Mohammad Nasr Khater, Marya Ahmad Aldhoun, Majd Almanasra, Hanan Hashim Ameer
{"title":"The Legislative Rationale of the Charter of the League of Arab States and Its Implications for Effective Arab Crisis Management","authors":"Mohammad Nasr Khater, Marya Ahmad Aldhoun, Majd Almanasra, Hanan Hashim Ameer","doi":"10.1002/pa.70159","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n <p>This article offers a doctrinal analysis of the Charter of the League of Arab States to identify its legislative rationale and assess the consequences of that rationale for Arab crisis management. It argues that the Charter was designed in the geopolitical conditions of late colonialism and contested independence to reconcile Arab solidarity with the preservation of state sovereignty through a coordination-based, rather than supranational, institutional model. Using treaty interpretation grounded in the Charter's text, context, object and purpose, and read alongside the Alexandria Protocol, early legal commentary, subsequent institutional practice, and selective comparisons with the United Nations, the African Union, the Gulf Cooperation Council, and the European Union, the article reconstructs the Charter's normative architecture and tests its operational effects. It shows that the Charter enables consultation, mediation, and collective political coordination, yet limits compulsory decision-making, structured implementation, and authoritative legal review. The case studies of Kuwait-Iraq (1961), Yemen (1972), Syria (2011), and Gaza (2023) demonstrate that the League performs more effectively where a crisis fits the Charter's interstate and sovereignty-protective categories, but less effectively where crises are internal, humanitarian, or politically divisive. The article therefore rejects both a purely political explanation of institutional weakness and a legal-determinist account. Political will and legal design are mutually conditioning: the Charter channels state preferences, but its operation still depends on sustained member-state support. The article concludes with a calibrated reform agenda that preserves sovereign equality while differentiating voting rules, strengthening implementation and early-warning functions, structuring dispute settlement, and establishing an Arab Court of Justice under Article 19.</p>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":47153,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Public Affairs","volume":"26 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Public Affairs","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pa.70159","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
This article offers a doctrinal analysis of the Charter of the League of Arab States to identify its legislative rationale and assess the consequences of that rationale for Arab crisis management. It argues that the Charter was designed in the geopolitical conditions of late colonialism and contested independence to reconcile Arab solidarity with the preservation of state sovereignty through a coordination-based, rather than supranational, institutional model. Using treaty interpretation grounded in the Charter's text, context, object and purpose, and read alongside the Alexandria Protocol, early legal commentary, subsequent institutional practice, and selective comparisons with the United Nations, the African Union, the Gulf Cooperation Council, and the European Union, the article reconstructs the Charter's normative architecture and tests its operational effects. It shows that the Charter enables consultation, mediation, and collective political coordination, yet limits compulsory decision-making, structured implementation, and authoritative legal review. The case studies of Kuwait-Iraq (1961), Yemen (1972), Syria (2011), and Gaza (2023) demonstrate that the League performs more effectively where a crisis fits the Charter's interstate and sovereignty-protective categories, but less effectively where crises are internal, humanitarian, or politically divisive. The article therefore rejects both a purely political explanation of institutional weakness and a legal-determinist account. Political will and legal design are mutually conditioning: the Charter channels state preferences, but its operation still depends on sustained member-state support. The article concludes with a calibrated reform agenda that preserves sovereign equality while differentiating voting rules, strengthening implementation and early-warning functions, structuring dispute settlement, and establishing an Arab Court of Justice under Article 19.
期刊介绍:
The Journal of Public Affairs provides an international forum for refereed papers, case studies and reviews on the latest developments, practice and thinking in government relations, public affairs, and political marketing. The Journal is guided by the twin objectives of publishing submissions of the utmost relevance to the day-to-day practice of communication specialists, and promoting the highest standards of intellectual rigour.