Latest Articles

​This paper aims to analyze European Gulf relations based on the Interdependence created by the 1988 agreement, and the subsequent transformations in the relationships. The interdependence approach assumes that there is an overlap of interests between both parties, and a degree of mutual engagement, thus limiting conflict and enhancing cooperation and coordination, which entails harmonizing the movement of its parties within the international system. Nonetheless testing the effectiveness of this approach in the context of a crisis which divides one of the parties (the Gulf in our case) remains problematic. The paper tries to probe this issue, and reveal the limitations of the interdependence model in this context. It similarly attempts to test the impact of the Gulf Crisis on a European Sub Policy towards the Gulf by analyzing the behaviours of the main actors in the EU (Germany, France, and- despite brexit- the UK).

This article traces the different paths taken by constructivism in International Relations, from its emergence as a critical social theory in the 1980 s, in response to the third debate between positivist rationalists and post-positivist reflectivists, to Alexander Wendt's project to seize a middle ground and to bridge the rationalist–reflectivist epistemological gap. The article, then, examines the intra-debates among conventional and critical constructivists on Went's project, as well as the rise of the new constructivism after Wendt left the constructivist research program. The article explores the Wendtian project's epistemological tensions and demonstrates how such tensions led to a plurality within constructivism: modernist conventional and postmodernist critical (reflectivist). It highlights that Wendt's leaving constructivism and his shift to a quantum approach have not caused constructivism to decline, but instead, it continued to thrive through the efforts of a new generation of constructivists. The article argues that three main developments in International Relations over the past twenty years have contributed to its ongoing thriving: the decline of epistemological polarization among IR theories; the rise of critical realism as a philosophy of science in International Relations, and the emergence of analytical eclecticism.

This seminal article is one of the founding texts of Critical Theory in International Relations. In this article, Robert Cox advances a critical alternative to traditional International Relations theory by foregrounding the dialectical relationship between social forces, forms of state, and structures of world order, rather than limiting analysis to interactions among states as isolated units. Cox further distinguishes between problem-solving theory, which takes the existing order as a given and seeks to preserve and improve its functioning, and critical theory, which questions the historical conditions that produced that order, exposes its underlying power relations, and illuminates the possibilities for its transformation. He develops the concept of historical structures as continually evolving configurations composed of material capabilities, ideas, and institutions, and reconceptualizes hegemony as a congruence between power, ideology, and institutions, rather than as the mere material preponderance of a single state.

This study addresses a longstanding and renewed subject in the case of Sudan: the continual interference of military formations and elites in political authority and the instability of post-independence civil governance. It uses a compound methodology blending a historical reading of political events and developments with a descriptive reading of the present reality, in its domestic and foreign dimensions, and a forecast of Sudan's future in light of the current situation. The study observes that the plurality of regional, ethnic, and military structures, instead of being a constructive and integrating aspect of the Sudanese state and nation, has reflected negatively on the country's unity and its political and security stability. Since independence, these formations have remained in confrontation, whether between one another or among the internal parts and divisions of each. Evidence for this claim is found in Sudan's complex crises, including that of governance, the South, Darfur, the current transitional period, and the struggle for power presently raging between military branches.

The causal link between economic and political freedom is a complex and interesting debate in the domain of social sciences. To enrich the academic debate on this issue, we have examined the Arab context based on econometric instruments, especially the test of causality. Based on the results of the study, the interactions between economic and political freedom in the Arab world appear to be generally in line with the thesis strongly defended by liberal thinkers, in particular Milton Friedman and Frederick Hayek, that there is a unilinear causality in which the first variable leads to the second. This result may seem self-evident in a transformed Arab context, but the reality seems to be more complex. Economic freedom indeed guarantees freedom, the constructing of the national identity and the conditions necessary to ensure individual well-being. However, such freedom is not understood in isolation from political freedom and its social context interactions and cultural structures, in contrast with restricted collective consciousness.

According to the World Bank indicators, the Maghreb youth unemployment rate is among the highest in the world. After the Arab Spring uprisings (2011), the youth aspirations and expectations clashed with the economic difficulties and political reality in the Maghreb countries, which are unable to provide employment opportunities and efficient solutions to youth major problems. In the light of this situation, we analyzed (using quantitative methods) the satisfaction degree of young people under the effect of economic challenges and political transformations in the Maghreb region. It is clear from the results that the Maghreb youth adhere more to the economic priority, despite other priorities related to administrative corruption, the lack of public services, the fight against terrorism and insecurity. The second conclusion is that the youth economic expectations create a kind of homogeneity in this region. In all the observed countries, most young people consider the economy as the first priority, as well as the entire population.

This article examines what analytical eclecticism can offer to qualify IR to overcome the Grand Theory crisis. It debates analytical eclecticism’s basic promises relying on its main characteristics which distinguish it from the dominant research traditions/paradigms: fostering research pragmatism; expanding the scope of the research issues and involving more aspects of social reality complexities in world politics; and producing complex causal statements. The article is divided into six parts. First, it provides an introduction to eclectic philosophy through Paul Feyerabend’s reflections on methodological/epistemological relativism. Second, it conceptualizes analytical eclecticism and examines its promises. Third, it explores an example of eclectic literature in the field of international studies. Fourth, it debates the relationship between the promises of eclecticism and the complexity of social causality. Finally, it seeks, in parts 5 and 6, to position analytical eclecticism epistemologically, through examining the main assumptions of Critical Relaism and its promises to move the dominant debate away from the positivist/postpositivist binary opposition.

ﺗﺮﺻﺪ ﻫﺬه اﻟﻮرﻗﺔ ﻓﻮﺿﻰ اﻟﻤﻮاﻗﻒ اﻣﻴﺮﻛﻴﺔ ﻣﻦ ا زﻣﺔ اﻟﺨﻠﻴﺠﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ إﻃﺎر ﺻﺮاع اﻟﻤﺆﺳﺴﺔ اﻟﺘﻘﻠﻴﺪﻳﺔ اﻟﺤﺎﻛﻤﺔ واﻟﺒﻴﺖ اﺑﻴﺾ. وﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﺮﻏﻢ ﻣﻦ اﻧﺤﻴﺎز اﻟﺮﺋﻴﺲ ا ﻣﻴﺮﻛﻲ دوﻧﺎﻟﺪ ﺗﺮاﻣﺐ إﻟﻰ دول اﻟﺤﺼﺎر ارﺑﻊ ﺿﺪ ﻗﻄﺮ، وﺗﺸﺠﻴﻌﻬﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ اﺳﺘﻤﺮار ﻧﻬﺠﻬﺎ وﻋﺮﻗﻠﺔ ﺟﻬﺪ اﻟﻮﺳﺎﻃﺔ، ﻓﺈن اﻟﻤﺆﺳﺴﺔ اﻟﺘﻘﻠﻴﺪﻳﺔ اﻟﺤﺎﻛﻤﺔ - ﻓﻲ ﻇﻞ ﺳﻌﻴﻬﺎ ﻟﺤﻤﺎﻳﺔ اﻟﻤﺼﺎﻟﺢ اﻟﻘﻮﻣﻴﺔ اﻣﻴﺮﻛﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ اﻟﺸﺮق ا وﺳﻂ، وﺗﺤﺪﻳﺪًا اﻟﺨﻠﻴﺞ اﻟﻌﺮﺑﻲ - ﻛﺎن ﻟﻬﺎ ﺗﺄﺛﻴﺮ ﻣﻠﻤﻮس ﻓﻲ ا زﻣﺔ؛ ﻓﻘﺪ اﺳﺘﻄﺎﻋﺖ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼل ﻣﺠﻤﻮﻋﺔ ﻣﻦ اﻟﺘﺼﺮﻳﺤﺎت واﺟﺮاءات أﺣﻴﺎﻧ ﺎ اﺳﺘﻌﺎدة زﻣﺎم اﻟﻤﺒﺎدرة وﻣﻨﻊ ﺗﺪﻫﻮر اوﺿﺎع ﻓﻲ ﻣﻨﻄﻘﺔ اﻟﺨﻠﻴﺞ أو ﻣﻨﻊ اﻻﺗ ﺠﺎه ﻧﺤﻮ ﺳﻴﻨﺎرﻳﻮﻫﺎت ﺗﺼﻌﻴﺪﻳّﺔ. وﺗﺨﻠﺺ اﻟﻮرﻗﺔ إﻟﻰ أن ﻓﻮﺿﻰ اﻟﻤﻮاﻗﻒ اﻣﻴﺮﻛﻴﺔ ﺗﻌﻮد إﻟﻰ ﻓﻘﺪان اﻟﺮؤﻳﺔ اﻟﻮاﺿﺤﺔ ﻟﻠﺴﻴﺎﺳﺔ اﻟﺨﺎرﺟﻴﺔ اﻣﻴﺮﻛﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻋﻬﺪ ﺗﺮاﻣﺐ؛ اﻣﺮ اﻟﺬي ﻳﻀﻊ اﻟﻤﺼﺎﻟﺢ اﻣﻴﺮﻛﻴﺔ أﻣﺎم ﺗﺤﺪﻳﺎت ﺟﺴﺎم، ﺑﺴﺒﺐ ﻋﺪم ﻛﻔﺎءة اﻟﺮﺋﻴﺲ، واﺳﺘﻨﺎده إﻟﻰ ﻣﺴﻮﻏﱢﺎت أﻳﺪﻳﻮﻟﻮﺟﻴﺔ، ﻓﻀﻠ ﺎ ﻋﻦ ﺣﺴﺎﺑﺎت، وﺧﺼﻮﻣﺎت ﺷﺨﺼﻴّﺔ. ﻛﻠﻤﺎت ﻣﻔﺘﺎﺣﻴﺔ: ازﻣﺔ اﻟﺨﻠﻴﺠﻴﺔ، ﺣﺼﺎر ﻗﻄﺮ، ﺗﺮاﻣﺐ. This paper traces the evolution of the official stance of the US establishment, including the White House, towards the 2017 intra-Gulf crisis. While the president's seeming bias in favor of the four countries leading the blockade on Qatar served to make them more intransigent and less amenable to various attempts at mediation, other organs of the US establishment were quick to move to try to contain the excesses of statements made by Trump and limit the fallout of the crisis. The author concludes that the disarray in the American approach to the Gulf crisis is a reflection of the lack of a clear vision of what US foreign policy ought to be under the Trump presidency. Coupled with the inexperience of President Trump, his personal vendettas and his reliance on ideological gimmicks, this reality foretells huge challenges for US interests around the world.

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.

Hardly a day passes without seeing or hearing the terms 'extremism' or 'extremists.' Used today to describe political views and attitudes, or methods in political action, the terms today are linked to particular images, and hold specific implications charged with prejudice, half-truths, and presumption. This paper asks: Is the term extremism useful to understand the ideas, views, or practices of those who are labeled as such? Are there common traits among those labeled as extremist that renders this label a useful concept in the classification of the ideas of political groups and their objectives and methods? Or, is 'extremist' simply an expression of a negative attitude agreed to by those with a specific view with the aim of ostracizing specific groups? It then poses an even larger and more critical question: How do groups of people reach the point of burning bridges with existing reality in order to carry out a fight using violent methods? The paper argues that analyzing ideology per se to reach an answer to this question is futile, be this ideology nationalistic, religious, classist, or otherwise.