Latest Articles

Antoine Nasri Messarra (b. 1938), a pioneer of Constitutional and Political Science in Lebanon and the Arab region, outlines a selection of the fundamental political ideas he developed over the course of his academic career. Messarra focuses on his critique of Arab political science in its reliance on a diasporic political culture that adopts European theories of nation building and applies them to Middle Eastern societies, without bringing to bear Arab-Islamic heritage in dealing with pluralism in those societies. Messarra argues that Arab production in political science has been dominated by two approaches. The first are diaspora approaches that draw on European Jacobite models , which have consequently failed to understand the Arab social dynamics. These include sectarianism studies that overlook ethnoreligious diversity and secularization research that rejects the Islamic constitutional tradition. The second (smaller) group are authentic approaches, which Messarra argues are grounded in reality and draw on the region’s heritage.

This article aims to contribute to the academic debate underway over the concepts of political modernity and modernization, and in particular to address the theories and theses that deal with the problematic in terms of its epistemological premises and foundations. There is then a focus on the main contributions of the various schools of political science while evoking the complexity inherent in the subject and the overlap between the field of philosophy and political theory in this area. The justification for this choice is not limited to the nature of the topic and developments under the influence of the assumptions of western liberalism that represent the various contemporary schools of political science, but transcends this to include the variety of historically successful experiences, and how social values represent the avenue for raising conceptual problems and constructing new problems for the political power that is the custodian of the historical experience of those societies.

In this paper we develop a relational understanding of populism informed by urban political ecology. We argue that an urban political ecology of populism is necessary for a popular- democratic denunciation of the environmental claims of the far right. This article thereby aims to further develop a critique of liberal environmentalism and right-wing populism. We do so by first staging a dialogue between literatures in urban political ecology and Gramscian inflected readings of populism. Both have sought to interpret how spatial – and ecological – claim making becomes central to struggles over hegemony. The second half of the paper analyses these tensions in the Dutch farmers movement, which has become one of the most important political forces in the Netherlands since 2019. Abstracting "the local", "the rural" or "the farm" out of the broader processes of urbanisation is central to struggles over the representation of farmers. Right-wing movements thus seek to further a broader disillusionment with formal politics, while effectively deploying spatial and ecological abstractions that pit the "rural" against the "urban". We conclude by instead emphasising the crucial connections between populism and ecology, and call for a popular-democratic political ecology.

The Islamic Republic's foreign policy, grounded in a revolutionary commitment to Shi ʿ i transnationalism, has long been viewed as a central mechanism for securing Iran's regional influence and post-revolutionary identity. Yet recent developments, most notably the June 2025 war with Israel, raise critical questions about the sustainability of this approach. While much scholarship has explored Iran's identity-driven foreign policy, less attention has been paid to the chronic contradictions it generates within Iran's ontological security framework, or how these contradictions both shape and constrain Iran's regional conduct. This study approaches the problem by theorising Iran's predicament as an ontological trap, a condition in which identity-affirming foreign policy routines produce chronic insecurity rather than stabilisation. It introduces the concept of a security dilemma of influence to explain how transnational networks (once strategic assets) now provoke nationalist contestation and narrative fatigue in Iran, Iraq, and Lebanon.

This seminal article is one of the founding texts of Critical Theory in International Relations. In this article, Robert Cox advances a critical alternative to traditional International Relations theory by foregrounding the dialectical relationship between social forces, forms of state, and structures of world order, rather than limiting analysis to interactions among states as isolated units. Cox further distinguishes between problem-solving theory, which takes the existing order as a given and seeks to preserve and improve its functioning, and critical theory, which questions the historical conditions that produced that order, exposes its underlying power relations, and illuminates the possibilities for its transformation. He develops the concept of historical structures as continually evolving configurations composed of material capabilities, ideas, and institutions, and reconceptualizes hegemony as a congruence between power, ideology, and institutions, rather than as the mere material preponderance of a single state.

Following the transformations in the Levant’s regional system since the beginning of World War II to the rise of the Islamic State group in Iraq and Syria, this paper examines the new context of the region with regard to Washington’s resumption of direct military intervention. It finds that the Levant – as a soft area easily subject to geopolitical influences – has always been subject to changes based on shifts in world order, from the Cold War, followed by unipolarity, to the relative decline of US power. Thus, while the main actors of the Levant’s regional system were Arabs during the Cold War, the region has become a battleground for non-Arab parties – namely Turkey and Iran – following the invasion or Iraq and the eruption of the Arab Spring revolutions.

Hardly a day passes without seeing or hearing the terms 'extremism' or 'extremists.' Used today to describe political views and attitudes, or methods in political action, the terms today are linked to particular images, and hold specific implications charged with prejudice, half-truths, and presumption. This paper asks: Is the term extremism useful to understand the ideas, views, or practices of those who are labeled as such? Are there common traits among those labeled as extremist that renders this label a useful concept in the classification of the ideas of political groups and their objectives and methods? Or, is 'extremist' simply an expression of a negative attitude agreed to by those with a specific view with the aim of ostracizing specific groups? It then poses an even larger and more critical question: How do groups of people reach the point of burning bridges with existing reality in order to carry out a fight using violent methods? The paper argues that analyzing ideology per se to reach an answer to this question is futile, be this ideology nationalistic, religious, classist, or otherwise.

​The constructivist approach provides several perspectives to study sports as a complex social phenomenon. Beginning with the conditions of modernity, which is usually defined as a Western product, and its dominance over narratives surrounding the emergence and rationalisation of sports, the West has traditionally defined the region and history of sports. While recognising Western contributions to modernisation, this paper addresses the need to consider the influence of other cultures and civilizations in the genesis of modernity through knowledge, science, and innovation. In the West itself, differences prevail regarding the concepts of the body (and the soul in the spiritual and religious sense) and productivity, and how to express them in sporting traditions. Any kind of general assessment of sporting culture and practice in Western Europe and beyond is thus no easy task. This short introduction provides an overview of the richness and limitations of constructivist epistemology as an entry point to studying sports. It discusses the concepts of pluralism and otherness in sports studies, applying discourse analysis to the study of sports in different cultural and linguistic traditions, and engages in criticism regarding its potential relativity.

Through an examination of the legal and institutional frameworks for resolving disputes this study explores the settlement of environmental disputes in compliance with international law, and focuses on the status of the environmental dimension within that. The study explores the Helsinki and Berlin rules, the different international agreements, the extent to which their implementation is crucial and the impediments in this field. To delve further into the discussion, the study examines the obstacles that limit the peaceful settlement of environmental problems. Such problems are largely due to the global nature and complexity of environmental issues, the absence of the political will of major powers and the attempts to bypass and bury problems by adopting a scientific approach to settle environmental disputes and banning “green intervention”, in addition to encouraging balanced cosmic negotiations, relying on the balance of mutual benefits between parties and neglecting the balance of powers rule.

Since the publication of Horowitz's Ethnic Groups in Conflict, comparative political scientists have increasingly converged on their classification of ethnic identities. But there is no agreement on the definition that justifies this classification— and the definitions that individual scholars propose do not match their classifications. I propose a definition that captures the conventional classification of ethnic identities in comparative political science to a greater degree than the alternatives. According to this definition, ethnic identities are a subset of identity categories in which membership is determined by attributes associated with, or believed to be associated with, descent (described here simply as descent-based attributes). I argue, on the basis of this definition, that ethnicity either does not matter or has not been shown to matter in explaining most outcomes to which it has been causally linked by comparative political scientists. These outcomes include violence, democratic stability, and patronage.