Political Sciences Journal

International conflicts have become increasingly complex in the post-2011 era due to the interaction of domestic and international (intermestic) variables driven by political, security, economic, and technological dynamics. These developments have exposed the limitations of traditional state-centric diplomacy and highlighted the need for more flexible and multi-actor frameworks. Accordingly, this study examines the effectiveness of Multi-Track Diplomacy (MTD) in managing complex contemporary international conflicts and identifies the structural constraints that may limit its performance.
MTD has emerged as a significant approach by extending mediation beyond official governmental channels to include non-state actors such as international organizations, civil society organizations, think tanks, and private-sector participants. The study analyzes the role of MTD in conflict management, with particular emphasis on the interaction between formal and informal diplomatic tracks in facilitating de-escalation and negotiation processes.
Methodologically, the study employs an analytical framework and a comparative case-study approach focusing on the Iranian nuclear negotiations and the Colombian peace process. The findings demonstrate that MTD enhances trust-building, broadens communication channels, and supports adaptive negotiation environments. However, its effectiveness ultimately depends on the degree of coordination and integration among participating actors.
The study concludes that MTD plays a significant role in de-escalating conflicts through the integration of multiple actors and diplomatic tracks. Nevertheless, its success remains contingent upon effective coordination and broader structural conditions

This study provides a critical analysis of the United Nations’ role in managing the Yemeni crisis from 2011 to 2025, focusing on the performance of its four Special Envoys: Jamal Benomar, Ismail Ould Cheikh Ahmed, Martin Griffiths, and Hans Grundberg. It addresses the core question of why UN mediation efforts have repeatedly failed to achieve a comprehensive and sustainable political settlement in Yemen despite a full decade of initiatives and partial ceasefires. The study argues that these shortcomings are not merely the result of individual failures in the performance of the envoys but stem from deeper structural and systemic constraints, related to the organization\\'s subjection to the balance of major powers, and the transformation of international discourse into a security framework that has marginalized the political track.
Using a qualitative analytical approach, the study combines historical narrative and comparative analysis in the light of a theoretical framework grounded in Crisis Management and Securitization Theories. It allows for an understanding of the interaction between the international structure and the institutional behavior of the United Nations in conflict management.
The study concluded that the UN’s performance in Yemen faltered due to three main problems: First, the loss of structural neutrality, as the organization’s decisions became dependent on the will of the five permanent members of the Security Council. Second, the marginalization of the political process as a result of the dominance of a security-focused discourse that framed the conflict as a regional threat, justifying military intervention. Third — the limitations of the bilateral settlement model, which ignored the multiplicity of local actors and the parallel economic war that deepened the division.

This study examines digital power as a structural resource for redistributing influence within the international system, through an analysis of BRICS as a bloc of rising powers seeking to expand their influence in digital governance and standard-setting processes. It addresses the question: To what extent does BRICS’ engagement in digital power and standards contestation translate into a structural impact on the reshaping of the international system?
The study adopts a descriptive–analytical approach based on content analysis of key BRICS strategic documents and related initiatives, within a framework that combines the logic of the balance of power, the role of institutions, and the concepts of digital governance and digital sovereignty.
The study concludes that standards contestation constitutes a central mechanism of power transformation. However, the accumulation of BRICS’ bargaining influence remains contingent upon disparities in capabilities, divergences in priorities, and the group’s ability to institutionalize rules that are both applicable and widely diffused.

The outbreak of the Israel–Iran war in June 2025 marked a pivotal turning point in regional security. The confrontation between two potential nuclear powers revived nuclear deterrence as a central mechanism for reshaping regional power balances, while simultaneously exposing the limitations of conventional deterrence and the growing risks of nuclear proliferation in the region. The study examines the extent to which concepts of nuclear deterrence and the regional military balance have evolved amid the fragility of collective security structures. Analysis of the conflict’s trajectory demonstrates that deterrence is no longer unilateral or exclusively based on hard power; rather, it has developed into a multidimensional framework integrating nuclear, cyber, and psychological capabilities. The conflict further revealed the fragility of established rules of engagement, the declining capacity of major powers to control escalation, and the transformation of military achievements into short-term tactical gains. The war also contributed to the reconfiguration of regional alliances and underscored the strategic importance of maritime routes within the deterrence equation. Post-conflict stability, therefore, does not represent the end of confrontation, but rather a temporary phase requiring institutionalized security arrangements and calibrated deterrence mechanisms to prevent renewed escalation.

This study offers an in-depth political–theoretical analysis of the forms of power in the thought of Michel Foucault, tracing the transformation he introduced in the understanding of power as a network of relations and practices embedded within the social fabric, rather than merely a legal institution or a repressive apparatus. The research problem arises from the structural tension generated by his theses on power within contemporary philosophical and political discourse, and revolves around the central question: How did Michel Foucault reconceptualize power through his archaeological–genealogical approach, and what are the mechanisms through which different forms of power—discourse, biopower, power/knowledge, and technologies of the self—operate within modern social relations?
The study argues that Foucault redefined power beyond traditional legal and institutional models, advancing an alternative conception grounded in subtle and diffuse practices. Through his archaeological–genealogical method, he deconstructs the conditions of discourse production and reveals the microphysical mechanisms of power that organize knowledge and shape everyday life.
The analysis demonstrates that discursive power reshapes the conditions of truth through mechanisms of regulation and exclusion, while disciplinary power produces docile bodies within institutions such as prisons, schools, and hospitals. It further examines the development of biopower, which regulates populations through policies of health, the body, and life, culminating in technologies of the self that render the individual an active participant in the production of obedience through practices of self-care and self-surveillance.
The study concludes that Foucault reconceptualizes power as a productive process intertwined with knowledge, emerging within everyday relations and simultaneously generating possibilities for resistance. In this sense, Foucault offers a dynamic framework for understanding modern governance, linking the body, discourse, and the self, and revealing the underlying structures that shape contemporary society.

This study examines the Russian-Turkish competition in the Eastern Mediterranean, one of the world\\'s most strategically pivotal regions. The central question of this study is: to what extent does this Russian-Turkish competition contribute to shaping the regional and international landscape of influence? And does this competition influence the geopolitical shifts in the Eastern Mediterranean?
The study employs two complementary methodologies: a descriptive-analytical approach to describe the nature of Russian-Turkish relations and analyze their dimensions, and a comparative approach to compare the roles and positions of Russia and Turkey on issues of common interest. This approach identifies points of conflict, competition, and cooperation in the Eastern Mediterranean, particularly concerning Cyprus, Palestine, the Kurds, Syria, Lebanon, energy, and security.
The findings conclude that the Russian-Turkish competition has contributed to reshaping the balance of power in the Eastern Mediterranean. This has led to an imbalance in the region, impacting the interests of major and regional powers in the area. Stability in the Eastern Mediterranean is not merely a regional choice but a strategic necessity for global security and stability. Russia seeks to bolster its political, military, and economic influence to counter the West. Turkey, for its part, seeks to bolster its position as an influential regional power in the area, particularly by establishing itself as a transit hub for energy supplies to Europe. Consequently, the competition between Russia and Turkey reflects their respective interests and their desire to create a strategic foothold that serves their vital interests and expands their influence in the region.

This study examines the role of mediation within Qatar’s foreign policy strategy, analyzing how it has been employed as an instrument of soft power in the management and resolution of conflicts at both regional and international levels. It addresses a central research problem concerning the motivations behind Qatar’s adoption of mediation, its effectiveness in enhancing the state’s standing in the international system, and its capacity to adapt to political transformations. These issues are explored through a set of research questions analyzed within an appropriate theoretical framework.
The study traces Qatar’s engagement in regional crises originating in its Arab neighborhood, before expanding to encompass more complex international conflicts. These cases are treated as analytical units to explain the diversity of mediation practices and the variation in their political impact. Accordingly, the analysis seeks to understand how mediation operates across different political contexts, as well as the opportunities and constraints these contexts impose on diplomatic effectiveness.
Methodologically, the study adopts a descriptive-analytical approach suited to the nature of the research, enabling a systematic examination of Qatari mediation practices, their mechanisms, and their political implications. The analytical framework draws on Joseph Nye’s theory of soft power as an interpretative lens for understanding patterns of non-coercive influence in international relations.
The findings indicate that mediation has constituted a central and defining instrument of Qatar’s foreign policy, particularly in addressing crises of varying importance and impact, whether directly affecting Qatar or indirectly shaping regional dynamics. The study further examines whether mediation has enabled Qatar to develop a diplomatic project with regional and international reach comparable to that of major powers. In doing so, it explores the capacity of a small state to expand its influence and transform soft power resources into a strategy for building an effective and influential political presence.

This study examines the drivers of women’s recruitment in the discourse of al-Qaeda and ISIS, an underexplored dimension despite growing scholarly attention to women’s roles in terrorist organizations. While most existing studies have focused on individual or psychological motivations, limited attention has been devoted to propaganda discourse as a framework through which women’s roles are reconstructed and recruitment drivers are produced.
The study addresses the following research question: How do women’s recruitment drivers differ in the discourse of al-Qaeda and ISIS, and what factors explain this variation? To answer this question, the research employs content analysis of the organizations’ propaganda magazines—Sada al-Malahim, Inspire, and al-Khansaa (al-Qaeda), and Dabiq and Rumiyah (ISIS). The analysis is informed by social movements theory, particularly the concept of collective action framing, which explains how organizations reshape perceptions and mobilize individuals through discourse in pursuit of strategic objectives.
The findings indicate that women constitute central actors in the discourse of both organizations and that recruitment drivers are not static but evolve in response to political and battlefield transformations experienced by each group. Both organizations strategically reconfigure diagnostic, prognostic, and motivational frames to support adaptation and organizational survival. The study concludes that gender-targeted discourse functions as a pivotal organizational instrument extending beyond propaganda mobilization to sustaining cohesion and continuity, making the analysis of recruitment drivers essential for understanding the evolution of contemporary terrorism.

The period 2013-2024 witnessed profound transformations in the structure of the international system, characterized by the relative decline of U.S. influence and the rise of both Russia and China. These shifts contributed to the deepening of the Russian–Chinese strategic partnership in the context of a shared pursuit of a multipolar international order. This coincided with China’s launch of the Belt and Road Initiative and Russia’s global repositioning, leading to a transition from limited coordination to growing political, economic, and military cooperation.
The Middle East has gained particular significance in the strategies of both powers. Russia strengthened its military and political presence, especially in Syria, and expanded its relations with Iran, leveraging energy and regional security dynamics. In contrast, China focused on expanding its economic footprint through investments and infrastructure projects, while enhancing its diplomatic role, as demonstrated by its mediation between Saudi Arabia and Iran in 2023. The study reveals a relative complementarity between Russia’s hard power instruments and China’s economic and diplomatic instruments, despite the persistence of managed competition.
The study seeks to answer its central research question: To what extent has the Russian–Chinese strategic partnership affected their respective policies toward the Middle East during the period 2013–2024? It advances the hypothesis that the intensification of this partnership has contributed to enhancing their regional presence through complementary patterns of influence. Methodologically, the study adopts a descriptive–analytical approach, drawing on an analysis of official documents, trade and military data, and case studies of Syria, Iran, and the Gulf states, within a theoretical framework grounded in structural realism and power politics to explain the behavior of both actors amid transformations in the international system.

This study analyzes the role of geoeconomic policies in reshaping patterns of power within the contemporary international system, amid the relative decline of the ability of traditional military power to explain international influence. It is based on the premise that the expanding use of economic instruments—such as finance, trade, investment, and technology—has contributed to redefining the ways in which power is produced, exercised, and redistributed among major powers.
The study addresses a central research question: to what extent has the deployment of geoeconomic instruments contributed to reshaping power relations between the United States and China within the international system? Methodologically, the study adopts a comparative analytical approach supported by structural-descriptive analysis to compare the geoeconomic strategies of the United States and China as two distinct models. The comparison is conducted through an analytical framework based on four key criteria: the nature of the geoeconomic instrument, the strategic objective behind its use, its effectiveness in reshaping relative power, and the political and economic costs associated with its deployment.
The findings indicate that geoeconomics does not constitute an independent or absolute form of power; rather, it functions as a contingent and flexible mechanism whose effectiveness is shaped by broader political, military, and structural contexts. The results further reveal that the United States relies on coercive geoeconomic instruments that are effective in the short to medium term, whereas China relies on a long-term cumulative geoeconomic strategy centered on investment, infrastructure, and supply chains, gradually enhancing its power while incurring lower direct political costs and producing slower effects.

This study analyzes the determinants shaping the European Union’s foreign policy toward Yemen, focusing on the interaction between internal factors—such as the interests of Member States, institutional dynamics, and political pressures—and external factors linked to regional and international transformations since 2011. It highlights Yemen’s strategic importance in European considerations, not only from a humanitarian perspective, but also in relation to maritime security, counterterrorism, and irregular migration.
The study is guided by a central research question that examines why the European Union has failed to emerge as an influential actor in the trajectory of the Yemeni crisis since 2011, despite its sustained diplomatic and humanitarian engagement. It further explores how the divergence of Member States’ interests, along with regional interventions, has constrained the effectiveness of EU foreign policy toward Yemen.
Adopting an analytical approach and drawing on the national interest framework, the study investigates the drivers of EU behavior by analyzing official data and policy positions. It concludes that the absence of a unified European policy, coupled with divergent Member State positions, has limited the EU’s capacity to exert effective influence over the Yemeni crisis, confining its role largely to humanitarian support and multilateral diplomacy. The study argues that understanding EU policy requires linking structural determinants with the Union’s interests within a complex conflict environment.