim communities.

Funding and Conflict of Interest Analysis

Major funders include defence corporations and Western governments. Potential conflicts of interest arise in areas where donor industries overlap with research topics (e.g., arms procurement).[14]

Transparency remains moderate; although financial statements are published, details on donor influence remain limited.[3]

Editorial Independence and Governance

Board membership includes former senior defence and intelligence officials, raising questions about the boundary between research and state security priorities. While IISS states it maintains full editorial independence,[1] external transparency assessments suggest room for improvement.[15]

Academic Critique

Epistemic Rigour

IISS excels in defence-technical analysis but often offers limited methodological transparency, hindering replicability.[16]

Normative Framing

Coverage of Muslim-majority regions often emphasises security, conflict, and militarism rather than socio-economic or cultural dimensions.

Bias and Positionality

Close ties to defence sectors and Western governments may influence research priorities and problem framing.

Policy Relevance vs. Academic Rigor

Outputs are policy-oriented, timely, and concise, but often lack theoretical depth typical of academic research.

Ethical Considerations

Given the elite focus and minimal fieldwork, issues such as local researcher safety or community-based ethical review are rarely addressed.

Contribution to Knowledge

IISS contributes notably to military and strategic knowledge but less to human security, religious studies, or socio-political analyses of Muslim societies.

Controversies

Criticisms include:

  • opaque funding (Transparify)
  • defence-industry influence concerns
  • limited methodological transparency

IISS has responded by publishing annual audited accounts and expanded donor disclosures.[3]

Comparative Positioning

Compared with peers:

  • Chatham House – broader thematic range; more transparent
  • Carnegie Endowment – deeper academic analysis; more inclusive regional research
  • CSIS – similarly policy-driven, but with more public transparency on donors

IISS is stronger in military-technical expertise and defence inventory analysis.

Recommendations

For Researchers

  • Advocate for data transparency and open methods
  • Engage with Muslim civil-society actors
  • Incorporate interdisciplinary approaches

For Policymakers

  • Use IISS outputs alongside independent academic sources
  • Require more explicit conflict-of-interest disclosures
  • Encourage methodological transparency in commissioned work

References