Latest Articles

This study problematises the theoretical dialectic between the rule of law as a formal legal principle, and democracy as a political value. Taking a fundamental legal approach, the paper builds a concept of a constitutionalization democratic rule of law, through which it is possible to overcome the constant tension in democracy between the authority of the majority in deciding the law, and individual rights and freedoms. It concludes that the rule of law does not mean the rule of law over individual rights, and democracy does not mean the rule of the majority only, but that respect for individual rights and granting them a constitutional value are a prerequisite for constitutionalizing the principle of a democratic rule of law. However, the application of this principle, in practice, will be linked to the role of the constitutional judge in reconciling, through constitutional oversight, the power of the majority, which is embodied in the principle of the rule of law, and constitutional rights, which are the essence of the democratic principle.

This study focuses on the legal status of the Palestinian Declaration of Independence (PDI) issued in 1988 by the Palestinian National Council of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), in light of the Palestinian Constitutional Court 2018 decision, which granted the declaration a "supra-constitutional" status—placing it above the Basic Law issued by the Palestinian Legislative Council of the Palestinian Authority (PA). The authors characterize the legal nature of the PDI as a "Declaration of Rights" and argue that the Court, in issuing its decision, overstepped its interpretive power, deeming the decision flawed due to the political considerations behind it, aiming at enhancing the legitimacy of the PA by invoking the symbolic legitimacy of the PLO. The study comparatively showcases experiences from the United States, France, Egypt, and Algeria, revealing that none of these jurisdictions have granted Declarations of Rights a status superior to that of the constitution. The authors conclude that the Court's decision was unsound and that the PDI should be treated as a reference constitutional document, but not one that supersedes the Basic Law.

This study addresses the intricate issues posed by the State of Palestine's legislation concerning the redefinition of the Palestinian. Despite the fact that these laws seem to be regulatory for particular situations, they propose a fragmented and different definition of that which is proposed by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) charters. One of its manifestations was the controversy surrounding who the Palestinian is during the postponed general elections of 2021. This contributed to the creation of the current practical framework for the legal text that categorizes Palestinians according to where they live; allowing one group to exercise their right to self-determination and not others. It also had an impact on how the definition of two concepts—the Palestinian and the right to self-determination—were altered, and the extent to which the effects of the legislation may impact the legal basis of the PLO. The PLO enjoys an international legal personality recognized by the international community as the sole representative of all Palestinians, regardless of their place of residence.

​This study examines the foundations and development of teaching political science in Sudanese universities. It begins with the establishment of Gordon Memorial College in 1902 which became later the University of Khartoum. This is because it is the oldest Sudanese university, and the first to teach political science. Influenced by the objectives of the Gordon Memorial College formation, the attachment with the University of London before independence, and the early lecturers who taught there, the department of political science in the university adopted curricula pursued in British universities. In addition, the study discusses the expansion of political science to include Umdurman Islamic University and other universities. Moreover, it analyzes the intellectual perspectives that influenced the development of teaching political science in Sudanese universities, curricula development, means of training, and the impact of politics and policies on political science teaching.

This paper will examine the situation which can be described as the “Blockade of Qatar”, and particularly the legal ramifications of this blockade and the avenues of action available through international law channels and intra-state apparatus. The paper is premised on the argument that the deliberate, multilateral actions taken by Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain and Egypt against Qatar are not only punitive, but also represent a violation of the principles of international law and of the foundations for the relations between states in times of crisis. Given the use of force to enforce the blockade, the political and economic boycott of Qatar by a group of countries in the region could be legally defined as punitive measures. This paper concludes that the actions taken by the group of countries blockading Qatar provide an adequate basis for the activation of international mechanisms for international arbitration. Specifically, the author contends that Qatar would be justified in pursuing political and judicial redress against the group of countries concerned.

International protection for internally displaced persons, who far exceed the number of refugees, has become a major issue in recent years. This is reflected in the international community's search for solutions, by providing them with internal humanitarian assistance so that they do not have to seek help beyond the borders of their states, affirming their right to remain in their country in security and dignity and not to become refugees. However, reality has shown that the international community's attention to the protection of internally displaced persons is not so much a humanitarian consideration as it is an inevitable consequence of state reservations to welcome refugees on their territory. European states in particular have attached urgency to protecting internally displaced persons arbitrarily to justify the closure of their borders to refugees.

Transitional justice in Libya is the key to stability of state and society. Under the previous regime, many Libyans' rights were violated. The regime's collapse only exacerbated these violations, in addition to bringing about the country's social and cultural disintegration. The very exceptional nature of the Libyan state complicated efforts to establish a transitional justice system in post-revolution Libya. Successive governments since the revolution have failed to exercise control over security. This paper deals with transitional justice in three sections. The first reviews Libyan legislation since the 17 February 2011 revolution. The second analyzes reasons for the failure of legislative efforts to implement an integrated program of transitional justice. The third outlines short- and medium-term requirements for implementing a transitional justice program.

Aggression is the door that lets in all other forms of crime. Therefore, it is necessary to criminalize it rather than just ban it. Although it was difficult to realize that these two goals are separately essential, they were ultimately reached through the 1945 UN Charter that banned the use of force in international relations and the 1998 Rome Statute that stated the inclusion of the crime of aggression in the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court (ICC). However, the practice of this jurisdiction was put on hold until 2010, pending the holding of the review conference that would define aggression and the conditions of the court’s practice of its jurisdiction in this crime in compliance with the UN Charter. This alignment between the UN Charter and the amendment seems logical at first as long as it halts war. The Security Council gets to decide whether the committed act was an act of aggression and a threat to international peace and security. But, the question is the following: Did the amendment of the Rome Statute complement the relationship between the Security Council and the ICC in the field of aggression or did it entrench the council’s dominance over the court?

Consociationalism is a system of government recommended for ‘divided societies’. Starting with a discussion of its theoretical components and criticisms it has received, this article addresses how consociationalism has been implemented in in post - 2003 Iraq. The article asks whether the Iraqi constitution and institutions formed by it represented a successful case of consociationalism. Key consociational mechanisms such as an electoral system based on proportional representation, governments based on big multi - party coalitions and a federal and decentralized governance were adopted. However, this model was not entirely consociational as some practices that are common in the majoritarian government have also been used. In fact, divisions between majoritarian and consociational perspectives have polarized, and sometimes paralyzed, the political process. In light of this, the article discusses the sustainability of the current model and its likely future trajectories.

Following the election of Iranian President Hassan Rouhani last August, Iranian-American relations now appear set for a major breakthrough, overturning more than three decades of enmity between the two sides. Such a breakthrough, should it come to pass, has the potential to completely transform the bilateral relations over a number of issues, including most importantly the Iranian nuclear program, Iran’s regional role and its involvement in the Middle East’s “hot button” issues, including in the Gulf. The eventual success of efforts to bring Iran and the United States closer together, however, relies also on the roles played by regional players, particularly Israel. This paper explores the reasons behind Israeli anxiety surrounding a potential breakthrough in Iranian-American relations, and Tel Aviv’s ability to influence the outcome of a possible agreement over Iran’s nuclear program and whether such an agreement shall extend to Iran’s regional influence.