Latest Articles

This paper addresses problematic aspects of the concept of "terrorism" from within its present-day setting, exploring the futile conflict between "terrorism" and "counter-terrorism" which has been utilized to marginalize the discourse on democracy, justice and national liberation. The paper argues that the categorization of an event as a terrorist act based on the identity of the perpetrator, and regardless of the victims, leads to a logical fallacy. One consequence of categorizing all armed acts by non-state actors as "terrorist" is the erosion of distinctions between terrorist acts and acts of national liberation, resistance to foreign occupation and armed opposition to state violence against civilians. One conclusion of the paper is that blurring the distinctions between terrorist and legitimate acts is counterproductive to the war on terror.

​Qatari foreign policy presents a challenge for students of international relations. Whereas major theories within the field tend to privilege structural factors in explaining the action of states, and particularly small states, in the case of Qatar, the quality of leadership and the strategies that leadership employs to navigate through the structural constraints—primarily geography—are equally important. One of the main findings of this paper is that the strategies adopted by the Qatari elite since 1995 did alleviate many of the structural constraints which the country would otherwise have faced. Moreover, during the short-lived Arab Spring of 2011-2013, Qatar tried to reshape the political landscape in the Middle East to its favor, challenging the two regional hegemons Saudi Arabia and Iran, in Egypt and Syria respectively. Yet, the paper concludes, geopolitical factors and the relative capabilities of states remain instrumental in assuring a state’s sustained capacity to continue playing a key role. This is particularly true in a region where elite thinking continues to be defined by realpolitik.

This study monitors the role of external factors in the stability of Moroccan authoritarianism and controling the liberalization methods pursued by the government over two stages: the final years of the Cold War and the 2011 Arab Spring. As much as these factors contributed to widening the margin of liberalization in the Moroccan political arena, they also contributed to limiting this liberalization (September 11, the post-2013 counterrevolutionary movement), especially given the lack of internal will to mature it. While it is true that these factors have made an impact, this remained within certain limits that allowed actors abroad (the United States, the European Union and donor institutions) to control the transformations of Moroccan politics and to manage contradictions, thus creating an environment hostile to democratic transition in Morocco.

ﺗﺪﻋﻲ اﻟﺮواﻳﺔ اÈ ﺳﺮاﺋﻴﻠﻴﺔ اﻟﺮﺳﻤﻴﺔ أن ﺣﺮب ﺣﺰﻳﺮان/ ﻳﻮﻧﻴﻮ 1967 اﻧﺪﻟﻌﺖ ﻣﻦ دون أن ﺗﺮﻏﺐ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ إﺳﺮاﺋﻴﻞ وﻣﻦ دون أن ﺗﺨﻄﻂ ﻟﻬﺎ ﺳﻠﻔ ﺎ، وﻟﻜﻦ اﻟﻤﻌﻠﻮﻣﺎت اﻟﺪﻗﻴﻘﺔ واﻟﺘﻔﺎﺻﻴﻞ اﻟﻜﺜﻴﺮة اﻟﻤﺘﻨﺎﺛﺮة ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﺻﺪر ﺑﺎﻟﻌﺒﺮﻳﺔ ﻣﻦ ﻛﺘﺐ وﻣﺬﻛﺮات ودراﺳﺎت ووﺛﺎﺋﻖ إﺳﺮاﺋﻴﻠﻴﺔ؛ ﺗﺮﺳﻢ ﺻﻮرة ﻣﻨﺎﻗﻀﺔ ﺗﻤﺎﻣًﺎ ﻟﻬﺬا اﻻدﻋﺎء. ﺗﻌﺎﻟﺞ ﻫﺬه اﻟﺪراﺳﺔ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺻﻨﻊ ﻗﺮار ﺣﺮب ﺣﺰﻳﺮان/ ﻳﻮﻧﻴﻮ ﻓﻲ إﺳﺮاﺋﻴﻞ، ﻟﻴﺲ ﻓﻘﻂ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼل ﻣﺘﺎﺑﻌﺔ ﻗﺮارات اﻟﺤﻜﻮﻣﺔ اÈ ﺳﺮاﺋﻴﻠﻴﺔ، وﻫﻲ اﻟﻤﺆﺳﺴﺔ اﻟﻤﺨﻮﻟﺔ رﺳﻤﻴًﺎ وﻗﺎﻧﻮﻧﻴًﺎ اﺗﺨﺎذَ ﻗﺮار اﻟﺤﺮب، ﺑﻞ ﻣﻦ ﺧﻼل ﻣﺘﺎﺑﻌﺔ ﻣﻮﻗﻒ اﻟﻤﺆﺳﺴﺔ اﻟﻌﺴﻜﺮﻳﺔ اÈﺳﺮاﺋﻴﻠﻴﺔ ودورﻫﺎ اﻟﺤﺎﺳﻢ ﻓﻲ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺻﻨﻊ ﻗﺮار اﻟﺤﺮب ﺗﺨﻄﻴﻄ ﺎ وﺗﺼﻌﻴﺪًا؛ ﻓﻘﺪ ﺳﻌﺖ اﻟﻤﺆﺳﺴﺔ اﻟﻌﺴﻜﺮﻳﺔ ﻟﺨﻠﻖ اﻟﻔﺮﺻﺔ اﻟﻤﻮاﺗﻴﺔ ﻟﺸﻦ اﻟﺤﺮب ورﻓﻀﺖ أي ﺣﻞ ﺳﻠﻤﻲ ﻟÑزﻣﺔ، واﺳﺘﻌﻤﻠﺖ ﻣﺨﺘﻠﻒ أﺷﻜﺎل اﻟﻀﻐﻂ ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﺤﻜﻮﻣﺔ اÈﺳﺮاﺋﻴﻠﻴﺔ ﻻﺗﺨﺎذ ﻫﺬا اﻟﻘﺮار. وﺗﻘﻒ اﻟﺪراﺳﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻋﻮاﻣﻞ ﺗﺄﺛﻴﺮ اﻟﻤﺆﺳﺴﺔ اﻟﻌﺴﻜﺮﻳﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻗﺮار ﺣﺮب ﺣﺰﻳﺮان/ ﻳﻮﻧﻴﻮ، واﻟﺨﻄﻂ اﻟﻌﺴﻜﺮﻳﺔ اﻟﺘﻲ وﺿﻌﺘﻬﺎ ﻫﻴﺌﺔ ارﻛﺎن اﻟﻌﺎﻣﺔ ﻟﻠﺠﻴﺶ اÈﺳﺮاﺋﻴﻠﻲ ﺑﻐﺮض ﺗﻮﺳﻴﻊ ﺣﺪود إﺳﺮاﺋﻴﻞ. ﻛﻠﻤﺎت ﻣﻔﺘﺎﺣﻴﺔ: ﺣﺮب ﺣﺰﻳﺮان/ ﻳﻮﻧﻴﻮ 1967، إﺳﺮاﺋﻴﻞ، ﻟﻴﻔﻲ إﺷﻜﻮل. Te official Israeli narrative of the June 1967 War depicts the country as having been dragged unwillingly into a conflict for which it had not planned. A close inspection of a number of detailed sources, scattered across a variety of published Hebrew materials, paint a picture entirely at odds with such a claim however. In this paper, the author addresses the Israeli decision to go to war in June 1967 by examining the steps taken by the Israeli government—legally, the only body mandated to declare war. Te author also examines the developments in the stance taken by the Israeli military command, which was instrumental in the decision to go to war. At the time, the Israeli military worked to create the right opportunity to declare war, refusing to accept any attempts at a peaceful resolution of the conflict and coerced the government into war through a variety of means.

This study examines the impact of securitization on the democratization of three countries in the in the Horn of Africa: Djibouti, Somalia and Sudan. The three countries, all members of the Arab League, represent diverse but integrated securitization models. The study assumes that securitization in the region has left democratic transformation low in the list of priorities for the major powers, at a time when counterterrorism rhetoric is overwhelming. The paper raises the following questions: Why has securitization discourse overpowered talk of democracy in the Horn of Africa? How do the mechanisms of the securitization discourse interact with political reality? What is the role of regional institutions in enhancing securitization discourse?

European Jihadism has evolved since it first appeared in the 1990s. In many European countries, at the outset, it tended to be restricted to the "disaffected youth! from the poor suburbs (France) or poor inner city areas (UK), but it rapidly spread to the middle classes, whether Muslims or converts. In 2013, with the civil war in Syria, Jihadism underwent major changes. Before that it was restricted to a few hundred people, but it has now risen to several thousand. At the same time, adolescents have become numerous and the number of girls and converts has sharply increased. The aim of the article is to propose an understanding of the mindset of these new social actors in the light of the internal conditions of European societies.

Original Title: Nous ne sommes plus seuls au monde- Un autre regard sur l’ " ordre international "

Book Title: Was ist Politik? [Translated into Arabic] Author: Hanna Arendt Translation: Zouheir el-Khoueildi Year of publication: 2014 Publisher: Manshourat Difaf, Manshourat al-Ikhtitlaf, Dar al-Aman Pages:136

This paper analyzes border issues between Sudan and South Sudan, since the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement . It also provides insight into the report of the Boundary and Demarcation Commission regarding the contested border areas such as (Jouda, Mount Almeqinas, Kaka Commercial Area, 14-mile area and Abyei). The paper is also attempts to study the impact that secession has had on population groups along the border lines. The paper found that border issues between Sudan and South Sudan cannot be resolved through arbitration, referendum or even demarcation. The border lifestyle and associated population density have produced a complexity that will continue beyond the next 100 years. This would only change in the event of a fundamental lifestyle shift in the societies on either side of the border. The resolution of flexible borders remains the only logical solution that can establish lasting peace and mutual trust among the tribes of the region.

Through an examination of the legal and institutional frameworks for resolving disputes this study explores the settlement of environmental disputes in compliance with international law, and focuses on the status of the environmental dimension within that. The study explores the Helsinki and Berlin rules, the different international agreements, the extent to which their implementation is crucial and the impediments in this field. To delve further into the discussion, the study examines the obstacles that limit the peaceful settlement of environmental problems. Such problems are largely due to the global nature and complexity of environmental issues, the absence of the political will of major powers and the attempts to bypass and bury problems by adopting a scientific approach to settle environmental disputes and banning “green intervention”, in addition to encouraging balanced cosmic negotiations, relying on the balance of mutual benefits between parties and neglecting the balance of powers rule.