Latest Articles

The visibility of public health in world politics has increased due to epidemics such as HIV/AIDS, and tensions between public health and international trade, including those related to patents and access to essential medicines. Advocacy for raising the profile of public health on diplomatic agendas raises fundamental theoretical questions about public health: why should public health be higher on global diplomatic agendas? How should the pursuit of better public health globally be structured and implemented? This article explores answers to these questions provided by traditional theory on public health and analyzes the problems the anarchical context of international relations poses for such answers. A major part of this analysis utilizes theories from the discipline of international relations – using realism, institutionalism, liberalism, and social constructivism to illuminate theoretical challenges global health advocacy faces in making public health more important in world politics. These theories help identify a theoretical conundrum faced by public health, and the article considers various ways in which to handle this in light of the desire to increase the role public health plays in international relations.

This study examines the ability of network technology to challenge despotism regimes. It thus applies two theoretical approaches. The first is the "Prisoner's dilemma" and the "despot/jailer's dilemma" and the second is the "case study", which studies a number of cases of "network technology", whether used by protest groups or by authoritarian regimes, to determine the extent (and direction) of their impact in practice. The study concludes that network technology — through challenging the logic of the "prisoner's dilemma" and reversing it to become the "jailer's dilemma" — can, theoretically, pose an element of weakness for despotism regimes. However, in reality, network technology can be used by these regimes with the same effectiveness, to respond to mass protests supported by technology. This indicates that network technology can be seen as a neutralizing factor, the impact of which should be studied relative to the impact of other factors.

This article is a contribution to the ongoing debate regarding the changing dynamics of global power relations, which seem to be heading toward an inevitable end of the unipolar world order dominated by the United States since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1990. It demonstrates that through highlighting the rising global power of China and Russia, which is currently causing a substantial threat to the US hegemony. As such, the continuation of this trajectory in the upcoming decades will likely lead to the emergence of a tri-polar world order, whereby the international system will be shared among the US, China and Russia. Methodologically, this article primarily relies on content analysis and thorough scrutinization of recent official foreign policy and national security documents issued by these actors in order to provide an in-depth understanding of the respective strategic vision underpinning.

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.

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.

ﺗﺴﻠﻂ اﻟﻮرﻗﺔ اﻟﻀﻮء ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﻤﺤﺪدات اﻟﺮﺋﻴﺴﺔ ﻟﻤﻮاﻗﻒ ﺛﻼث دول ﻋﺮﺑﻴﺔ؛ ﻫﻲ اﻟﺴﻮدان واﻟﻤﻐﺮب واﻟﺼﻮﻣﺎل، ﻣﻦ ا زﻣﺔ اﻟﺨﻠﻴﺠﻴﺔ اﻟﺮاﻫﻨﺔ. وﻟﻢ ﻳﺄت اﺧﺘﻴﺎر ﻫﺬه اﻟﺪول ﻣﻦ ﻗﺒﻴﻞ اﻟﻤﺼﺎدﻓﺔ، ﺑﻞ ﻧﺘﻴﺠﺔ ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﻣﻦ اﻟﻌﻮاﻣﻞ؛ أﺑﺮزﻫﺎ اﻟﻌﻼﻗﺎت اﻟﻮﺛﻴﻘﺔ واﻟﻤﻤﻴﺰة ﻟﻬﺎ ﺑﺄﺣﺪ ﻃﺮﻓﻲ ازﻣﺔ، وﺳﻌﻲ اﻟﺪول ارﺑﻊ اﻟﻤﺤﺎﺻِ ﺮة ﻻﺟﺘﺬاﺑﻬﺎ إﻟﻰ ﺻﻔﻬﺎ، ﺿﻤﻦ ﻧﻬﺞ دﺑﻠﻮﻣﺎﺳﻲ ﻗﺎدﺗﻪ اﻟﺴﻌﻮدﻳﺔ، ﻳﺮﻣﻲ إﻟﻰ ﻋﺰل دوﻟﺔ ﻗﻄﺮ ﻋﺮﺑﻴًﺎ ﺗﻤﻬﻴﺪًا ﻟﻌﺰﻟﻬﺎ دوﻟﻴًﺎ. وﻣﺎ أﻋﻄﻰ ﻻﺧﺘﻴﺎرﻧﺎ أﻫﻤﻴﺔ، رﻓﺾ اﻟﺪول اﻟﺜﻼث، ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﺮﻏﻢ ﻣﻦ اﻏﺮاءات واﻟﻀﻐﻮط، ﻣﺴﺎﻳﺮةَ دول اﻟﺤﺼﺎر ﻓﻲ ﺧﻄﻮاﺗﻬﺎ اﻟﺘﺼﻌﻴﺪﻳﺔ ﺿﺪ ﻗﻄﺮ، واﺗﺨﺬت اﻟﺤﻴﺎد اﻳﺠﺎﺑﻲ اﻟﺪاﻋﻲ إﻟﻰ ﺣﻞ اﻟﻤﺸﻜﻼت اﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﺑﺎﻟﻄﺮق اﻟﺴﻠﻤﻴﺔ، ﻣﻦ دون اﻟﻠﺠﻮء إﻟﻰ آﻟﻴﺎت ﺗﻌﺴﻔﻴﺔ، ﻛﻨﻬﺞ اﻟﺤﺼﺎر اﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﻲ واﻻﻗﺘﺼﺎدي اﻟﻤﺘﺒﻊ ﺣﺎﻟﻴًﺎ. ﻛﻠﻤﺎت ﻣﻔﺘﺎﺣﻴﺔ: ازﻣﺔ اﻟﺨﻠﻴﺠﻴﺔ، اﻟﺴﻮدان، اﻟﻤﻐﺮب، اﻟﺼﻮﻣﺎل، أرض اﻟﺼﻮﻣﺎل. This paper explores the positions of three Arab states: Morocco, Sudan and Somalia towards the present crisis in intra-Gulf relations. The choice of these three Arab countries in Africa was deliberate, a result of the strong bilateral bonds which tie each of them to Qatar, a party to the conflict. It is also true that the countries presently leading a blockade on Qatar, led by Saudi Arabia, sought to coerce these three countries to similarly cut off ties with Qatar, part of an effort to isolate Doha on the Arab regional stage before seeking to isolate the country globally. More importantly, each of these three countries opted to pursue a path of "positive impartiality", remaining firm in the face of financial and political inducements from the countries leading the blockade on Qatar to join their effort.

​A one-day academic symposium hosted by the Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies will bring together experts from Russia, the Arab world and the region to examine Moscow’s latest military intervention in Syria, on Saturday, October 24, 2015. While Russia’s decision to intervene directly in the conflict in Syria comes as the culmination of more than four years of diplomatic and military support for the Assad regime, the move by the Kremlin to deploy its military forces has come as a surprise to many observers, becoming a turning point not only in the militarized revolution within Syria, but also in the broader Middle East and indeed in a larger global arena. To better study the circumstances which gave rise to the Russian maneuver and the outcomes likely to result from it, the Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies will convene “Russian Military Intervention in Syria: Motives, Objectives and Repercussions”. In the highly volatile climate which the Middle East is presently witnessing, selected participants at the meeting will be asked to examine the fallout of Russia’s actions on the future stability of the region.

The “zero problems” foreign-policy approach adopted by Turkey towards its neighbors, and its expansion to cover the Middle East and North African space, with which it shares an important historical and cultural field, has strengthened Turkey’s orientation towards consolidating relations with Algeria. This has also been aided by similarity in positions and views on many central issues, foremost among them the Palestinian cause which for both countries has great religious and historical symbolism, and represents a meeting point between the two countries’ positions. In this regard, Turkish diplomacy has undergone something of a change, since it began to adopt attitudes and positions hostile to Zionists, a position long held by Algerian foreign policy since independence. On this basis, the influence of religious and historical factors becomes clear in setting the new directions for Turkish foreign policy with regards to Algeria and the intensification of its efforts to consolidate relations. This can be ascribed to feelings of belonging to the Islamic nation and a shared history which form starting points for Turkish foreign policy.

The current Sinai issue poses many questions on the nature of the escalating violence there, the reasons for its emergence

The debate over the most appropriate model for governing Somalia continues. This article begins by synthetizing that debate using interviews, discussion groups, as well as document and literature analyses. It addresses issues of complaint with the current system, including lack of confidence, demands for democracy, access to basic services, and for a fair share of resources. These form the core of local interest in decentralized proposals. It analyses the regional and international context, as well as tribal politics as forces pushing for the current tribal federal project. The suitability of proposals for confederacy, federalism, government by consensus, and decentralization contained in the published literature are analyzed in this context, alongside the literature available on the subject. The paper finds that a decentralized system is the most appropriate governance model for Somalia, explaining how the flexible tools it involves will work to keep the country united, address local grievances, and legitimate interests of external Parties.