Latest Articles

​Through literature reviews (mainly in English and German), this review sheds light on the analytical approaches prevalent in the study of the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region and their outcomes before and after the Arab revolutions, and explores previous and current theoretical reflections on them. Using all of this, the study attempts to contribute to a better understanding of the various issues in the region. The first part presents the various analytical concepts and their results before the revolutions, and the second part provides an overview of the analyzes of the Arab revolutions. The third part reviews the theoretical reflections on the previous analytical approaches. Finally, the researcher makes some concluding observations.

This study examines the explanatory power of realism in the context of the Grand Renaissance Dam crisis between Egypt and Ethiopia, drawings on concepts from deterrence theory, and the counter hegemonic challenges posed by revisionist states. It adopts a broader understanding of hegemony incorporating the concept of hydro- hegemony, where Ethiopia's behaviour is seen as a direct challenge to Egypt's established hegemony in the Nile Basin. The study concludes that the dam crisis illustrates both the strength and weaknesses of the realist perspective. On one hand, it affirms realist assumptions regarding the significance of power dynamics, alliance building, conflict of interests, relative gains, and the influence of the international system on state behavior. Conversely, the crisis also reveals the limitations of realism, particularly its to overlook internal factors and the importance of non-material sources of power in advancing states' interests and reinforcing their hegemony.

​In recent years, Analytical Eclecticism has emerged as a promising theoretical trend and has attracted great attention from researchers and practitioners of international relations theory. Analytical Eclecticism is based on the following three pillars: the call for theoretical diversity and pluralism by adopting Eclectic methodology; challenging the dominance of classical paradigms (realism, neoliberalism, constructivism) over international relations theory; and to advocate for the replacement of Grand Theory with middle range theories following its decline. The article presents a critical review of these pillars to demonstrate that the rationale upon which analytical Eclecticism is based is tainted by some contradictions; its criticisms of Grand Theory are built on an incomplete understanding of what it and its function are. Moreover, analytical eclecticism is not a new subject in the discipline of international relations, and the decline of Grand Theory does not necessarily signify its disappearance.

The Strategic Studies Unit Conference of the Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies held a symposium on August 29, 2022, entitled "Ukraine: Conventional and Unconventional Military Developments and Foreign Fighters", attended by three researchers specialising in security and strategic studies, Omar Ashour, director of the Strategic Studies Unit and head of the Critical Security Studies Graduate Programme (MCSS) at the Doha Institute for Graduate Studies, Kacper Edward Rekawe, postdoctoral researcher at the Center for Research on Extremism at the University of Oslo, and Hamish de Bretton-Gordon are chemical weapons advisers to NGOs working in Syria and Iraq. He is a former commanding officer of the UK Chemical, Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear (CBRN) Regiment and NATO's Rapid Reaction CBRN Battalion. It was chaired by Sidahmed Goudjili, Assistant Professor in Critical Security Studies at the Doha Institute for Graduate Studies.

This study examines the ability of network technology to challenge despotism regimes. It thus applies two theoretical approaches. The first is the "Prisoner's dilemma" and the "despot/jailer's dilemma" and the second is the "case study", which studies a number of cases of "network technology", whether used by protest groups or by authoritarian regimes, to determine the extent (and direction) of their impact in practice. The study concludes that network technology — through challenging the logic of the "prisoner's dilemma" and reversing it to become the "jailer's dilemma" — can, theoretically, pose an element of weakness for despotism regimes. However, in reality, network technology can be used by these regimes with the same effectiveness, to respond to mass protests supported by technology. This indicates that network technology can be seen as a neutralizing factor, the impact of which should be studied relative to the impact of other factors.

In 2015, Lebanon witnessed the emergence of a massive contentious movement, known as "You Stink", in response to the unfolding of the waste crisis when the main landfill known as "Naameh" was closed. Though other opposition movements preceded it in the post-war period, "You Stink" succeeded in positioning itself as a threat to the continuity in power of the informal pillars of political power- the "politically relevant elites". Accordingly, the aim of the paper is to identify first those who are influential in framing national political agendas, hence targeted by the movement itself. Second, based on semi-structured interviews conducted with key activists within "You Stink", the paper provides an exploratory analysis of the zu'ama's receptivity to it, unpacking the strategies employed to neutralize the movement. It concludes that in addition to obstructive strategies put into play by the zu'ama, certain operative caveats within the movement itself, acted as "political opportunities" to the former's capacity to neutralize and weaken the movement.

The study defines the "external factor" and determines its impact on the transition process. The study notes that the role of these factors in transition is different from that of "democratization" if the external influence of the revolutions is minimal. This is especially so in the case of spontaneous popular revolutions where the external factor may be influential in the democratic transition, although its impact is decisive only when accompanied by facilitating domestic factors. The study shows the relationship between the external factor and the geostrategic location of the Arab state whereby the external factor becomes more important according to the importance of the state. The study follows the evolution of the principle of supporting democracy in US politics, which has been linked to US interests and has ended up supporting regime stability. It also monitors a regional and international trend of "promoting autocracy".

This article explores what James Rosenau had founded as a post-international politics paradigm. It does so through a comparative reading of the two concepts of the two coexistent systems, state-centic and multicentric, on the one hand; and neo- medievalism on the other. The article aimes at offering some reflections on the essential characteristics that both concepts can contribute to improving our understanding of post-international politics in an era of increasing complexity. The article is divided into two sections. The first section introduces the concept of post-international politics, from Rosenau's perspective, and identifies the most prominent assumptions on which Rosenau called turbulence (another label for the post-international politics paradigm). The second section introduces the concept of neomedievalism, which traces back to Hadley Bull, as an appropriate depiction for a system within which the state's monopoly of violence is constantly declining, especially under the growing influence of private armies/security companies, which are considered a contemporary example of the mercenary armies that characterized the first medieval period.

US and Gulf relations are based on more than self-interest, but common selfinterest is always a key (or the key) factor in shaping an alliance and strategic relationship. The key common self-interests that drives US and Arab Gulf relations are security – the need to deal with Iran, fighting extremism, and securing the flow of petroleum exports out of the Gulf and Arabian Peninsula to meet the needs of the global economy, and to provide the key source of income for the Gulf states. This study explains why the United States maintains close ties with its Arab strategic partners in the Gulf. The study finds out that the US and its Gulf strategic partners face serious challenges, including domestic political change in the US, divisions between Arab states, the impact of regional conflicts and instability, and the growing role of non-Western powers.

This study discusses the institutional legacy of economic liberalization policies in shaping the contemporary reality of civil-military relations in Arab Spring states, and the future challenges of democratic transformation in these countries. It argues that economic openness through the application of liberalization policies has led to the emergence of a military oligarchy operating under a civilian cover, formally extending the dominance of the Arab armies from the political to the economic sphere. The outcome of this dynamic was the consolidation of the positions and political dominance of the military, which poses great challenges to the future of democratic transition in these countries. The study reviews its hypothesis through the cases of Egypt, Tunisia, Sudan and Algeria, and draws analytical comparisons between them.