Latest Articles

This article traces the different paths taken by constructivism in International Relations, from its emergence as a critical social theory in the 1980 s, in response to the third debate between positivist rationalists and post-positivist reflectivists, to Alexander Wendt's project to seize a middle ground and to bridge the rationalist–reflectivist epistemological gap. The article, then, examines the intra-debates among conventional and critical constructivists on Went's project, as well as the rise of the new constructivism after Wendt left the constructivist research program. The article explores the Wendtian project's epistemological tensions and demonstrates how such tensions led to a plurality within constructivism: modernist conventional and postmodernist critical (reflectivist). It highlights that Wendt's leaving constructivism and his shift to a quantum approach have not caused constructivism to decline, but instead, it continued to thrive through the efforts of a new generation of constructivists. The article argues that three main developments in International Relations over the past twenty years have contributed to its ongoing thriving: the decline of epistemological polarization among IR theories; the rise of critical realism as a philosophy of science in International Relations, and the emergence of analytical eclecticism.

This study discusses Saudi-Iranian rivalry in the Persian Gulf, focusing on political, economic, strategic, historical, and religious dimensions. It details the escalation of tensions between Saudi Arabia and Iran since 1979 up until 2019, before delving into the agreement to restore diplomatic relations between the two countries in March 2023. The study concludes that countries in the international system tend to maximize their capabilities and enhance their power; which sometimes leads to escalation in hostilities and the pursuit of an arms race. Iran's security strategy also includes enhancing its power and capabilities in pursuit of regional hegemony. Saudi Arabia sees Iran as its greatest security threat, whereby Iran poses multiple air, sea, and cyber security challenges to the Kingdom.​

This article draws from structurationist and symbolic interactionist sociology, seeking to build a bridge between the realist–liberal and rationalist–reflectivist debates in the field of international relations. In doing so, it argues against the neorealist claim that self-help is given by anarchic structure exogenously to process. It further argues that self-help and power politics do not follow either logically or causally from the anarchic structure of the international system, but are generated by process rather than by structure. There is no logic of anarchy apart from the practices that create and instantiate one particular structure of identities and interests rather than another. Self-help and power politics are institutions, not essential features of anarchy – anarchy is what states make of it. The article explores three ways in which identities and interests are transformed under anarchy: by the institution of sovereignty, by an evolution of cooperation, and by intentional efforts to transform egoistic identities into collective identities.

After the collapse of the Soviet Union, neorealist theory came under severe scrutiny. During its growth stages, the theory encountered unavoidable conceptual and empirical impediments, which cast doubt on its capacity to overcome such hurdles. This was the challenge that neorealist theory faced when the concepts of "anarchy" and "balance" were questioned. In terms of empiricism, the criticism focused on the neorealism inability to represent the new realities of the international system, notably US hegemony. This study evaluates the progressiveness or degenerassive of the neorealism research program in an attempt to assess the theory's progressivism and degenerative by examining the adjustments and improvements made to the ideas of anarchy and balance. It is based on the methodology of the Imre Lakatos Scientific Research Program as an evaluation tool.

This study explores epistemic violence afflicting the field of international relations and the way it relates to Eurocentrism. It probes the consequences this has had for international relations theories, revealing blind spots regarding states of the South. It challenges the Western narratives and perspectives that dominate international relations whilst demonstrating there are voices and theories in the South that have been historically silenced and marginalized in that discipline. The study poses the following key questions: What are the mechanisms by which epistemic violence is exercised against the Global South? What are its implications for positivist theories? How is epistemic violence to be overcome? In its analysis and response to these questions, the study employs the methodology of discourse analysis to clarify the position of countries of the South in the discourse of international relations and positivism. As well, it makes use of the concept of epistemic violence to understand the mechanisms of action of epistemic hegemony in this discipline, and the concept of epistemic disobedience to propose a method by which to disengage from this hegemony with focus on examples from the Arab world. The study concludes by highlighting the importance of epistemic disobedience for research methods as a basic instrument for crafting policies to make international relations global in terms of issues, substance, and knowledge.

This article examines what analytical eclecticism can offer to qualify IR to overcome the Grand Theory crisis. It debates analytical eclecticism’s basic promises relying on its main characteristics which distinguish it from the dominant research traditions/paradigms: fostering research pragmatism; expanding the scope of the research issues and involving more aspects of social reality complexities in world politics; and producing complex causal statements. The article is divided into six parts. First, it provides an introduction to eclectic philosophy through Paul Feyerabend’s reflections on methodological/epistemological relativism. Second, it conceptualizes analytical eclecticism and examines its promises. Third, it explores an example of eclectic literature in the field of international studies. Fourth, it debates the relationship between the promises of eclecticism and the complexity of social causality. Finally, it seeks, in parts 5 and 6, to position analytical eclecticism epistemologically, through examining the main assumptions of Critical Relaism and its promises to move the dominant debate away from the positivist/postpositivist binary opposition.

This text was fundamental to the crystallization of structuralist theory in international relations. It addresses one of the discipline’s major dilemmas: the dialectic of the relationship between actor and structure. It reveals the shortcomings of the interpretations offered by the prevailing structuralist theories (neorealism and world-system theory), which failed to grasp the mutually constitutive nature of human agents and system structures, reducing the international system either to constraints imposed on actors or to structures generating behavioral patterns. However, by employing the “structuration theory” borrowed from sociology, US political scientist Alexander Want offers an expanded perspective that avoids reducing system structures to state actors (as neorealism does) or their reification in world- system theory. The scientific realist/structuration approach thus investigates the properties and dispositions of state actors and the system structures in which they are embedded, contributing to the reformulation of theoretical debate in the field of international relations, opening up broad horizons for understanding international dynamics and establishing a new research agenda that combines philosophical-scientific analysis with political-historical analysis.

This study builds on the assumption that any change in the structure of the international system in the foreseeable future cannot be immediately ascribed to the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic. However, even if the pandemic is purely incidental and unable to change the existing distribution of power, this does not mean it has not introduced a dialogue within International Relations on the impact of epidemics on the structure of the international system, and their ability to intensify some essential - economic, social, and political - factors that contribute to international system change. International power balances before the outbreak of the pandemic indicate the beginning of change of the international system, as if it has been moving towards multipolarity, particularly with many rising powers, such as China, Russia and the European Union, whose international interests challenge those of the US, especially as the latter persistently impedes any rise of rival powers in the foreseeable future.

How is International Relations (IR) taught in the Arab World? What happens to what was once labelled an 'American Social Science' when it enters classrooms in the Arab world and is taught in Arabic? Despite the predominance of Western approaches and theories on the teaching of IR in the Arab World, there is tension between the need to train students in the classical theories as a prerequisite for knowledge production, and the need to adapt them to various political, social, and economic contexts across the globe. This study examines the different approaches to how IR is taught in Arab universities, and how Western theories are considered critically by the teaching of alternative approaches. The paper argues that the different approaches to teaching IR are more versatile theoretically than the range of published papers in leading academic journals in the West. As such, they may prove to be the starting point for new forms of knowledge production that better reflect the realities of international relations in the Arab world.

This study analyses the constructivist perspective of security and establishes the constructivist contribution to security studies, particularly in terms of the conventional and critical constructivist approaches, arguing that constructivism has constituted an intellectual turning point. It demonstrates how constructivism, or rather constructivisms, has enriched and developed the concept of security and security studies on three levels. First, it approaches security as socially constructed and intersubjective. Second, it has undertaken a critical revision of major rationalist concepts, notably anarchy and the security dilemma. Third, it has introduced concepts of identity, interests, and norms to the field of security studies. However, there are shortcomings in the constructivist contribution on identity and security, in addition to inter-constructivist disagreements, which have prevented the evolution of a clear theoretical framework, even within critical constructivism, which has made the most innovative contributions to the field. The study concludes that constructivism has not formulated a distinct theory of security. However, its innovative contributions and its role as a theoretical reference point for new approaches to security constitute a constructivist perspective within International Relations. Both critical and non-critical strands of the new security approach have developed security theories grounded in constructivist insights. This constitutes the central theoretical achievement of constructivism in the field of security studies.