Latest Articles

This review examines two seminal books that are among the few works engaged in this line of inquiry, seeking to rethink the foundations of international relations by incorporating quantum concepts.

The Arab region offers a rich ground for testing constructivist assumptions, and moving beyond both realism that focuses on material power and liberalism promises linear progress. If international politics is shaped by shared intersubjective meanings, the region's interplay of history, identity, religion, culture, and interests makes it ideal for developing and challenging constructivist approaches.

Scholars studying the Middle East often challenge the IR discipline's Eurocentric framings of the world by emphasizing the particularities of the Middle East, which defy and challenge the universality of Western-rooted IR theories. Social constructivism, focusing on agency and processes, has been regarded by many as an approach with the potential of taking into consideration specific historical, ideational, and cultural contexts in the Middle East region. Social constructivism, as developed by Alexander Wendt (1992 , 1994 , 1999), seems to lend itself especially well to adaptations to provide insights for the Middle East. This article revisits some aspects of Wendt's constructivism and explores its applicability in the Middle East. The article examines Wendt's cultures of anarchy to show how cooperative relations transform into conflict through processes of interaction. I examine how the Middle East provides both a potential and challenge to his argument by examining the case of Saudi relations with Hamas, with a particular focus on the episode of the 2009 Gaza war. The article examines the puzzle of how Saudi Arabia changed and evolved over the years from supporting Hamas and the Palestinian resistance to identifying it as an enemy, despite sharing pan-Islamism as a collective identity.

The study presents the problems of structural politicization in political studies, and the danger of methodological debates transforming into political confrontations, a situation that has been repeated in the ongoing debate between the advocates and opponents of secularism. The study demonstrated that the necessity of the political dimension, and/or the political dependencies of every "scientific" approach to politics does not necessarily mean acceptance of unrestricted politicization. It is possible to acknowledge the political content of treatment without slipping into politicization. From this standpoint, criticism of underlying or structural politicization, as in Edward Said's criticism of Orientalism and Western Centralism, cannot be compared to the way that Israel's supporters crudely politicize US Middle East studies in their battle to hold it hostage to the interests of Israel and the extreme right. In the same vein, the study critically addresses the opinion that "area studies" in political science is marked by theoretical poverty and academic inferiority. The study itself leans towards the opinion that so called "theoretical studies" are in fact "area studies" that take western countries as the testing ground for political experiences and seek to generalize the results in the form of "theories" that enjoy universal validity.

Specialists in the philosophy of social sciences preach simplicity in choosing variables during research design, the aim of which is to avoid the complexity of abundance, reducing the clarity and logical consistency of the thesis. The rule of using limited variables is based on the methodological rule called the "Principle of Parsimony" which means that the most acceptable explanation is the simplest and stipulates the use of the lowest possible number of variables in order to explain the maximum possible number of phenomena. This study introduces this principle and examines the reasons for its absence from political research by assuming that the reason for the lack of parsimony in political research, and the tendency of researchers to use multiple variables, is the widespread "methodologist" tendency, which emerges as a type of excessive confidence in the reliability of the method.

Although the academic study of International Relations (IR) in the Arab world has been ongoing for almost seventy years, there remains a dearth of information regarding its origins that can be attributed, in part, to a lack of research on the state of the field. The present study seeks to address this gap by conducting an examination of the state of IR in the Arab World over the course of a century. Additionally, this study proposes a novel method for evaluating the current state of the field and assessing its scientific output. To achieve these objectives, the study applies sociological generational analysis to three generations of Arab IR scholars, then examines their contributions to four key aspects of the field: the scientific production cycle, the formation of the scientific community, the development of its institutional structure, and relative autonomy from political science.

How is International Relations (IR) taught in the Arab World? What happens to what was once labelled an 'American Social Science' when it enters classrooms in the Arab world and is taught in Arabic? Despite the predominance of Western approaches and theories on the teaching of IR in the Arab World, there is tension between the need to train students in the classical theories as a prerequisite for knowledge production, and the need to adapt them to various political, social, and economic contexts across the globe. This study examines the different approaches to how IR is taught in Arab universities, and how Western theories are considered critically by the teaching of alternative approaches. The paper argues that the different approaches to teaching IR are more versatile theoretically than the range of published papers in leading academic journals in the West. As such, they may prove to be the starting point for new forms of knowledge production that better reflect the realities of international relations in the Arab world.

This study discusses several hypotheses proposed by political culture literature, especially those that adopt a structural approach to understanding the relationship of social structures and institutions to actors, and the values generated by the nature of this relationship that inspire political action. The paper posits that research into the pattern of political culture arising from the relationship between social structures and actors is not limited to studying this direct relationship, but rather requires an examination of intermediary factors. Hence, the study outlines a supportive conceptual interpretive framework, through Pierre Bourdieu's Social Theory. It begins by reviewing the concepts discussed by Bourdieu to explain the relationship between social structures and actors. The second section presents a comparative analysis of concepts taken from political culture and those of Bourdieu that explain the emergence of political culture through the reciprocal relationship between social structures and actors. The third examines the outcomes of this comparison in light of the 2007 Palestinian political division.

This article examines what analytical eclecticism can offer to qualify IR to overcome the Grand Theory crisis. It debates analytical eclecticism’s basic promises relying on its main characteristics which distinguish it from the dominant research traditions/paradigms: fostering research pragmatism; expanding the scope of the research issues and involving more aspects of social reality complexities in world politics; and producing complex causal statements. The article is divided into six parts. First, it provides an introduction to eclectic philosophy through Paul Feyerabend’s reflections on methodological/epistemological relativism. Second, it conceptualizes analytical eclecticism and examines its promises. Third, it explores an example of eclectic literature in the field of international studies. Fourth, it debates the relationship between the promises of eclecticism and the complexity of social causality. Finally, it seeks, in parts 5 and 6, to position analytical eclecticism epistemologically, through examining the main assumptions of Critical Relaism and its promises to move the dominant debate away from the positivist/postpositivist binary opposition.

By studying Tunisian foreign policy in the decade after the 2010 popular uprisings, this article contributes to Role Theory by explaining how regional audience expectations influence foreign policy roles. The article first demonstrates how achieved roles develop expectations among regional states as the audience. Then it explains how these expectations condition role enactment. The article shows how Tunisia developed and established a foreign policy posture of strategic distance, defined by neutrality in regional conflicts, adherence to legalism, and pursuit of economic interests. Strategic distance came to be expected by North African states.