Latest Articles

An increasing number of countries are turning to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to resolve their water disputes. This is a positive development, as it allows the court to establish and improve standards for the use of waterways and help resolve conflicts related to water. The court's decisions reflect the tension between sovereignty and international law. Some decisions prioritize sovereignty and treaties, while others give more weight to moral principles and social theories. However, the court chose not to address water as a human right. This paper focuses on the ICJ''s role in developing a body of international water law and argues that the court still values sovereignty in its interpretation of laws, which often limits protections for the rights of non-state groups.

Establishing a genuine and effective system to settle disputes through ministerial conferences is an essential point of progress for developing countries. Such a system would mean these states– and Arab countries in particular – would defend their rights based on a legal rather than economic basis. This paper argues that developing countries’ inability to benefit fully from the advantages of a dispute settlement system poses an essential and fundamental problem. It shows how the World Trade Organization’s dispute settlement system has failed to become an effective tool in the hands of developing countries to repair imbalances resulting from unequal economic relations between countries. It then asks why developing countries – including Arab countries – have taken part in this system. It examines the root cause of this participation, asking wither it is due to subjective factors such as limited contribution in WTO or the lack of specialized national talents? Or objective obstacles that the system places before developing countries, especially in terms of long and demanding procedures, as well as the nature of the implementation process. The paper encourages a reconsideration of the system in order to keep it in line with the positions and potentials of developing countries. In its approach, this paper adopts analysis at two levels; the first looking into the outcome of the participation of developing countries in dispute settlement, and the second a reading of plans to reform the structures of the system.

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.