Latest Articles

This paper seeks to explore the main features of the Israeli apartheid system in Palestine, both in law and practice, since Zionism, as a settler colonial project, began the collective displacement of Palestinians in 1948. This displacement was aimed at maintaining a dominant Jewish majority (the hegemonic nation) controlling Palestine and all key aspects of the newly established Israeli political entity. The paper aims to diagnose the apartheid system targeting Palestinians in Israel, known as the 1948 territories, in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967 , and the Palestinian refugees deprived of exercising their legitimate right to return to their homes, thereby denying the Palestinian people their right to self-determination and independence. The paper relies on an analysis of the most prominent studies and reports that have addressed the Israeli apartheid system in Palestine, discussing these in detail. This includes reports from Palestinian, Israeli, and international human rights organizations, as well as key Israeli laws and legislations governing the apartheid system in Palestine, particularly within the 1948 territories.

What motivates an authoritarian system, or more precisely, its leadership, which tailors legislation to its needs, violates it at will, usurps powers and combines them as it wishes, to support the existence of a seemingly "formal" independent judiciary? Moreover, how does it allow this judiciary to challenge it by limiting its authorities and narrowing its interests? The study revisits this perennial yet contemporary question, employing the Palestinian experience as a case study. It adopts a comprehensive analytical approach, examining the orientations of the Palestinian Constitutional Judiciary (PCJ), represented by the Supreme Constitutional Court and its predecessor, the Supreme Court as a temporary constitutional court, over two decades (2002 - 2022). The study originated from the assumption that the PCJ undertakes a "dual function" akin to experiences observed in authoritarian regimes, where there is a propensity for the existence of a judiciary that allows the sacrifice of some of its non-essential interests. This sacrifice is made in exchange for its utilization in legitimizing the regime and/or reassuring investors and/or controlling the administrative apparatus. However, the study concluded that the sole central and substantive interest is the support of the alleged legitimacy of the regime, and there is no corresponding sacrifice of non- essential interests. Instead, there is an abandonment of human rights.

An increasing number of countries are turning to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to resolve their water disputes. This is a positive development, as it allows the court to establish and improve standards for the use of waterways and help resolve conflicts related to water. The court's decisions reflect the tension between sovereignty and international law. Some decisions prioritize sovereignty and treaties, while others give more weight to moral principles and social theories. However, the court chose not to address water as a human right. This paper focuses on the ICJ''s role in developing a body of international water law and argues that the court still values sovereignty in its interpretation of laws, which often limits protections for the rights of non-state groups.

Rights to equality and non-discrimination in international law form the core of this paper. It begins with a preliminary study of the legal codes including the historical development of these principals in international and regional legal human rights instruments. It looks at the question of segregation, exclusion, derogation, and preference as elements that make up discrimination. It relates this to the standards of differentiation between legitimate discrimination and unlawful or prohibited discrimination. It goes on to present international standards that identify the meaning of equality and non-discrimination, and investigates the basis of prohibited discrimination in particular among the groups that are subject to it. Applying this context to Arab countries, the paper examines the need for a modern law on equality and non-discrimination that could be better enforced than current legal frameworks.​

International protection for internally displaced persons, who far exceed the number of refugees, has become a major issue in recent years. This is reflected in the international community's search for solutions, by providing them with internal humanitarian assistance so that they do not have to seek help beyond the borders of their states, affirming their right to remain in their country in security and dignity and not to become refugees. However, reality has shown that the international community's attention to the protection of internally displaced persons is not so much a humanitarian consideration as it is an inevitable consequence of state reservations to welcome refugees on their territory. European states in particular have attached urgency to protecting internally displaced persons arbitrarily to justify the closure of their borders to refugees.

Beginning in 1995, Qatar underwent a major transformation in its foreign policy, adopting an independent and neutral foreign policy as a result of being located in an important vital, geopolitical and economic region, with tensions between the influential regional powers. Given the importance of mediation in resolving disputes and bringing peace to a region raging in conflict, Qatar adopted a foreign policy approach of dialogue, good offices, mediation, and preventive diplomacy, and worked to settle disputes and crises peacefully, remaining impartial and independent, in accordance with the provisions of international law and the Charter of the United Nations. This study explores Qatar policy and experience in mediation and dispute settlement and highlights its active role and contribution over the past twenty years, by clarifying the features of its foreign policy, strategy, and principles, and highlighting case studies of previous Qatari mediation.

China’s foreign policy is concerned with strengthening relations with states of significance in the world, whether large or small. Its strategic culture plays a key role in shaping its vision of the international order, its objectives, and the tools it employs to enhance its global standing. China has primarily relied on soft power instruments in its relations with other countries, particularly in the economic sphere, and it recognizes the importance of the State of Qatar within the Arab region in general and among energy-exporting countries in particular. Accordingly, China has concluded long-term contracts for the import of substantial quantities of natural gas and has been constructing massive liquefied natural gas (LNG) carriers for Qatar. Although Qatar is considered a key ally of the United States, China and Qatar signed a strategic partnership in 2014 covering multiple fields. Both countries seek to further develop this partnership in alignment with China’s Belt and Road Initiative and Qatar’s National Vision 2030.

​This article seeks to understand the secession of Somaliland by exploring its historical, political and legal motives and rationales. It suggests that the secession is a notable outcome of the structural, political and cultural factors surrounding the emergence and unification of the Somali state post-independence. The article argues that the historical perspective offers a better understanding of not only the secession of Somaliland, but also why Somalia is a textbook case for the failure of the nation-state. The article starts with a general background on the modern socio-historical history of the Somali peninsula and analyses four key moments, starting from the history of the formation of the modern state in British and Italian Somaliland, leading to the establishment of Somalia as a unified nation-state. Accordingly, the article explains the rationale behind the secession of Somaliland from Somalia in 1991, as well as the obstacles to this secession, and concludes with an evaluation of the attitude and approaches of the international community.

There is no supranational authority that can solve international water disputes; thus, the UN Convention on the Law of the Non-Navigational Uses of International Watercourses (UN Watercourse Convention) may be the answer. However, as is shown in this article, when it comes to the Eastern Nile water dispute, namely between Egypt and Ethiopia, both sides can use different articles of the UN Watercourse Convention to support their legal arguments. As a result, there is little that the UN Watercourse Convention can offer to solve this dispute. This article summarizes the relevant articles of the UN Watercourse Convention and discusses the contentious, historical treaties that allocated the rights to the Nile River water over the past century. The paper also discusses how both Egypt and Ethiopia can use principles from the international water law to support their legal position rendering the dispute difficult to be solved legally. Thus, we turn to a discussion of the current state of the recent initiatives to solve the ongoing water dispute between the riparian countries in the Nile River Basin. The article concludes with the current state of dispute after the construction of the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam on the Blue Nile.

​Events in Mosul, which was captured by ISIL on June 9, 2014, cannot be viewed in isolation from the severe political crisis afflicting the post 2003 Iraqi political regime. Generally speaking, radical groups cannot be separated from the political environment that fostered them. They are the product of a structurally imbalanced political situation. The growth of such groups in Iraq, from Al Qaeda to ISIL, provides a textbook lesson of this. They are the expression of an imbalance political situation, even if they develop and assume an independence from the political context that gave birth to them. They grow, develop, and draw oxygen from these imbalances and from sharp political and social divisions. Hence, it is not possible to defend the idea that these groups have autonomous power, rather their power derives from the acceptance of their social incubator in a political context that this incubator allows to play a role in correcting the balances of power, as a tool or revenge, pressure, influence, or the like.