Latest Articles

This study aims to define the interests and goals of the United States in the Arab region by answering two main questions: how does the Obama administration differ from its predecessors in view of its promises of change, particularly following the tragic transformations raging in the Arab region at present? And to what extent does the strategy of this administration reflect its public diplomacy regarding democracy, freedom, and justice in the region? The study explains how Obama raised the ceiling of expectations when he did not limit his promises to a change in American policy only, but included putting an end to the mentality that had pushed the United States into war. Despite the difference in style and method between the Obama and Bush Junior administrations, the overall goals and the regional strategy can be summarized in terms of three key interests: the priority of ensuring free access to energy supplies in the region; maintaining American supremacy over all other global powers; and the containment of all Arab objections to ensure the dominance of the US strategic agenda in the Arab region, including the guarantee of Israel's security.

This paper highlights the role of the armed forces and their impact on the process of political transition, and discusses civil-military relations in their various aspects: the state, society and the armed forces per se, in order to reveal the main pillars that constitute a balance between the power of political institutions (legislative and executive) and the military power of the army. Such a balance would lead to the subduing of the army to the civil authority, and confine military activities to security and defense. The paper focuses on the common characteristics shared by states that have succeeded in building democratic armies. To conclude, the author presents a set of recommendations addressed to activists and democrats, on what ought to be done and what should be avoided in the security-defense field during the process of democratic army building.

Humanity has continued to develop expertise in addressing the environmental issue and to better understand extreme weather events such as droughts and increased desertification, often accompanied with political tensions and economic crises that have contributed to conflicts over natural resources, leading policymakers to re-think climate change and the drivers of armed conflict. In this regard, the study attempts to deconstruct the relatedness/unrelatedness of climate change and the drivers of conflict, focusing on international legal perspectives and methods to enable local communities develop own adaptation and resilience particularly in the African continent and the Arab region. Therefore, the study provides proposals that address climate vulnerability and adopt equitable access mechanisms as steps to reduce waves of displacement and avoid climate risks, conflicts, and insecurity.

Given the unrest boiling in the region, this paper considers the possibility of partitioning the countries of the Levant. Given the state of affairs and current political indicators in Syria and Iraq, which suggest the Kurds have started to regain their national unity and awareness, the group is now the only faction in the Levant fighting on nationalist or ethnic bases. What makes it easier for them to establish a viable Kurdish entity, at the local level, is the fact that they have huge economic, political, human, and military potential. This paper examines local and international contexts and obstacles to the establishment of a Kurdish state. It also argues that it will be unlikely, meanwhile, that sectarian entities could be created in Syria and Iraq given current local and international circumstances. Indeed, sectarian tension is nothing more than social tension that is the result of imbalance in the distribution of wealth and power, and the result of political authoritarianism. Therefore, the warring groups are not part of the framework of separatist tendencies; though they are liable to turn into sectarian nationalisms due to foreign intervention and agendas.

Through an examination of the legal and institutional frameworks for resolving disputes this study explores the settlement of environmental disputes in compliance with international law, and focuses on the status of the environmental dimension within that. The study explores the Helsinki and Berlin rules, the different international agreements, the extent to which their implementation is crucial and the impediments in this field. To delve further into the discussion, the study examines the obstacles that limit the peaceful settlement of environmental problems. Such problems are largely due to the global nature and complexity of environmental issues, the absence of the political will of major powers and the attempts to bypass and bury problems by adopting a scientific approach to settle environmental disputes and banning “green intervention”, in addition to encouraging balanced cosmic negotiations, relying on the balance of mutual benefits between parties and neglecting the balance of powers rule.

​In this section you will find the most important documents on democratic change in the Arab world. In this issue, we publish documents highlighting the political movement in Tunisia demanding democracy and look at the main political changes in Sudan, Iraq and Jordan in March and April 2022.

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.

This paper addresses the implications of the transformation of the international system from a bipolar to a unipolar system for realist theory. The paper demonstrates and analyzes how realists react to this external challenge. The paper demonstrates the traditional response to the "attack" on realism, in an attempt to preserve its basic premises. It then proceeds to explain the different revisionist orientations undertaken by the theorists of this school in an attempt to harmonize the foundations of this theory with unipolarity. The study deals with four revisionist approaches: "balance of threat", "soft balance", "balance of interests" and "external balancing". This paper presents a new addition, "internal balancing" which, while derived from the liberal theory opposed to realism, comes with a realist adaptation to explain the length of the current unipolar era.

This study attempts to determine the latest changes in the US-Saudi alliance and reflect on its destabilization. Specifically, it aims to determine whether the current crisis in US-Saudi relations might actually lead to a rift. Alternatively, the current events could be nothing but a temporary breakup depending on each country’s vision of its interests, after which relations could resume. The study reached some important results. It concluded, for example, that the speculation of a collapse of the US-Saudi alliance and its replacement with the US-Iranian alliance is farfetched and lacks depth. It is politically impossible and strategically inoperable for the US to side with Iran at the expense of Saudi Arabia amid the current polarization.

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.