Latest Articles

This book comes to complement the findings of previous research projects in the crises in the Middle East, the American treatment of them, and the impact of the cultural and intellectual composition of the ruling administrations in the US.

Multiple International Relations theories brand the international system as anarchist. What is meant by anarchy here is the absence of a central authority at international level to settle conflicts between actors in the international system. This is why states always seek to attain more power, but to do so they cannot adopt idealist policies in the global arena. This theory applies to the way international powers dealt with the Arab revolutions in 2011. International interests in some cases played a key role in the revolutions' development and outcomes. This study characterizes the nature of the international system on the eve of the Arab revolutions and analyzes the degree to which these revolutions interacted with the international system and their outcomes based on the characterization it infers.

International Relations Theories: Discipline and Diversity [Translated into Arabic]

This study examines US foreign policy and the changes that occurred under former President Donald Trump, compared to other post-Cold War administrations, assessing their impact on the future of US hegemony and the liberal international system, with projections for current president Joe Biden's rule. Two main questions arise: First, what foreign policies did Trump pursue? Second, what impact do they have on the future of US hegemony and the liberal international order? The analysis studies the concept of hegemony in international relations theory. It concludes with three possible scenarios awaiting the future of US hegemony under Biden's rule, with his administration likely to move between partial reform and catastrophic failure.

This study discusses the possibility of bridging the gap between IR (International Relation) and Foreign Policy Analysis when studying the interaction between memory and apology in foreign policy. By dealing with apology as an expressive practice, not just as a tact between statesmen, this study argues that apology is an act used by states to express their attitudes toward their past memories. It presumes that examining the interaction on the theoretical level between concepts such as narrative identity, ontological security, and discursive representations would bridge the gap between the two fields through two versions of social constructivism. Those two versions are then used to understand the motives behind Germany's apology to Israel, and Turkey's resistance to apologize to Armenia despite international pressure to do so. The study concludes that "critical constructivism" approach by Nizar Messari can explain the German case. It considers the role of foreign policy as a tool in reconstructing national identity through transforming representation of the Jewish/Israeli "other" from a "different other", who is an enemy of the self, to a "similar other", who is a part of its moral responsibility. As for Turkey, it concludes that Ted Hopf's "practical/societal constructivism" suggests that the reasons behind Turkey's unwillingness to apologize to Armenia is due to an ontological need best understood as "a need to preserve the routine of its narrative identity, and the need to preserve it heroic memories".

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.

The changing international conditions after the collapse of the Eastern bloc, have creating more challenges to the continuity of the main principle that have governed the Algerian foreign policy “the non-interference principle”. This led to a crisis in the Algerian foreign policy, which appear in the decline of its international role and regional influence. Through discussing the Algerian approach to the Arab Spring, This article proposes that the crisis can be understood in the inability of the Algerian decision -maker to produce an external speech that reconcile between Algerian foreign policy doctrine and its national interests considerations. Such a deficit is what explains the decline of Algeria in dealing with the aftermath of the Arab spring and current international issues in general.

In the past two decades of the twentieth century, global politics witnessed significant transformations in the structures of international actors and their patterns of interaction. Among these was the rise of decentralized governments that were granted greater powers and authorities, enabling them to advance their economic, cultural, and political interests and to participate alongside the central government in managing foreign affairs. This phenomenon, known as paradiplomacy, contributed to restructuring relations between the center and the peripheries on the one hand and between the peripheries and the outside world on the other, posing new challenges to the state system established by the Treaty of Westphalia, upon which the modern international order is based. The paper concludes that this phenomenon can offer the state an opportunity to achieve the desired balance between control and guidance as part of its efforts to maintain its traditional functions and its status as a Westphalian actor within a system of multi-level and multi-layered global governance characterized by complex and overlapping relationships.

Qatar is on a path to ever widening global production and trade, its networks today including the entire global market. This paper discusses how the economy is no longer governed by the system of the nation-state alone, as new types of actors in the economic field appear. The private sector has gained the primary role in fields of production, marketing, and global competition, causing some theorists to say that globalization has put the state’s role in the shadow of globalization, predicting an end to the state. Others, however, say that though it has removed restrictions and barriers on the flow of goods, capital, labor, values ​​and cultures, globalization does not toll the demise of the role of the state as much as it promotes the role of national authority in the management of economic, social, civil, cultural, and scientific activities. The general global trend toward the international reality of gradual global institutionalization allows the overcoming of barriers and other enormous challenges that lie ahead. This study discusses a number of issues related to globalization and the opening of old borders, it reviews the trend toward institutionalization of international action on issues such as terrorism, war, and environmental crimes, as international law has taken a step forward to develop mechanisms of judicial action

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.