Latest Articles

This paper addresses problematic aspects of the concept of "terrorism" from within its present-day setting, exploring the futile conflict between "terrorism" and "counter-terrorism" which has been utilized to marginalize the discourse on democracy, justice and national liberation. The paper argues that the categorization of an event as a terrorist act based on the identity of the perpetrator, and regardless of the victims, leads to a logical fallacy. One consequence of categorizing all armed acts by non-state actors as "terrorist" is the erosion of distinctions between terrorist acts and acts of national liberation, resistance to foreign occupation and armed opposition to state violence against civilians. One conclusion of the paper is that blurring the distinctions between terrorist and legitimate acts is counterproductive to the war on terror.

This article, originally written by Richard N. Hass has been translated into Arabic by Abdou Moussa. It proposes an alternative to the current world order, based on a new principle centered on what the author defines as the principle of the “obligations of sovereignty”. This differs markedly from the established and long dominant Westphalian notion of sovereignty. "Sovereign obligations" offer a guideline to confront global risks that can no longer be managed by the traditional principle of sovereignty. A state’s putative monopoly on activity within its borders, as per the Westphalian order, does not provide any guarantee against nuclear proliferation, climate change or cross-border pandemics, nor does it protect against cyber-attacks and threats to the global economy. The article advocates the need to review our perception of the world order as it now stands at this moment of confusion and uncertainty, particularly given the waves of populism currently rippling through the globe.

This study reads the performance of Egyptian political forces from the time of Mohamed Morsi’s election as president of the republic to the coup against him on July 3, 2013. In its first section, the study concludes that the behavior of all political actors can be understood as a search for allies from within the old regime’s centers of power; this despite the fact that these forces were the targets of the January 25 Revolution. Nonetheless, political parties seek out old guard forces hoping they will provide leverage for a position of power. This reality allowed the old regime – with its enormous capabilities—to rejoin the map of political forces instead of being held accountable. In its second section, the study tries to read the map of the protest movement on June 30, comparing this new map with one of the nation’s politics during the crisis of the constitutional declaration in November 2012. It concludes that the most important development in the nation’s political sphere has been the ability of the “deep state” to learn the skills of popular mobilization in the street. This came after it had failed to do so in the previous 36 months. Using its connections with a wide spectrum of social groups through networks of patronage and influence, which it had not thought of using in the spectacular “battle of the squares,” the “deep state” was able to become an active and influential political player capable of taking matters back to square one.

Transitional justice in Libya is the key to stability of state and society. Under the previous regime, many Libyans' rights were violated. The regime's collapse only exacerbated these violations, in addition to bringing about the country's social and cultural disintegration. The very exceptional nature of the Libyan state complicated efforts to establish a transitional justice system in post-revolution Libya. Successive governments since the revolution have failed to exercise control over security. This paper deals with transitional justice in three sections. The first reviews Libyan legislation since the 17 February 2011 revolution. The second analyzes reasons for the failure of legislative efforts to implement an integrated program of transitional justice. The third outlines short- and medium-term requirements for implementing a transitional justice program.

Israel believes the US-Russian agreement to disarm Syria of its chemical weapons holds several opportunities and risks. In terms of opportunities, Israel thinks the agreement will save it from the dangers of chemical weapons and will eliminate the justifications for launching a US military campaign on Syria. Such a campaign could tip the balance of power in favor of the rebels in a way that might lead to the fall of the regime and the rise of jihadi groups, which is not in Israel’s interest. Israel is also afraid that the regime might succeed, with Russian support, in evading its commitment to the agreement. The risk factors would then persist and threaten its internal front. At the same time, there is a clear discordance in the Israeli stances vis-à-vis the resurgence of the Russian role in the region. This paper aims at exploring the extent to which the US-Russian agreement caters to Israel’s interests in Syria, and examines the repercussions of the agreement on the US and its deterrence power and their impact on Israel’s national security. The paper also explores the significance of the decisive Russian role in reaching an agreement.

This study explores the origins of Qatari-US relations, the foundations on which they are based, and the rules that govern them. It begins by examining relations between the two countries from the 1970s up until the Trump era. The paper finds that Qatar's need for US security assurances did not prevent it from adopting independent policies that occasionally contradicted US strategy. Accordingly, the Qatari-US relations have been upended, and exposed to crises due to diverging interests, concerns and challenges. While Qatar has embraced a foreign policy independent of Washington, it has also tried not to alienate it and has established itself as an asset for the US, both in terms of the military facilities it provides and the unique role it plays through maintaining ties with parties that the US cannot communicate with directly. Mutual dependency has enabled Qatari-US relations to overcome all the challenges they have faced over the past three decades, including those that emerged under the Trump administration.

Consociationalism is a system of government recommended for ‘divided societies’. Starting with a discussion of its theoretical components and criticisms it has received, this article addresses how consociationalism has been implemented in in post - 2003 Iraq. The article asks whether the Iraqi constitution and institutions formed by it represented a successful case of consociationalism. Key consociational mechanisms such as an electoral system based on proportional representation, governments based on big multi - party coalitions and a federal and decentralized governance were adopted. However, this model was not entirely consociational as some practices that are common in the majoritarian government have also been used. In fact, divisions between majoritarian and consociational perspectives have polarized, and sometimes paralyzed, the political process. In light of this, the article discusses the sustainability of the current model and its likely future trajectories.

This report reviews Algerian public confidence in the army based on the results of the Arab Opinion Index from 2011- 2019/2020 and places the respondents’ opinions in their historical context, which roughly spans the second half of President Abdelaziz Bouteflika’s rule and the rise of the Hirak popular movement in February 2019. It concludes that the army still enjoys the confidence of the majority of respondents, and that levels of confidence are governed by the societal perception of a role played by the army in the transition process, in addition to the absence of repression. Comparing trust in the army with other institutions, the report reveals that respondents express a lack of confidence in political parties, elected institutions, and the government in contrast to high confidence in the judiciary.

This study examines Sudanese peace agreements during the period 1972 – 2020 by analyzing the roots of the conflicts between the political center and the peripheral regions, through the lens of the concept of the heritage of origin , which reflects the accumulation of historical grievances rooted in political, economic, and cultural marginalization. The study argues that, since the colonial era, the central governments concentrated power and development in the Nile Valley at the expense of other regions, which gave rise to demands for equitable participation that later evolved into armed rebellions. Despite the signing of several peace agreements—such as the Addis Ababa Agreement (1972), the Khartoum and Fashoda Agreements (1997), the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (2005), the Doha Document for Peace in Darfur (2011), and the Juba Agreement for Peace in Sudan (2020)—most of them relied on partial power- and wealth-sharing arrangements without addressing the structural roots of the conflicts. Added to this were the absence of trust between the parties, foreign mediation, the repeated violation of commitments, and the instrumentalization of agreements to serve short-term political interests. The findings confirm that the failure to sustain peace was a direct consequence of leaving the heritage of origin unaddressed, leading to the secession of South Sudan in 2011 and the continuation of armed conflicts in Darfur, the East, and the Two Areas. The study recommends rebuilding the foundations of peace on equal citizenship, fair development, and the recognition of cultural diversity as necessary conditions for breaking the cycle of war and achieving national stability.

This study aims to deconstruct the Algerian security approach towards the Sahara and Sahel region in Africa which is a concern that currently exemplifies a corne stone in its foreign policy, because of its considerable importance to Algeria’s security, as well as to its national interests. Algeria insists on maintaining an autonomous approach in engineering its security strategy in the region while remaining in cooperation with others. By identifying Algeria’s contribution to security arrangements in Africa, the study provides practical examples that reflect Algeria’s security vision on both: the regional and the continental fronts. This study aims to work as a base for future evaluation of Algeria’s contribution to building African security while preserving autonomy.