Latest Articles

Beside the military and external challenges, the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries are facing serious domestic non-conventional challenges, i.e., the demands of political reform, social mobilization, demographic imbalance, environmental deterioration, resource depletion, the transformation and diversification in post-oil economy, terrorism and radicalization etc. In particular one of these new kinds of threats has started to be significant in the last decade. The massive immigration and demographic imbalance between local citizens and foreign residents in countries like the U.A.E, 10 percent; Qatar, 15 percent. This imbalance and the massive immigration into the GCC countries increased the vulnerability of these states, especially since it relates to other critical security issues such as human security (food security for example, in UAE is an example, the country import almost 95 percent of its food consuming) radicalization, energy security, and domestic unrest especially after 2011.

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.

The paper provides indications and analysis of the positions of the most influential Shia powers and parties in Iraq after the fall of the predominantly Sunni city of Mosul and the rise of the Islamic State group in 2014. In addition to the Najaf-based supreme Shia religious authority led by ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the Shia parties represented in government since 2003, the paper shed light on the increasingly powerful Iran-backed armed groups Popular Mobilization (Hashd Sha'abi) and how their appeal, visibility and influence had changed after the fall of Mosul. The question of the Iraqi national identity and how it interacts with the Shia identity is addressed in the paper in light of the discourse of the Shia powers and relations between Shia Iraqis and other communities.

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.

ﺗﺴﻠﻂ اﻟﻮرﻗﺔ اﻟﻀﻮء ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﺤﺪدات اﻟﻤﻮﻗﻒ اﻳﺮاﻧﻲ ﻣﻦ ا زﻣﺔ اﻟﺨﻠﻴﺠﻴﺔ اﻟﺮاﻣﻲ إﻟﻰ ﻣﻨﻊ أيّ ﺗﻐﻴﻴﺮ ﻓﻲ اﻟﺠﻐﺮاﻓﻴﺎ اﻟﺴﻴﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻤﻨﻄﻘﺔ، ﻛﻤﺎ ﺗﻘﻒ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻣﻜﺎﺳﺐ ﻃﻬﺮان ﻣﻦ اﺳﺘﻤﺮار ا زﻣﺔ ﻧﺘﻴﺠﺔ ﺧﺴﺎرة اﻟﺮﻳﺎض ﺑﻌﺾ ﺣﻠﻔﺎﺋﻬﺎ اﻟﺘﻘﻠﻴﺪﻳﻴﻦ ﻓﻲ ﻣﻨﻄﻘﺔ اﻟﺨﻠﻴﺞ وﺧﺎرﺟﻬﺎ ﻣﻦ ﺟﻬﺔ، وﻋﻠﻰ ﺧﺴﺎﺋﺮﻫﺎ اﻟﻤﺘﻮﻗﻌﺔ أﻳﻀ - ﺎ ﻟﻮ ﻃﺎل أﻣﺪ ازﻣﺔ أو اﺗﺠﻬﺖ اﻟﻘﻮى اﻟﻤﺆﺛﺮة ﻓﻴﻬﺎ إﻟﻰ ﺳﻴﻨﺎرﻳﻮﻫﺎت ﺗﺼﻌﻴﺪﻳﺔ ﻣﻦ ﺷﺄﻧﻬﺎ زﻳﺎدة اﻟﺘﺪﺧﻞ ا ﻣﻴﺮﻛﻲ - ﻣﻦ ﺟﻬﺔ أﺧﺮى. وﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﺮﻏﻢ ﻣﻦ ﺧﺼﻮﻣﺘﻬﺎ اﻟﺘﻘﻠﻴﺪﻳﺔ ﻟﻠﺴﻌﻮدﻳﺔ، ﺗﻤﻴﻞ دواﺋﺮ ﺳﻴﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﻋﺪة ﻓﻲ ﻃﻬﺮان إﻟﻰ اﺗﺨﺎذ ﻣﻮﻗﻒ ﺣﺬر ﻣﻦ ازﻣﺔ، ﺧﺸﻴﺔ ﺗﺒﻌﺎت دوﻟﻴﺔ وإﻗﻠﻴﻤﻴﺔ ﻟﻬﺬا اﻟﻤﻮﻗﻒ؛ إذ ﻻ ﺗﺒﺪو إﻳﺮان اﻟﺮﺳﻤﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ وﺿﻊ ﺳﻴﺎﺳﻲ ﺟﻴﺪ، ﻓﻬﻲ ﻟﻢ ﺗﺠﻦ ﻣﻜﺎﺳﺐ ﺗﺬﻛﺮ ﻣﻦ اﻻﺗﻔﺎق اﻟﻨﻮوي ﻛﻤﺎ ﻛﺎﻧﺖ ﺗﻤﻨ ﻲ ﻧﻔﺴﻬﺎ. ﻟﺬﻟﻚ، رﺑﻤﺎ ﻻ ﺗﺮﻏﺐ ﻓﻲ اﻻﻧﺨﺮاط ﻓﻲ أزﻣﺔ ﺳﻴﺎﺳﻴﺔ ﺟﺪﻳﺪة، ﻓﻲ ﻇﻞ وﺟﻮد إدارة أﻣﻴﺮﻛﻴﺔ ﺗﻨﺎﺻﺒﻬﺎ اﻟﻌﺪاء وﺗﻔﺮض ﻋﻠﻴﻬﺎ اﻟﻤﺰﻳﺪ ﻣﻦ اﻟﻌﻘﻮﺑﺎت. ﻛﻠﻤﺎت ﻣﻔﺘﺎﺣﻴﺔ: ازﻣﺔ اﻟﺨﻠﻴﺠﻴﺔ، إﻳﺮان، ﻗﻄﺮ، اﻟﺴﻌﻮدﻳﺔ، ﺗﺮاﻣﺐ. This paper explores the determinants of Iran's stance towards the 2017 intra-GCC Crisis, in which the country opposes alterations to the political geography of the Gulf. The author demonstrates how Tehran simultaneously benefits from the loss of Saudi Arabia of some of its allies and stands to lose from increased American involvement in the event that the conflict is prolonged. Despite its long-standing rivalry with Saudi Arabia, many Iranian decision-makers are cautious with regards to the intra-GCC crisis, fearing the possible regional or global fallout of a more involved role. Lacking tangible benefits from the nuclear deal with the P51+ group of countries, official Iran seems reluctant to involve itself in a crisis which could complicate both its domestic political situation and its foreign relations, especially in light of a hostile US Administration.

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.

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.

This paper examines the positions of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council vis-à-vis the Palestinian issue between 1979 and 2013. Using the voting patterns of the US, Russia/former USSR, United Kingdom, France, and China in international bodies, this paper – with a focus on the US as leader of the current international system—examines the points at which international law and foreign policy overlap and intersect. This contributes a wider theoretical understanding of the positions of major powers in international organizations.

The recently announced discovery of gas off the coast of Palestine will turn Israel from an importer of gas into a producer or even an exporter. This study casts light on the likely geopolitical implications of these discoveries for Israel, for the Middle East, and for the course of the Arab-Israeli conflict. In light of a comprehensive overview of the regional energy map, the study considers the main regional implications of these discoveries, including economic and financial effects for Israel, its strategic position in the region, the effect on the dispute between Lebanon and Israel over maritime borders, and the Arab-Israeli conflict. Another significant effect concerns the dispute between Turkey and Cyprus which has led to economic, political, and military rapprochement between Israel, Cyprus, and Greece in recent years, and has the potential to develop into a new strategic axis between those three states. The study also deals with the American-NATO dimension and the efforts of the United States to dampen down the crisis in the region. There is also a Russian dimension reflected in the concern of Russian energy companies with these discoveries and their efforts to participate in exploiting them. In conclusion, the paper puts forward a vision of the future around the importance of Arab coordination to confront the future challenges arising from these discoveries for the Arab region and for the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Rights to equality and non-discrimination in international law form the core of this paper. It begins with a preliminary study of the legal codes including the historical development of these principals in international and regional legal human rights instruments. It looks at the question of segregation, exclusion, derogation, and preference as elements that make up discrimination. It relates this to the standards of differentiation between legitimate discrimination and unlawful or prohibited discrimination. It goes on to present international standards that identify the meaning of equality and non-discrimination, and investigates the basis of prohibited discrimination in particular among the groups that are subject to it. Applying this context to Arab countries, the paper examines the need for a modern law on equality and non-discrimination that could be better enforced than current legal frameworks.​