Latest Articles

The study examines wealth and power in the US energy policy in the Gulf region using the international political economy approach, which proposes a relationship of mutual influence between the market and foreign policy. The study is based on two main analytical approaches: economic liberalism and economic realism. By tracking the course of US energy policy in the Gulf, the study extrapolates factors determining US energy security interests between twofold economic and political objectives; creating wealth and maximizing power. It also looks at the weighting factors of one at the expense of the other or the extent to which they are merged. It also aims to assess the future of the US approach to the region given Washington's energy independence strategy. The study argues that the critical impact of energy, especially oil, on economic development and the well-being of nations cannot be ignored.

This article is an attempt to study the legitimization of the Moroccan political system by constitutional jurisprudence, considered as a concrete process within the science of constitutional law, and a social field that has witnessed struggles over epistemic authority. The structure and dynamism of this scientific field, and the appropriate political context, led to its transition from profane thought to traditionalism in the wake of the conservative revolution spearheaded by moroccan young researchers. This revolution, which constituted the kingdom of the constitutionalists, will shift from a counter field to a hegemonic one. This enabled the pioneers of traditionalism to participate in the process of legitimizing the political system in Morocco, through the production of constitutional documents broadcast and infused in symbolic violence through the constitutional lesson that will turn them, with the backing of the constitutional document and academic mentoring, into a scientific habitus.

This paper presents the findings of a public opinion poll on Arab attitudes towards the policies of the United States government. The survey questions addressed attitudes towards a set of specific US policies throughout 2014. Further questions also sought to understand the reasons behind a widespread Arab opposition to the United States. The results indicate that Arab attitudes towards the United States, which are broadly negative, are rooted in US foreign policy towards the Arab region.

This study aims to define the interests and goals of the United States in the Arab region by answering two main questions: how does the Obama administration differ from its predecessors in view of its promises of change, particularly following the tragic transformations raging in the Arab region at present? And to what extent does the strategy of this administration reflect its public diplomacy regarding democracy, freedom, and justice in the region? The study explains how Obama raised the ceiling of expectations when he did not limit his promises to a change in American policy only, but included putting an end to the mentality that had pushed the United States into war. Despite the difference in style and method between the Obama and Bush Junior administrations, the overall goals and the regional strategy can be summarized in terms of three key interests: the priority of ensuring free access to energy supplies in the region; maintaining American supremacy over all other global powers; and the containment of all Arab objections to ensure the dominance of the US strategic agenda in the Arab region, including the guarantee of Israel's security.

This paper seeks to ascertain the extent of positive Arab public attitudes—or lack thereof—towards the Arab popular revolutions, after more than a year since the revolutions first broke out. The results show an overall positive attitude towards the Arab revolutions among the Arab public. When asked to provide reasons for their positive disposition towards the revolutions, respondents spoke of an "Arab Awakening" which laid the foundations for democratic governance in the Arab region by restoring the democratic rights of Arab citizens. Opposition to the Arab revolutions and their impacts accounted for only 25% of Arab public opinion. A majority of respondents who disapproved of the Arab revolutions blamed the failure of these popular movements to achieve their aims, as well as the resulting economic and political instability. In addition to broad overall support for the Arab revolutions, the Arab public credits the recent revolutions with improved treatment of the public by the police and other government officials in the Arab region.

This study evaluates the strength of the legislative bodies in three Arab countries both on paper and in public opinion. It utilizes an existent measure, the parliamentary power index, to gauge the strength of parliamentary bodies, before comparing that with public perception. The study asks if the power given to legislative bodies reflects the actual impact on policy from the point of view of Arab citizens. This study uses the questions in the ACRPS Arab Opinion Index on the legislative councils of Jordan, Morocco and Kuwait, in comparison with the parliamentary power index, to make this assessment.

This paper presents an overview of trends in public opinion in four Arab countries—Jordan, Iraq, Lebanon and Palestine (covering the West Bank and the Gaza Strip) towards events in the Syrian crisis. The data presented in this paper draws on opinion polls, comprising of face-to-face interviews with representative samples within each of the countries named above, and conducted as part of the 2012 Arab Opinion Index. The results of the survey demonstrate that there is no sharp divide in public attitudes towards the Syrian crisis, with firm majorities across all countries believing that an ideal solution to the Syrian crisis lies in the overthrow of the current regime. Only 8% of respondents held the view that the best solution to the crisis in Syria would lie in the total vanquishing of the opposition.

This study evaluates the strength of the legislative bodies in three Arab countries both on paper and in public opinion. It utilizes an existent measure, the parliamentary power index, to gauge the strength of parliamentary bodies, before comparing that with public perception. The study asks if the power given to legislative bodies reflects the actual impact on policy from the point of view of Arab citizens. This study uses the questions in the ACRPS Arab Opinion Index on the legislative councils of Jordan, Morocco and Kuwait, in comparison with the parliamentary power index, to make this assessment.

This paper compares the results of the Fragile States Index issued by the Fund for Peace, a charitable organization, with indicators established in the Arab Opinion Index, an annual survey undertaken by the Arab Center for Research and Policy Studies in a number of Arab countries. These indicators reflect the assessments provided by Arab respondents of economic, social and political issues and what their views mean in light of the specific country contexts. The paper also examines whether citizens' views can be relied upon as indicators of the vulnerability of the state and the extent to which the indicators of state vulnerability are accurate by comparing them with the opinions of citizens in different areas. In this context, based on the Arab Index survey, the paper relied on nine indicators out of 12 adopted by the Fragile States Index in order to interpret economic, social and political opinions expressed by respondents.

This paper uses the findings of the 2015 Arab Opinion Index to gauge Arab public attitudes towards the “Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action”, the international agreement which brought to a close a world crisis over Iran’s nuclear program. The paper also explores Arab attitudes towards the possibility of Iranian non-compliance with the terms of the agreement as well as the possible transformation of Iran into a nuclear capable state. The findings reflect a sharp division within Arab public opinion: 43% of respondents expressed the belief that Iran would abide by the terms of the agreement, with 46% predicting that the country would not follow through with the terms of the multilateral treaty.