Latest Articles

The potential impact of the Covid- 19 pandemic on populist governments has been the subject of a heated debate among specialists. There are scholars for who the pandemic will negatively impact populist governments. Here, populist governments are perceived as ill-equipped to respond to the multifaced challenges risen by the complexity of the pandemic. Conversely, many scholars that argue that the pandemic will strengthen populist governments because populism flourishes during crises. This article contests these two narratives. It asserts that any evaluation of the impact of the pandemic on populist governments should distinguish between their actions and their discourse. Thus, the study undertakes an analysis of US president Trump’s discourse, demonstrating that during the first year of the pandemic, it is twofold. First appears a “disconnected discourse” that continuously questions the reality of the pandemic, despite the important proactive actions taken by his government to mitigate the pandemic's economic, social, and sanitary impacts. Second, a “demonstrative discourse” arises, in which the pandemic was instrumentalized to enhance the legitimacy of one of the most important and controversial elements of the populist discourse: the idea of external threat.

​In recent years, Analytical Eclecticism has emerged as a promising theoretical trend and has attracted great attention from researchers and practitioners of international relations theory. Analytical Eclecticism is based on the following three pillars: the call for theoretical diversity and pluralism by adopting Eclectic methodology; challenging the dominance of classical paradigms (realism, neoliberalism, constructivism) over international relations theory; and to advocate for the replacement of Grand Theory with middle range theories following its decline. The article presents a critical review of these pillars to demonstrate that the rationale upon which analytical Eclecticism is based is tainted by some contradictions; its criticisms of Grand Theory are built on an incomplete understanding of what it and its function are. Moreover, analytical eclecticism is not a new subject in the discipline of international relations, and the decline of Grand Theory does not necessarily signify its disappearance.

​This article debates the significance of cultural differences in the identification and application of principles of sport governance. It attempts at refuting the underlying assumption that the ‘progress’ achieved and enjoyed within sport governance in the West represents the model to be emulated by the non-west. It argues that modernisation of sport is liable to take on subtly different forms in different local contexts which are modern but not uniform, supporting in effect a form of ‘multiple modernities’. Sport governance, like modernity itself, is not a homogeneous phenomenon, as its (cultural, political, and/or economic, and thus sport) forms varies as much as cultural contexts do, and their characteristics overlap rather than tend to take a unitary set of features attributable to a single model.

This paper aims to examine the economic policies of Israeli governments towards Israeli settlements in the Palestinian territories occupied in 1967 within the framework of settler colonialism. It focuses on their role in promoting and expanding settlements to control the largest possible area of the West Bank since the right-wing's dominance in Israel, with Benjamin Netanyahu's return to the premiership in 2009 until now. The study claims that Israel employs various socio-economic policies tailored to the needs of the settler colonial project, differing from its policies within the Green Line. On one hand, Israeli governments adopt a neoliberal Zionist economic policy within the Green Line, while on the other hand, they adopt a specific socio-economic Zionist policy in the settlements. These specific socio-economic policies in the settlements are an integral part of the tools used to strengthen the settler colonial system in the West Bank.

This paper seeks to explore the main features of the Israeli apartheid system in Palestine, both in law and practice, since Zionism, as a settler colonial project, began the collective displacement of Palestinians in 1948. This displacement was aimed at maintaining a dominant Jewish majority (the hegemonic nation) controlling Palestine and all key aspects of the newly established Israeli political entity. The paper aims to diagnose the apartheid system targeting Palestinians in Israel, known as the 1948 territories, in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967 , and the Palestinian refugees deprived of exercising their legitimate right to return to their homes, thereby denying the Palestinian people their right to self-determination and independence. The paper relies on an analysis of the most prominent studies and reports that have addressed the Israeli apartheid system in Palestine, discussing these in detail. This includes reports from Palestinian, Israeli, and international human rights organizations, as well as key Israeli laws and legislations governing the apartheid system in Palestine, particularly within the 1948 territories.

This study addresses the methodological dimension of the gap between social research and public policymaking in the Arab region. It demonstrates several intertwined factors that contributed to this phenomenon, the most important of which are: lack of trust between researchers and decision makers, methodological dependency, the absence of a scientific culture that promotes research based evaluation, the lack of intellectual and moral courage among researchers and weak demand for the use of multifaceted holistic approaches. The study concludes that the success of enhancing coordination between social science research and policymaking in the Arab region depends on the extent to which academic freedoms are respected, considering this constitutes one of the most important elements of scientific research and competency. Academia must also be allowed to fulfill its role in developing serious and applicable scientific research.

​The splitting, renaming and merging of factions can lead to the start of new rivalries, or in some cases, end existing ones. A new faction may inherit the original faction's previous rivalries with other groups, and if a faction name change results in a total restructure, it may signal the end of the rivalry. However, this was not the case when Jabhat al-Nusra renamed itself Jabhat Fatah al-Sham, and later Tahrir al-Sham. It was considered a 'cosmetic' and superficial change because it did not develop a new structure. This article will shed light on exclusionary politics and the political ramifications of sectarianism caused by certain jihadist movements, such as Jabhat al-Nusra (presently known as Tahrir al-Sham), enabling us to analyse its practices, especially towards minorities, and sectarian ideologies present in Idlib, and which ultimately led to the expulsion of many who fled outside the governorate. The article also calls attention to the roles of regional and international powers in Idlib against the backdrop of opposition factions, and their physical and ideological influence on Islamist forces that frequently facilitated displacement within and outside the city.

​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.