Journal of World Sociopolitical Studies

Abstract Regionalism, a phenomenon much older than globalization, has long promoted the individual and collective interests of countries. Accordingly, American and Middle Eastern nations have sought to advance their interests within integration frameworks such as the Organization of American States (OAS) and the League of Arab States (LAS). In this context, Ernst Haas’s neofunctionalist theory provides a useful lens to examine these blocs, focusing on four key categories: supranationality, the shift in elite loyalties, the collective decision-making process, and most importantly, the spillover effect. This study applies the neofunctionalist approach and uses qualitative content analysis to examine collected data from both above-mentioned organizations. By reviewing internal regulations, resolutions, and the contemporary political contexts of member countries, the research compares the OAS and LAS to highlight their similarities and differences. The study finds that while the LAS struggles with foreign interference and internal rivalries among members competing for leadership in Arabism, the OAS is shaped by the hegemonic dominance of the United States and the ideological polarization across the Americas, where conservative and progressive governments alternate in power. The dynamic traps the continent in a vicious cycle that must be broken.

Abstract Regional trends strongly influence and are influenced by global power flows. For decades, international politics have been shaped and reshaped by a bipolar and, after the break down of the USSR, a unipolar world order. Both orders played a significant role in shaping and directing Middle Eastern politics. Yet the unipolar order is no longer at play. And since the global flow of power is ongoing, a new world order is being shaped in what seems to be a lengthy transitional period. This article focuses on the effects of the global transition of power in the Middle East and the region’s efforts and mechanisms to cope with it. I argue that the spill-over of international volatility into the Middle East creates a less stable regional politics, and that efforts for balancing are pursued by regional powers to increase their maneuverability as well as their coping capabilities in a volatile era by distancing their policies from global actors’ priorities and standoffs. The article is structured such that after an introduction, I delve into the meaning and nature of the global transition of power, which serves as the paper’s the conceptual framework. In the ensuing four sections, I discuss the imbalanced nature of regional politics as well as the way in which the region is interpreting and thereupon coping with the global change.

Abstract This article aims at examining Russia's relations with the Islamic Resistance Movement (Hamas) and Moscow's motives and goals for the establishment and enhancement of those ties. We explore Russia's worldview to position the Middle East and Hamas in a pre-established frame, subsequently examining the reasons behind the development of these relationships. This article sets out to answer a two-fold question: What has been Russia's aim of receiving Hamas leaders and establishing high-level relations with this movement since 2006, and what components have influenced these interactions at international and regional levels? The paper argues that Russia considers its relations with Muslim nations and movements not only a foreign policy principle but also a domestic issue. Hence, it seeks to take advantage of the U.S. retrenchment from the region to expand its influence, play a mediatory role in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, and elevate its reputation among Muslims inside and outside the country. Recognizing Hamas' position, Russia resolved to develop its ties with Hamas' leaders, started negotiating with all the parties in the Palestinian national reconciliation process, and provided political, economic, cultural, financial, and security support to eventually affect Hamas' stance vis-à-vis Israel.

Abstract Iran and Saudi Arabia have long been engaged in heated rivalry and conflict in the Middle East. These two regional powers are both major oil-exporting countries; in major foreign policy issues, therefore, oil is used as an important
tool to pursue goals. Iran and Saudi Arabia have a long history of differences on oil policies, but one of the most severe differences emerged in 2011-2016, along with escalating tensions between the two countries in the region, which heavily
shaped oil market trends in this period. In an attempt to analyze these oil market trends, the main question addressed in this article concerns Saudi Arabia’s decisions to use oil as a weapon against Iran in 2011-2016. The article reveals that the perception of expanding Iranian influence in the Middle East drove Saudis to resort to oil as weapon against Iran in 2011-2016. However, restrictions on the use of this tool led Saudi Arabia to withdraw from most part of this policy, especially in the oil market. The article uses neoclassical realism approach and illustrates Saudis’ direct and indirect use of oil weapon against Iran, and analyzes the outcomes of this offensive oil policy for the two countries in particular, and for the international oil market in general.

Abstract Human rights situation in the Middle East (ME) is a central concern in contemporary political as well as academic discourses. There is a considerable amount of literature on the subject, both academic and journalistic, in the Western world. A large part of that literature blames the ME in different ways for its ‘terrible’ conception and treatment of human rights norms. They typically, do not hesitate to contextualise it as ‘Middle Eastern’ phenomenon. It is fascinating, though, that such contextualization is proposed predominantly without a substantial and appropriate context analysis. In this article, a context analysis is conducted, adopting an Area Studies Approach to identify the major features of a Middle Eastern context where human rights norms experience the region’s realities. As a result, four particular items, Islam, oil, Islamic-Western relations, and Israel are proposed as the main factors that form the real context of human rights in the Middle East. This analysis demonstrates that the influential causes of human rights violations in the ME are from both internal and external sources. The internal sources are highlighted in the dominant works of the field. It is interesting, however, that these works largely ignore the external ones. The nature of external factors, Western or attached to Western treatment of the Middle East might reveal the real motivations behind such remarkable overlooking.