Search results

This study attempts to figure out the factors that contributed to deposing certain elected presidents before the end of their constitutional terms, alongside tracing the new political context that prevailed in Latin America since 1978 and its impact on direct political participation and military behavior during presidential crises.

The paper uses the comparative method to investigate the causes of presidential instability in three case studies.

The likelihood of presidential instability increases when a president enacts austerity economic policies that marginalize large sectors of the citizenry, becomes implicated in acts of corruption and develops a hostile relationship with members of the ruling coalition.

This study integrates the social movement theory with analytical perspectives from parliamentary behavior to explain presidential instability. It attempts to investigate the dynamics of interaction between the acts of furious citizens and disloyal legislators through the in-depth analysis of three case studies.

In this study the authors aim to comprehensively investigate the determinants of voting behavior in Turkey, with a specific focus on the dynamics of the center-periphery debate. Mainly, the authors focus on regional voting patterns during the period that is dominated by the Justice and Development Party (JDP/AKP) in the elections. The authors apply the random effects generalized least squares (GLS) methodology, and analyze electoral data covering four pivotal parliamentary elections (2007, 2011, 2015 and 2018) across all 81 provinces (NUTS III regions). The authors individually examine voting dynamics of the four major parties in parliament: the JDP/AKP, the Republican People's Party (RPP/CHP), the Nationalist Movement Party (NMP/MHP) and the Peoples' Democratic Party (PDP/HDP). The authors contribute to a comprehensive understanding of how socioeconomic cleavages, economic performance, party alignment and social dynamics shape voter preferences in the Turkish context, thereby addressing gaps in the existing literature.

This research employs an ecological study of Turkish NUTS III sub-regions, covering national elections from 2007 to 2018. The authors utilize the random effects GLS method to account for heteroscedasticity and time effects. The inclusion of the June and November 2015 elections enables a comprehensive analysis of the evolving dynamics in Turkish voting behavior. The results remain robust when applying pooled OLS and fixed effect OLS techniques for control.

The study's findings reveal that economic performance, specifically economic growth, plays a pivotal role in the sustained dominance of the JDP/AKP party. Voters closely associate JDP preference with economic growth, resulting in higher voting shares during periods of economic prosperity. Along with economic growth; share of agriculture in regions' GDP, female illiteracy rate, old population rate, net domestic migration, terrorism and party alignment are also influential factors in the Turkish case. Furthermore, differences among sociocultural groups, and East–West dichotomy seem to be important factors that reveal the impact of social cleavages to understand electoral choice in Turkey.

This study contributes to the existing literature by offering a comprehensive multidimensional analysis of electoral behavior in Turkey, focusing on the JDP/AKP dominance period. The main contribution of this study is its multidimensional perspective on the power bases of all main parties, considering key voter choice theories (cleavages, party alignment and retrospective economic performance voting) that have not been systematically analyzed in prior research. The main research question of this study is to examine which factors affect voting behavior in Turkey and how the dynamics of center-periphery or eastern-western region voting behavior under the JDP hegemony can be explained. The contribution of this study consists not only in its empirical testing of panel data approaches but also in its comprehensive analysis of four major political parties. Building upon existing studies in the literature, this research seeks to extend the understanding of voting dynamics for the four main parties in the parliament — JDP/AKP, RPP/CHP, NMP/MHP and PPDP/HDP — by delving into their dynamics individually, thereby expanding the scope of previous studies. This study aims to make a contribution by not only empirically testing panel data approaches but also conducting a comprehensive analysis of four major political parties. Furthermore, the separate inclusion of the 2015 elections and utilization of a panel data approach enrich the analysis by capturing the evolving dynamics of Turkish voting behavior. The study underscores the significance of socioeconomic factors, economic performance and social cleavages for voters' choices within the context of a dominant party rule.

The escalation of Turkish intervention in Arab internal affairs before and after the revolutions of the Arab Spring, particularly the military intervention. Sometimes Ankara threatens with military intervention and sometimes establishes large military bases in Arab countries: Qatar, Somalia and Iraq. Moreover, it carries out extensive military operations within the borders of some Arab countries such as Iraq and Syria. This type of behavior requires a study that takes into consideration the reasons of such behavior and future implications on the relations between the Arab and Turkish parties.

The theoretical framework of the study will follow neorealism, as the basis for understanding Turkish pragmatic foreign policy adopted in managing its international relations and interests with various countries.

The situation in Afrin after a year of Turkish occupation confirms this. Erdogan may not go ahead with a new military operation in east Euphrates and northern Syria. He may prefer instead he may deem it better to control the safe area in the north through the revival of the agreement of Adana of 1998. However, Turkey's desire to control northern Syria, which represents a quarter of the country, faces tough resistance of Turkish groups, Russian-Syrian rejection and European-American resentment. Control of the Syrian north may be subject to concessions and consensus among these powers without excluding any of them.

States in the international system, such as companies in the local economy, have the same main interest: that’s survival. It is worth noting that Waltz’s neorealistic theory cannot be applied to domestic national politics. It cannot contribute to the development of state policies relating to its international and internal affairs. His theory only helps to explain the reason behind the similar behavior of countries despite having different forms of governments and diversity of political ideologies. It also explains why the comprehensive international relations have not changed despite the growing decentralization of these countries.

How does neorealism explain Turkish military intervention in Syria since 2016?

This study aims to highlight the dimensions of the rivalry over the regional role between two regional powers in the Middle East, and the impact of local, regional and international pressures of the Syrian crisis on the role performance of the competing forces.

The study is based on using “the role approach” as an analytical frame to benefit by the application of the theory of role. This approach allows the possibility of linking various analytical levels, both in clarifying the relationship between internal and external factors and showing the interaction between elements of perception, abilities and behavior.

The international pressures shall remain governing the frame of competition among the roles of the regional powers, through determining the course of competition and its direct impact on its results.

This study examines the phenomenon of regional rivalry between two distinct and competing regional powers, in a turbulent environment in the wake of the Arab Spring crises, which created opportunities and challenges for regional powers, especially in Syria, where it intersected with the interests and policies of major and regional powers.

This paper aims to argue that the Global Political Economy (GPE) theory of neomercantilism provides a sound explanation to the American military involvement in the Persian Gulf. Accordingly, this paper also proposes the concept of “Neomercantilist War” which analyses the use of military force to protect a strategically vital economic resource (such as Gulf oil). Neomercantilist War is a point of similarity between the GPE school of neomercantilism and the International Relations (IR) school of realism.

The 1991 Gulf War and the American invasion of Iraq in 2003 are two major events of American military involvement to protect and/or seize Gulf oil. These two events will be tested for neomercantilism, in addition to the concept of “Neomercantilist War” as presented in the paper. The first feature, or definitional component, of neomercantilism is the major role of the state, the second is the preponderance of security/geopolitical goals over economic goals and the third is the zero-sum, relative gains mentality to dealing between states IR.

The GPE school of neomercantilism and the concept of Neomercantilist War do offer a sound explanation of American military involvement in the Gulf.

The American military involvement in the Gulf region has been analysed using the IR schools of realism and liberalism, but never using GPE theory. Even though GPE is mostly concerned with economic activity, the scope of GPE should be expanded to include military policies if they affect economic resources and activity.

The Ukraine crisis, which began with Russia's military intervention, has violently jolted the modern world. The egregious Russian invasion of Ukraine, on the other hand, has arguably altered the trajectory of the world order. This whiff of war does not exclude any state because all states in the world system are economically, politically, and socially interconnected and dependent on one another. Bangladesh is also feeling the effects of the Ukraine crisis. The crisis has highlighted some challenging aspects of Bangladesh's foreign policy, testing the robustness and independence of its decision-making process regarding United Nations resolutions. Myanmar, like Bangladesh, has appeared befuddled in its response to the crisis. This paper examines how Bangladesh and Myanmar's foreign policy anticipated an unwanted labyrinth by the crisis, which made its moral credibility critical to some extent. Furthermore, the paper discusses how these two countries’ foreign policy trajectories became entangled at a difficult crossroads. We used secondary data sources backed up by scholarly works on Bangladesh and Myanmar foreign policy, relevant books, recent reports, and writings on the subject for this article. This paper also sheds light on Bangladesh's U-Turn in supporting and speaking out in support of the UN resolution on Ukraine's humanitarian crisis.

The purpose of this study is to cover the change that happened in the American foreign policy toward Iran by changing the American leadership from Obama to Trump. In addition to its coverage for the Iranian foreign policy toward the Arab region during the presidency period of Obama in the USA and also during the presidency period of Trump, to discover whether a change has happened in the Iranian foreign policy toward the Arab region is a result of the change in the American foreign policy or not. This can be discovered by concentrating on Yemen, Syria and Iraq, taking into consideration the Iranian and American national interests in the Arab region, as well as the regional role of Iran and its intervention in the Arab region.

This study was based on the analytical method of the foreign policy that is based on analyzing facts and events, as well as analyzing the roles and interests within the framework of the states’ foreign policy. This method was used in the study for the purpose of analyzing the impact of the change in the American leadership from Obama to Trump on the US foreign policy toward Iran in the light of the American interest; in addition to the Iranian foreign policy toward the Arab region (Yemen, Syria and Iraq) in the presidency period of both Obama and Trump in light of the regional role of Iran and its passion to achieve its national interest.

The study concluded that the change in the American foreign policy toward Iran is a result of the change of the American leadership from Obama to Trump by the American interest requirements in accordance to the respective of both of them. The change in the American policy led to a change in the trends of the Iranian foreign policy toward the Arab region in the term of the regional Iranian role. Under the American and Iranian convergence in the period of Obama, the Iranian role in the Arab region was limited to what could achieve its national interest and what did not threaten the American interest, especially after Iran had guaranteed that the USA is by its side. In the framework of the American and Iranian confrontation under Trump’s current presidency, the Iranian role has expanded in the Arab region, where Iran has intensified its intervention in Yemen, Syria and Iraq politically and militarily. Iran became more threatening to the American interest, as it became a means of pressure to the USA under Trump’s ruling in the purpose of changing its position toward it.

The importance of the study stems from the fact that it is seeking to analyze the change of the American foreign policy toward Iran within the period of two different presidential years of Obama and Trump, whereas, their trends were different in dealing with Iran between rapprochement and hostility toward it, on the basis of the American interest. In addition to testing whether this change in the American foreign policy toward Iran has been accompanied by a change in the Iranian foreign policy toward the Arab region.

The purpose of this paper is to unveil the main changes in the UAE’s policy towards Iran since its foundation in 1971. The UAE favored strategic hedging, extending its commercial and diplomatic relations with Iran, in addition to developing its military capabilities and maintaining military/security alliances with Saudi Arabia and the USA. However, the UAE started to reorient its policy towards Iran by adopting some sort of balancing strategy in the aftermath of the Arab Spring of 2011. This paper examines how and why the UAE had to change course and explores whether it would revert back to strategic hedging with Iran.

The study will be carried out based on a theoretical framework drawn from strategic hedging theory, a new structural theory in international relations, to examine the shifts in UAE policy towards Iran. Previous literature suggests that small states prefer hedging over balancing or bandwagoning. The authors also undertake a descriptive analysis and deploy a longitudinal within-case method to investigate changes in UAE policy towards Iran and identify the causal mechanisms behind these changes. That method allows investigating the impact of a particular event on a case by comparing the same case before and after that event occurred.

The main finding of this study is that the UAE hedging strategy towards Iran allowed maximizing the political and economic returns from the cooperation with Iran and mitigating the long-range national security risks without breaking up the consistent and beneficial ties with other regional and global powers. Hedging achieved the desired outcome, which is preventing direct military confrontation with Iran. Hard balancing, adopted by Abu Dhabi after the 2011 Arab Spring, has proved to have some negative effects, most importantly provoking Tehran. Some recent indicators suggest, though that the UAE may revert back to its long-established hedging policy towards Iran.

Strategic hedging is a new structural theory in international relation, although hedging behavior in states’ foreign policies is far from new. It is new enough, thus, not have been researched sufficiently, strategic hedging still needs theorizing and comparison. This paper highlights the importance of strategic hedging as the most appropriate strategy for small states. It provides an important contribution to the application of the theory to the case of UAE policy towards Iran. The paper also assesses the conventional wisdom that small states prefer hedging over balancing in the light of the changes in the UAE foreign policy since 2011.

This study aims to analyze the impact of Arab Revolution on the Arabian Gulf security by applying on Yemeni Revolution. This can be achieved by analyzing the threat of Arab Spring Revolutions to the national security of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries after the breakout of demonstrations and protests in some of the member states. In addition to its analysis of threat of the Regional Security of the Gulf as a result of Yemeni Revolution and Civil War and Iranian intervention to support Houthis within light of regional anarchy and security competition according to the Neorealism and how the GCC Countries face such threats.

The study depended on the historical methodology to track the developments of some events related to the Gulf Security and crisis in Yemen. Moreover, it used the analytical approach to analyze the impact of Arab Revolutions and Yemeni Civil War on the Arab Gulf Security. In addition, it depended on the realistic approach to explain the security state at the national and regional level of the Arab Gulf countries within light of regional anarchy, security competition and Iranian support to Houthis “Non-State Actors” (Kenneth Waltz), as well as the offensive realism (John Mearsheimer).

The Arab Revolutions had an effect on the national security of GCC countries according to the Neorealism due to the breakout of demonstrations and protests in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Sultanate of Oman which reached to the degree of threatening the existence of the state as in Bahrain. The Gulf Regional Security is influenced by Revolution and Civil War in Yemen as a result of that Iranian support to Houthis within light of security competition between Iran and Saudi Arabia, leading to the threat of the Arabian Gulf Security as Yemen is the southern gate to the GCC Countries and having joint borders with Saudi Arabia and Sultanate of Oman. Moreover, the GCC countries dealt with that threat individually, such as, performing internal reforms, or collectively through using military force, such as Bahrain and Yemen (Offensive Realism).

This study is an introduction to explain the Arab Spring Revolutions, conflict in Yemen and its threat to the Arab Gulf Security according to the Neorealism based on that the GCC countries sought to keep its existence and sovereignty in confrontation to the demonstrations and internal protests and to keep the regional security in confrontation to the threats of neighboring countries such as the Civil War in Yemen and the Iranian Support to Houthis in light of the regional anarchy.

The USA has been suffering from international/transnational terrorism for decades. There is no consensus on whether this situation is a result of the international status of the USA and the principles it upholds or the policies it embraces in its interaction with the outside world.

This study adopts both the “American Primacy” theory and the “anti-Americanism” theory in its effort to reach a conclusion concerning this issue. This study aims to examine previous research that linked international terrorism to the US hegemony and the principles it abides by and showed the relevance of this perception to the “American Primacy” theory. It also examines the research that considered international/transnational terrorism as a result of the American foreign policy in its various aspects (economic, military, assistance or a whole combination of policies).

This literature on the American foreign policy and international/transnational terrorism was extensive and manifested the explanatory power of the “anti-Americanism” theory, especially in its three variants: issue-oriented, ideological and instrumental. While examining the foreign policy terrorism studies, the relevance of the “American Primacy” theory appeared at very few instances.

The study was able to prove that explaining the international/transnational terrorism is related to the foreign policy decisions taken by the American policymakers and cause harm to the outside world. The envy of “American Primacy” is of secondary importance.