Latest Articles

This study centers on the phenomenon of 'paradiplomacy' that has become prominent in Western industrialized liberal-democracies. It begins by distinguishing three layers of paradiplomacy, arguing that paradiplomacy can be a multifunctional vehicle for reinforcing interests and protecting identity. It then discusses the various choices that are made when developing a paradiplomacy, including designing new structures and selecting partners. Next, the study addresses the issue of intergovernmental relations in the context of paradiplomacy and, more specifically, the attitude of central government towards a sub-state units developing activities that could be classified as constituting paradiplomacy, when these last nourish nationalist aspirations. Finally, the last section offers a brief discussion of the implications of paradiplomacy for democracy, democratic consultation and representation.

عنوان الكتاب: فيروس كورونا والنظام العالمي: مستقبل الصراع والتنافس والتعاون عنوان الكتاب بلغته الأصلية: Covid-19 and World Order: The Future of Conflict, Competition, and Cooperation. المحرران: هال براندز وفرانسيس غافين .Hal Brands & Francis J. Gavin (eds.) الناشر: مطبعة جامعة جونز هوبكينز .Johns Hopkins University Press مكان النشر: بالتيمور/ مريلاند .Baltimore, Maryland سنة النشر: 2020. عدد الصفحات: 472 صفحة.

This study discusses the evolution of transitional justice in Morocco, demonstrating how the work of the Equity and Reconciliation Commission established within the regime has remained subject to the constraints of Moroccan politics. The Commission was declared a success prematurely, but over time it became clear that the Moroccan model needed to be reevaluated. The study concludes that the idea of "justice to the extent possible" obstructed transitional justice. Not only did this slogan serve to obscure the full truth; it also provided insufficient impetus to continue pushing for broader institutional reform. Although Morocco has experienced something of a human rights revival in recent years, it still harbours pockets of "lawful" injustice, broadly signaling an absence of sovereign law.

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.

The study centers on a major problem related to rational choice theory and its applications in international relations and foreign policy. It asks whether the selection process is subject to the principle of maximizing benefit according to this theory, or is subject to other principles, psychological processes and cognitive biases. The study reached conclusions that confirm that the selection process is in fact subject to a non-standard process; that is, it is not subject to continuous choices to benefit maximization, but there are other factors that lead to the selection of risk over gain, and here the psychological aspects overlap with the rational aspects in influencing the choice. This reveals that it is not possible to separate the school that focuses on the psychological aspects of the decision maker and the school that focuses on rational calculations, but rather that the two can be combined together within the framework of alternative theories complementary to rational choice theory, such as the perception theory.

With the expansion of donor entities and the growth of their various activities, the questions about foreign aid and the strategic objectives behind it have become essential. This paper asks the following questions: Why do donor entities provide aid to poor countries? What are the most important objectives of these donors? Are humanitarian motives the main factor determining the conduct of donors? Theoretical and empirical studies have addressed these questions in depth from various theoretical backgrounds looking at many areas of the world, but there remains no agreement regarding the most important motives and objectives governing the conduct of donor countries in providing aid to poor countries. This paper seeks to answer these questions by reviewing, analyzing, and adapting the most important studies in international development and international relations to highlight the most important features of the global debate on this issue.

​عنوان الكتاب الأول بلغته الأصلية: The End of American World Order. عنوان الكتاب: نهاية النظام العالمي الأميركي. المؤلف: أميتاف أشاريا Amitav Acharya. دار النشر: Polity. سنة النشر: 2018. عدد الصفحات: 138. عنوان الكتاب الثاني بلغته الأصلية: Liberal Leviathan: The Origins, Crisis, and Transformation of the American World Order. عنوان الكتاب: اللفياثان الليبرالي: أصول وأزمة وتحول النظام العالمي الأميركي. المؤلف: جون إكنبري Gilford John Ikenberry. دار النشر: Princeton University Press. سنة النشر: 2011. عدد الصفحات: 372.

The paper focuses on transnational human rights activism and its efforts to influence the human rights landscape in Egypt. It argues that the global human rights system has provided a space for resisting authoritarianism in Egypt and that its significance has grown amid the widespread restrictions on civil and political rights, as well as the forced or voluntary relocation of many human rights activists and political actors into exile. The paper further reveals that the extent of the Egyptian government’s response to pressures from transnational networks is shaped by domestic, regional, and international conditions and factors—including the impact of counter- discourses and strategies that enable authoritarian regimes to contain and weaken the effects of transnational networks. The paper draws on a diverse set of primary and secondary sources, including publications from international and local human rights organizations, government statements, and media reports, in addition to semi- structured interviews with a group of Egyptian human rights defenders.

عنوان الكتاب في لغته: The Struggle for Recognition in International Relations : Status, Revisionism, and Rising Powers. عنوان الكتاب: النّضال من أجل الاعتراف في العلاقات الدولية: القوى الراهنة والتعديلية والصاعدة. المؤلّف: ميشيل موراي. سنة النشر: 2019. النّاشر: Oxford University Press. عدد الصفحات: 280 صفحة.

What motivates an authoritarian system, or more precisely, its leadership, which tailors legislation to its needs, violates it at will, usurps powers and combines them as it wishes, to support the existence of a seemingly "formal" independent judiciary? Moreover, how does it allow this judiciary to challenge it by limiting its authorities and narrowing its interests? The study revisits this perennial yet contemporary question, employing the Palestinian experience as a case study. It adopts a comprehensive analytical approach, examining the orientations of the Palestinian Constitutional Judiciary (PCJ), represented by the Supreme Constitutional Court and its predecessor, the Supreme Court as a temporary constitutional court, over two decades (2002 - 2022). The study originated from the assumption that the PCJ undertakes a "dual function" akin to experiences observed in authoritarian regimes, where there is a propensity for the existence of a judiciary that allows the sacrifice of some of its non-essential interests. This sacrifice is made in exchange for its utilization in legitimizing the regime and/or reassuring investors and/or controlling the administrative apparatus. However, the study concluded that the sole central and substantive interest is the support of the alleged legitimacy of the regime, and there is no corresponding sacrifice of non- essential interests. Instead, there is an abandonment of human rights.