Latest Articles

ﺗﺒﺤﺚ ﻫﺬه اﻟﺪراﺳﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻓﺮض اﻟﺨﺪﻣﺔ اﻟﻌﺴﻜﺮﻳﺔ ا ﻟﺰاﻣﻴﺔ وﺧﻄﻮات ﺗﻨﻔﻴﺬﻫﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺛﻼث دولٍ ﻓﻲ ﻣﺠﻠﺲ اﻟﺘﻌﺎون ﻟﺪول اﻟﺨﻠﻴﺞ اﻟﻌﺮﺑﻴﺔ؛ ﻗﻄﺮ، وا ﻣﺎرات، واﻟﻜﻮﻳﺖ، واﻟﺘﻲ أﻋﺎدت ﺗﻄﺒﻴﻘﻪ ﺑﻌﺪ ﺗﻮﻗﻒ دام ﺧﻤﺴﺔ ﻋﺸﺮ ﻋﺎﻣًﺎ. وﺗﻔﺴﺮ اﻟﺪراﺳﺔ ﻫﺬه اﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﺔ اﻟﺠﺪﻳﺪة، ﺑﻤﺎ ﻳﻌﻤﻞ ﻋﻠﻴﻪ اﻟﺘﺠﻨﻴﺪ اﻟﺰاﻣﻲ ﻣﻦ ﺗﻌﺰﻳﺰ اﻟﻬﻮﻳﺔ اﻟﻮﻃﻨﻴﺔ واﻟﺘﻔﺎﻋﻞ اﻻﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻲ اﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﻲ ﻟﻠﺸﺒﺎب، وﺑﻤﺎ ﻳﺘﻴﺤﻪ ﻟﻘﻮات اﻻﺣﺘﻴﺎط ﻓﻲ ﻫﺬه اﻟﺒﻠﺪان اﻟﺘﻲ ﺑﺎﺗﺖ ﻣﺆﺧﺮًا أﻛﺜﺮ ﻧﺸﺎﻃ ﺎ ﺧﺎرج ﺣﺪودﻫﺎ، ﻓﻀﻠ ﺎ ﻋﻦ أن اﻟﺘﺠﻨﻴﺪ اﻟﺰاﻣﻲ ﻳﺴﺘﻘﻄﺐ وﻳﺪرب ﺷﺒﺎﻧ ﺎ ﻏﺎﻟﺒًﺎ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻔﺘﻘﺮون إﻟﻰ اﻟﺘﻌﻠﻴﻢ، وﻳﻜﻮﻧﻮن ﻋﺎﻃﻠﻴﻦ ﻋﻦ اﻟﻌﻤﻞ وﻣﻌﺘﻠﻲ اﻟﺼﺤﺔ. ﻛﻠﻤﺎت ﻣﻔﺘﺎﺣﻴﺔ: ﻗﻄﺮ، اﻣﺎرات، اﻟﻜﻮﻳﺖ، اﻟﺘﺠﻨﻴﺪ اﻟﺰاﻣﻲ. This article explores the introduction and implementation of mandatory military service, in three of the six Gulf monarchies that constitute the membership of the Gulf Cooperation Council. Two of these states, Qatar and the UAE, have never before imposed conscription while the third, Kuwait, decided to reintroduce it after a fifteen-year hiatus. The new policy, the essay argues, has been motivated by several reasons. First, conscription will build up the reserve forces of these states that have recently become more active in projecting military power beyond their borders. Second, it will strengthen national identity and the political socialization of young men and, to a lesser extent, women. Third, it will engage and train often poorly educated, unemployed, and unhealthy youths. Finally, the article contends, there is little chance of compulsory military service being introduced in the other three GCC states.

​For centuries, Arabs and Kurds have shared not only the same geographical space, but also the same cultural sphere. Even during periods of heighten awareness of their ethnic differences, it would have been impossible to speak of anything approaching a “Kurdish Question” within the Arab world prior the twentieth century and the advent—and global spread—of the nation-state model born in the 19th century, which, in its Middle Eastern variant, was always rooted in ethnicity. This was complicated by the need of the emergent nation-states to absorb and integrate nascent political identities born of these ethnic groups.

ﺗﻨﺎﻗﺶ ﻫﺬه اﻟﺪراﺳﺔ إﺣﺪى أﻫﻢ ﻣﺸﻜﻼت اﻟﺪﻳﻤﻘﺮاﻃﻴﺔ اﻟﻠﻴﺒﺮاﻟﻴﺔ اﻟﻴﻮم؛ أي اﻟﺘﻨﺎﻗﺾ اﻟﺤﺎﺳﻢ اﻟﻜﺎﻣﻦ ﻓﻲ ﺑﻨﻴﺘﻬﺎ واﻟﻤﺤﻔﺰ ﻟﺘﻄﻮرﻫﺎ ﺑﻴﻦ اﻟﺪﻳﻤﻘﺮاﻃﻴﺔ اﻟﻘﺎﺋﻤﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺒﺪأ اﻟﺴﻴﺎدة اﻟﺸﻌﺒﻴﺔ، وﺑﻴﻦ اﻟﻠﻴﺒﺮاﻟﻴﺔ اﻟﻤﺮﺗﻜﺰة ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺒﺪأ اﻟﺤﺮﻳﺔ اﻟﻔﺮدﻳﺔ، وﻫﻤﺎ ﻣﻜﻮﻧﺎن ﻳﻌﻤﻼن ﺑﺸﻜﻞ داﺋﻢ ﻓﻲ اﺗﺠﺎﻫﻴﻦ ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻔﻴﻦ. وﺗﺮﻛﺰ ﻋﻠﻰ أزﻣﺔ ﺑﺮوز اﻟﺘﻴﺎر اﻟﺸﻌﺒﻮي وﺳﻴﺎدﺗﻪ ﻓﻲ اﻟﺘﺠﺮﺑﺔ ا ﻣﻴﺮﻛﻴﺔ. وﺗﺨﻠﺺ إﻟﻰ أن اﻟﺘﻨﺎﻗﺾ ﻓﻲ اﻟﺪﻳﻤﻘﺮاﻃﻴﺔ اﻟﻠﻴﺒﺮاﻟﻴﺔ ﻳﻤﻴﻞ إﻟﻰ أن ﻳﻌﻜﺲ ﺗﻔﺎوﺗﺎت وﻣﺼﺎﻟﺢ اﺟﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ واﻗﺘﺼﺎدﻳﺔ أﻛﺜﺮ ﻣﻨﻬﺎ ﺛﻘﺎﻓﻴﺔ وﻋﺮﻗﻴﺔ. وﻣﻊ أن ﻧﺘﺎﺋﺞ اﻟﺘﻨﺎﻗﺾ ﻻ ﺗﻘﺘﺼﺮ ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﺘﺠﺮﺑﺔ اﻣﻴﺮﻛﻴﺔ وﺣﺪﻫﺎ ﺑﻞ ﺗﺘﻌﺪاﻫﺎ إﻟﻰ ﺑﻘﻴﺔ اﻟﻌﺎﻟﻢ، ﻓﺈﻧﻪ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻮﻗﺖ ذاﺗﻪ ﺗﻨﺎﻗﺾ ﻣﺎﺛﻞ ﻓﻲ ﻣﻌﻈﻢ اﻟﺪﻳﻤﻘﺮاﻃﻴﺎت اﻟﻠﻴﺒﺮاﻟﻴﺔ، اﻟﺘﻲ ﻳﻄﻐﻰ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ أﺣﺪ اﻟﻤﻜﻮﻧﺎت ﻋﻠﻰ ا¤ﺧﺮ؛ ﻣﺎ ﻳﻨﺘﺞ أﺣﺪ ﺧﻴﺎرﻳﻦ: ﻧﻈﺎم ﻧﺨﺒﻮي أو ﻧﻈﺎم ﺷﻌﺒﻮي، ﻛﻤﺎ ﻫﻮ ﻣﺎﺛﻞ ا¤ن، ﺑﻤﺎ ﻳﻀﻊ ﻣﻜﻮﻧﺎت اﻟﻤﺠﺘﻤﻊ اﻣﻴﺮﻛﻲ ﻓﻲ ﻣﻮاﺟﻬﺔ ﺑﻌﻀﻬﺎ ﺑﻌﻀ ﺎ ﺑﺸﻜﻞ ﺣﺎد وﻣﺒﺎﺷﺮ، وﻳﻔﺘﺢ اﻟﺒﺎب ﻣﺴﺘﻘﺒﻠ ﺎ أﻣﺎم ﺑﺮوز ﺻﻴﻐﺔ دﻳﻤﻘﺮاﻃﻴﺔ رﺑﻤﺎ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﻣﻐﺎﻳﺮة ﻟﻠﺪﻳﻤﻘﺮاﻃﻴﺔ اﻟﻠﻴﺒﺮاﻟﻴﺔ اﻟﺘﻲ ﻋﺮﻓﻬﺎ ﻫﺬا اﻟﺒﻠﺪ. ﻛﻠﻤﺎت ﻣﻔﺘﺎﺣﻴﺔ: اﻟﺪﻳﻤﻘﺮاﻃﻴﺔ، اﻟﻠﻴﺒﺮاﻟﻴﺔ، اﻟﺸﻌﺒﻮﻳﺔ، اﻟﻨﺨﺒﻮﻳﺔ. Tis paper discusses one of the most pressing challenges facing liberal democracies, specifically, the tensions between the concept of popular consent (or "sovereignty of the people") and the protection of individual freedoms. Tese two aspects of democracy have been in liberal democracies across time and space, argues the author, but the paper examines in detail the rise of a populist bloc in the United States. Te author asserts that the self-contradiction contained within democracy reflects social and economic differences and not ethnic or cultural variance. Te author concludes that the conflict between these two aspects of democracy produces a system of government which favors one aspect over the other. Tis, the author says, creates sharp social conflict in America and could give rise to a novel form of democracy there.

The June, 1967 War was a turning point in the modern history not only of Palestine and the Zionist state but also the wider region. The defeat of the Arab armies was a pivotal moment for the modern and contemporary histories of the Arab world, and has consequences which continue to reverberate today. That fact remains unchanged despite attempts by Arab governments to gloss over the severity of what happened during the war, first by employing the euphemism of Naksa (or "setback") to describe what happened and later to celebrate the fact that "progressive" Arab regimes were not toppled by the Israeli army. Despite the significance of these events, the Arabic academic literature continues to lack a serious analysis of the events of June, 1967, in stark contrast to the hundreds of academic works published by Israeli and western authors. This reality necessitates a rereading of the war, and the formulation of a new Arab narrative about it, which the author attempts in this paper.

The relationship between Morocco's military and the country's political elite – in particular its monarchy– was formed alongside the state's very apparatus immediately following independence. The military came to take a neutral approach to the rapidly developing pattern of partisan jockeying between the various political camps vying for power, and tended to find ways that would allow military positions to remain firmly within the royalist camp. These early patterns, established at the very birth of the modern Moroccan state, formed the basis on which these two powers would get along in the years to come. In tracing this relationship, the paper writes of a historic battle for power in the country, and identifies longstanding reasons for the vested interested of the Moroccan elite in ensuring the tranquility of relations between the Royal Court and the military establishment.

Military interventions in Sudanese politics can be attributed to a number of factors, most pertinently: excessive politicization throughout society, social institutions, trades unions and syndicates as well as educational and religious institutions. In this sense, the Sudanese was not an exception, merely one of many highly politicized institutions. This paper concludes that the three different military coups which took power in Sudan were only able to do so with the aiding and abetting of civilian political forces, such as the National Umma Party, the Islamic Front and an array of leftist forces all—to varying extents—colluded with the military to further their political aims. With the military ranks reflecting wider societal politicization, military coups were effectively an extension of the political process by other means.

This paper explores the concept of “the Responsibility to Protect” (R2P), an outcome of the 2005 World Summit which entails that the international community has a moral duty to intervene in the domestic affairs of sovereign states in cases involving war crimes, crimes against humanity, ethnic cleansing, or genocide. The author illustrates the historical legacy of the R2P, covering how early legal philosophers justified the intervention of European powers through theories such as just war, intervention in the name of humanity, and humanitarian intervention, before exploring whether R2P represents a violation of well-established principles of international law: the sovereignty of states and non-intervention in their affairs and the non-use of force in international affairs. The paper concludes that R2P does not provide for the use of force in a manner that does not already exist in the UN Charter.

Consociationalism is a system of government recommended for ‘divided societies’. Starting with a discussion of its theoretical components and criticisms it has received, this article addresses how consociationalism has been implemented in in post - 2003 Iraq. The article asks whether the Iraqi constitution and institutions formed by it represented a successful case of consociationalism. Key consociational mechanisms such as an electoral system based on proportional representation, governments based on big multi - party coalitions and a federal and decentralized governance were adopted. However, this model was not entirely consociational as some practices that are common in the majoritarian government have also been used. In fact, divisions between majoritarian and consociational perspectives have polarized, and sometimes paralyzed, the political process. In light of this, the article discusses the sustainability of the current model and its likely future trajectories.

Civil society rests on the principle of economic independence from politics, deemed to be a long-standing precondition to limiting the despotism of a political authority and its ability to wreak havoc on society. The paper poses the question of why civil society has thus far failed to materialize in Algeria, despite the existence of political pluralism in the country dating to the 1989 Constitution. The author contends that the persistence of rentierism in the Algerian economy has enabled the country’s government to prevent the rise of a genuine civil society in Algeria, despite the de jure acceptance of political pluralism in the country. The government has been able to use the levers of a rentier economy to subdue the political elites and dominate society, effectively controlling the political fallout of economic liberalization. The paper goes on to survey the political economic context, which led to the failure of a democratic transition in Algeria, by exploring how private capital was unable to echo the catalyzing role played by the European bourgeoisie in the democratization and political modernization of their continent.

Forced migration from Iraq and Syria today are reminiscent of the Palestinian Nakba of the late 1940s, underscoring the need for a revision of Arab knowledge in the field of forced migration. This paper attempts to offer a starting point for researchers interested in the subject, and attempts to expand the specifically Sudanese experience across the Arab world. The paper also takes in those academic studies which explore the violent aspects of forced migration as well as the extent to which Sudanese government policy on refugees is tied to the social values of the Sudanese people. One conclusion made in this regard is the possibility that the integration of refugees can be used to address structural instabilities in Arab societies. The author highlights the importance of the interested parties—including governments, grassroots movements and returned refugees—to cooperate in effecting the integration of refugees who return to their home countries, a challenge more complicated than hosting refugees abroad.