Latest Articles

​This paper tackles the Algerian-Moroccan rivalry over the position of central state in North Africa and explores the stages of the Algerian-Moroccan conflict. According to the author, the rivalry between these two Arab neighbors over the position of “unitary state” is the main factor behind the tense relations between the two states, tension that inevitably affects the action plan of the Arab Maghreb Union. The relative balance of power between Algeria and Morocco explains why the conflict is centralized between them rather than other states of the Arab Maghreb. Libya, Tunisia and Mauritania are well aware that they do not have the qualifications to occupy the position of “unitary state”.

The shared nature of transboundary water resources often raises tensions regarding their allocation and use, potentially leading to strained relations and cooperation among nations. With 153 countries involved in these cross-border resources, the sustainable and collaborative management of rivers, lakes, and groundwater layers becomes critically important. This necessitates a coordinated water diplomacy approach to avoid the escalation of conflicts. While interpretations of water diplomacy may vary, it is crucial to emphasize its significance in achieving broader goals beyond water management.

Iran, over the past four decades, lived through a state of continuous alert to defend itself against the threats surrounding it and targeting its national security. Over that period, Iran did not enjoy clear recognition of its legitimacy from the major powers, the United States in particular. This created ongoing anxiety and restricted Iran’s efforts of “preserving the regime”, which Ayatollah Khomeini made the highest duty. These circumstances had tangible effects on Iranian national security and its strategy. The article sees that the nuclear agreement might be the beginning of a new phase. Via the agreement, Iran feels it has gained the recognition of the international community, and acknowledgement of its demand for legitimacy. Most importantly for Iran, the agreement shifts it away from the obsession with security and stability, and encourages it to bring out the features of the “Iranian model” in the region. The paper also discusses the fears of neighboring states and Iran’s efforts to reassure them. The positions of the political currents and the power centers in Iran are also considered as well as their differences over the pluses and minuses of the agreement.

This study attempts to understand the concepts of democratic consolidation and of dictatorship, and explains which is closer to coming about in the Turkish state after the experience of the past sixty years. Despite the reforms undertaken by the AKP since it came to power in 2002 that aimed to curtail the constitutional and legal pretexts allowing the military to intervene in political life, there have been notable changes in the Turkish scene, especially in 2013 and 2014. It has been implied that Turkey is on course to consolidate dictatorship, and this makes the third and final phase of democratization in Turkey subject to very different assessments. On this basis, the study attempts to answer a key question: where is Turkey heading, towards democratic consolidation or towards dictatorship?

​Over the past decades, the four Gulf states—Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, and Qatar—have emerged as active donor countries, playing prominent roles in fragile and conflict-affected areas in the humanitarian, developmental, and peace-related fields. While most of their foreign aid is visible in humanitarian and development sectors, their peace-related assistance remains directionally unclear and lacks sufficient analysis due to the absence of an official documentation system issued by Gulf donors in this area. To address this gap, this paper examines the foreign aid flows of Gulf donor countries through the lens of the Humanitarian- Development-Peace Triple Nexus. The analysis suggests that Gulf donor countries do not align their aid with the reform movement led by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) regarding the HDP Triple Nexus. The results reveal that the challenges to fully implementing this approach in the foreign aid policies of these countries include weak coordination among Gulf donors, the absence thereof, inadequate exchange of data, information, and joint .analysis, in addition to operating within a framework of bilateral funding.

This study explores the use of sports as a diplomatic soft power tool employed by states to achieve foreign policy objectives. It adopts a constructivist framework that highlights the role of symbolic factors in shaping state behaviour. Focusing on Qatar, as a small state lacking traditional power resources, the study examines how its leadership turned to alternative tools, notably sports, as a strategic means of influence. Qatari sports diplomacy relies on four main pillars: investing in global sports clubs, developing infrastructure and hosting major sporting events, investing in sports media, and supporting local sports. This strategic use of sport has contributed to redefining Qatar's role and enhancing its international standing, enabling it to exercise political and economic influence and to support the diversification of its national economy.

This paper determines whether the steps taken by the state towards transitional justice in Mauritania are commensurate with the heavy legacy of human rights violations witnessed in the country. It also seeks to hold that experience accountable, in order to identify the reasons for its failure. The article concludes that although Mauritania is yet to erect a transitional justice system, the first signs of such justice appear to be closer to the model of compensatory justice taken by some African countries than to the punitive justice model adopted by many European and Latin American countries. However, this latter model is more effective, since punishment for such crimes is a guarantee that it is not important to repeat them.

The rise of China as a new global power has placed a non-Western actor at the center of world politics; an actor with no colonial or imperialist history. Analyzing China's regional and global influence, the study follows the historical context of its rise and growth in a record period of time, making it a major global economic and military power. The study aims to shed light on the rise of Chinese Asian power, and the controversy that accompanied this. It will attempt to explain the causes that helped this rise take place and the potential for growth and development. The study also explains the obstacles that could hinder further Chinese growth and ascendancy, as well as the impact of China's rise on the world, and the regional and international positions vis-à-vis this rise.

Today, India is actively engaged in projecting its influence beyond its geographic proximity. It has a proactive policy based on national interests and driven by its growing needs, particularly for energy imports, and an ambition to achieve a position of global prominence. The Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) is of great geopolitical importance to India's strategy because of its geographic proximity, the abundance of energy resources, the great financial assets, and as the place with the largest Indian immigrant community. Nevertheless, many regional contenders may challenge India's interests in the region. This article discusses the geopolitical and economic importance of the GCC states and their current position in India's strategy. It explores the driving forces behind novel strategic partnerships between them. It also analyses how third-party relations with the GCC states or India may affect their relationships, such as China, Pakistan, and Iran. It also focuses on the new containment policy of India and China and their geopolitical contest over the Gulf and the GCC's hydrocarbon and financial assets.

In September 2014, US President Barack Obama announced a “comprehensive strategy” to degrade and destroy ISIL. Obama stated, “I will not hesitate to take action against ISIL in Syria, as well as Iraq. This is a core principle of my presidency: If you threaten America, you will find no safe haven.” But despite this announcement, questions over the nature, goals, and instruments of US policy towards ISIL still continue to be asked in the context of a debate between those who think that the US is not doing enough to take on ISIL and those who think it would be better for the US not to expand its military involvement in the conflict. This debate has been influenced by internal American political polarizations in the form of the critical position taken by leading Republicans such as Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham, who view the Obama policy as weak, and Middle Eastern regional rivalries over the position towards ISIL and the nature of the political choices that must frame the confrontation with it.