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 paper examines the 2012 General National Congress (GNC) elections in Libya, analyzing their implications and the interpretations that framed them as a victory for the liberal bloc (the National Forces Alliance) over the Islamist faction (the Justice and Construction Party and its allies). The paper reveals that this interpretation lacks accuracy, highlighting that a significant number of winning independent candidates were affiliated with Islamist movements. It also argues that Islamists later succeeded in consolidating their control within the GNC, leveraging their alliances to pass laws that excluded their political opponents. These elections marked a turning point in Libya after the overthrow of Gaddafi, representing the country's first democratic experiment in building a new political system despite the challenges inherited from the previous era. The paper examines the electoral system, key competitors, election results, and internal conflicts within the GNC, concluding that Islamist dominance after 2012 challenges the idea of a liberal victory.

This article examines a contingent Paradigmatic shifts at the 'ESS 2003 and 'EUGSS 2016'. It mainly argued that, the EUGS's including of 'Resilience' as a strategic priority of EU external and security action settled more security roles to the EU. To address these shifts, the article provide three sections. Firstly, we trace with the help of CST the 'genalogy of resilience', and show how resilience as a rationality of governance endorse an intensified logic of security. latter, we explore the EU's two paradigms, 'Normative' and 'Resilience', their meanings, connotations and applications in the EES 2003 and the EEGSS 2016, and show how the EU display a new institutional mechanisms and security/ defense initiatives in order to fulfill its new paradigm. Thirdly, we, test the limits of these shifts by examining the applications of resilience within the European agenda on Migration.

عنوان الكتاب: الطائفة، الطائفية، الطوائف المتخيلة. المؤلف: عزمي بشارة. سنة النشر: 2018. الناشر: المركز العربي للأبحاث ودراسة السياسات. عدد الصفحات: 822 صفحة.

​​The first Annual Conference for Strategic and Policy Studies in the Arab World was hosted by the Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies from December 15 to December 17, 2012. The brought together scholars working within policy research centers, the directors of these organizations and representatives of funding bodies.

This study explores epistemic violence afflicting the field of international relations and the way it relates to Eurocentrism. It probes the consequences this has had for international relations theories, revealing blind spots regarding states of the South. It challenges the Western narratives and perspectives that dominate international relations whilst demonstrating there are voices and theories in the South that have been historically silenced and marginalized in that discipline. The study poses the following key questions: What are the mechanisms by which epistemic violence is exercised against the Global South? What are its implications for positivist theories? How is epistemic violence to be overcome? In its analysis and response to these questions, the study employs the methodology of discourse analysis to clarify the position of countries of the South in the discourse of international relations and positivism. As well, it makes use of the concept of epistemic violence to understand the mechanisms of action of epistemic hegemony in this discipline, and the concept of epistemic disobedience to propose a method by which to disengage from this hegemony with focus on examples from the Arab world. The study concludes by highlighting the importance of epistemic disobedience for research methods as a basic instrument for crafting policies to make international relations global in terms of issues, substance, and knowledge.

This paper explores Arab public attitudes towards the proliferation of nuclear weapons across the Middle East. The results of the Arab Opinion Index presented here indicate that a majority of the Arab public has an in-principle opposition to the spread of nuclear weapons in the Middle East. Nonetheless, there are important caveats to this opposition: Israel’s present-day monopoly of nuclear weapons is a limiting factor to this principled opposition. Respondents to the survey, who also overwhelmingly view Israel as the country which poses the single greatest to regional security, contend that Israeli possession of nuclear weapons justifies other states in the region seeking to obtain them.

Since the time of President Thomas Jefferson, and on through the presidents of the 20th century, the United States has talked about itself as the propagator, protector, and defender of democracy around the world. Yet America has never showed any qualms of forming military and political alliances with authoritarian regimes in Latin America, Europe, Asia, and Africa. The US justifies these international alliances on the basis that “not all dictatorships in the world are enemies of the United States, but all the United States’ enemies are dictatorships.” The US therefore adopted a two-track diplomacy: while working to spread democracy (directly or by means of international organizations and NGOs) the US has no issue in supporting autocratic governments when its interests are involved. How did US policy apply to the democratic transformation in the former Eastern bloc states in Europe on the eve of the collapse of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and subsequently, when American values and interests went hand in hand, and how did it then apply to the Arab Spring of 2011, when US values and interests were congruent in some cases and out of sync in others, according to the situation in each country and its strategic importance from America’s perspective? What are the results of these policies and what differences emerge from such a comparison of the Arab and East Europe cases.

​The study is premised on the assumption that the US-Iranian tensions under the Trump administration represents a new chapter in the crisis in the US-Iranian relationship. This extreme hostility was related to US domestic politics and the bordering on personal rivalry of President Trump with his predecessor, President Barack Obama, in domestic and foreign policy. One of the most important policy manifestations of this administrative divergence concerns the Nuclear Agreement with Iran, signed in 2015. Opposition to the Nuclear Agreement united Gulf players such as Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Bahrain, who considered shared hostility towards Iran as a bridge to strengthen their relations with the US on the one hand; while also forming a strong front, in the presence of Israel, to weaken the Iranian regime without necessarily replacing it.

The purpose of this paper is to document Qatar's recent contribution of humanitarian aid to the Palestinians. We consider Qatar as an example of a mini state that relies on its wealth and soft power to further its interests in the Middle East and support a beleaguered Arab-Muslim state. The paper carries out analysis of Arabic newspapers and other documentary evidence to contextualize and estimate Qatar's financial contribution from 2010 to 2016. Contextualizing Qatar's aid necessitates considering Israel's military control of the Palestinian Territories, and its ability through hard power to regulate the inflow of aid to Palestine. The paper concludes by calling for adopting the political economy perspective in dealing with humanitarian aid.