Latest Articles

This report chronicles some of the most significant developments relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict

War is the most horrific thing humanity can experience, as proved by the fact that when a war ends the tragedies do not end. The effects of war go on for countless years and generations, because its allow for the commission of every kind of crime. The words of French thinker Gaston Bouthoul apply, “War is not a tool for us, rather we are a tool for it.” Assuming that war is a human phenomenon deeply rooted in human history, one must also recognize that the hope for peace is also deeply rooted in human nature. To this end, the world knows wars as much as it has known efforts to defuse war and put it on a legal footing. Following the steps regarding the prohibition or legal framing of war enables the understanding of the contributions of all eras, with their civilizations and religions in creating the human legal tradition.

This study examines Sudanese peace agreements during the period 1972 – 2020 by analyzing the roots of the conflicts between the political center and the peripheral regions, through the lens of the concept of the heritage of origin , which reflects the accumulation of historical grievances rooted in political, economic, and cultural marginalization. The study argues that, since the colonial era, the central governments concentrated power and development in the Nile Valley at the expense of other regions, which gave rise to demands for equitable participation that later evolved into armed rebellions. Despite the signing of several peace agreements—such as the Addis Ababa Agreement (1972), the Khartoum and Fashoda Agreements (1997), the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (2005), the Doha Document for Peace in Darfur (2011), and the Juba Agreement for Peace in Sudan (2020)—most of them relied on partial power- and wealth-sharing arrangements without addressing the structural roots of the conflicts. Added to this were the absence of trust between the parties, foreign mediation, the repeated violation of commitments, and the instrumentalization of agreements to serve short-term political interests. The findings confirm that the failure to sustain peace was a direct consequence of leaving the heritage of origin unaddressed, leading to the secession of South Sudan in 2011 and the continuation of armed conflicts in Darfur, the East, and the Two Areas. The study recommends rebuilding the foundations of peace on equal citizenship, fair development, and the recognition of cultural diversity as necessary conditions for breaking the cycle of war and achieving national stability.

This report chronicles some of the most significant developments relating to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

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.

Since the publication of Horowitz's Ethnic Groups in Conflict, comparative political scientists have increasingly converged on their classification of ethnic identities. But there is no agreement on the definition that justifies this classification— and the definitions that individual scholars propose do not match their classifications. I propose a definition that captures the conventional classification of ethnic identities in comparative political science to a greater degree than the alternatives. According to this definition, ethnic identities are a subset of identity categories in which membership is determined by attributes associated with, or believed to be associated with, descent (described here simply as descent-based attributes). I argue, on the basis of this definition, that ethnicity either does not matter or has not been shown to matter in explaining most outcomes to which it has been causally linked by comparative political scientists. These outcomes include violence, democratic stability, and patronage.

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

​This section tracks the most significant political documents related to democratic transformation in the Arab world. In this issue, we publish two documents from Tunisia covering the period from 1 May to 30 June 2024.

The National Index for Democratic Transition in Iraq is a local initiative to measure democratic progress in Iraq, in an environment marked by multiple foreign indicators, which — despite their importance — are mostly based on general information derived from media or political reports. Some of their sources are neither documented nor qualified. National Index for Democratic Transition in Iraq is conducted by the Governance Center for Public Policies, a think tank based in Baghdad, to meet the need for an index based on a local perspective. A team of Iraqi academics from different disciplines contributed to building the index, and it has been conducting annually since 2018, with four reports published to date. Prepared specially for Siyasat Arabiya, this text represents a summary of the results of the four reports, and the state of democratic transition in Iraq, nearly two decades after the US invasion and the fall of Saddam Hussein's regime.

In this study, the researcher builds on the idea he presented in a previous study on “Symbolic Liberalism”, which he used to describe the responses of social sciences to the ailments of late modernity. This modernity is characterized by a blend, where it is defined as classical liberalism but politically illiberal. The study argues that this modernity is undergoing polarization across various societies, including on university campuses and in the media. This is evident through high levels of intolerance that have surfaced in discussions on political, cultural, and social issues, where bias and taking sides prevail over the use of strong, persuasive arguments. This intolerance comes from both the left and the right, manifesting in what is known as "cancel culture" on both sides. The spread of "over-safety culture" among administrative officials has led to hasty decisions and sanctions against some university professors, merely for using certain references in class or for not providing prior warnings to students, all within an atmosphere of fear. The study provides examples from the United States and France, often driven by symbolic liberals. Following this, provide a case related to the ongoing war in Gaza.