ÌÇÐÄTV

Dr. , Reader of International Politics of the Middle East, has recently published a new article for openDemocracy, titled "Gendered paradoxes of Egypt’s transition."

Gendered paradoxes abound in Egypt following the departure of former president Hosni Mubarak four years ago. Under Mubarak, the women’s rights agenda was almost totally monopolized by the National Council for Women under the leadership of former first lady Suzanne Mubarak, whilst independent women’s organizing was severely constrained by limits on freedom of association. After the overthrow of Mubarak, women’s rights were threatened but independent women’s organizing flourished. Since July 2013, under the post-Morsi regime, advances have been made in women’s legal rights. However, independent women’s organizing is once again endangered by heavy handed control of the civic sphere.

Dr , Associate Professor in US Politics and International Studies, has recently been interviewed by Julie Pace, Chief White House Correspondent for the Associated Press, about Obama and the language of terrorism. Trevor is quoted directly and much of the article is based on what he said during the interview.

In the days after a deadly terror spree in Paris, President Barack Obama was criticized for purposely avoiding calling the attacks an example of "Islamic extremism," settling for the more generic "violent extremism." This week, the White House struggled to explain why the administration sometimes classifies the Afghan Taliban as a terrorist organization — and sometimes does not.

The rhetorical wrangling underscores the extent to which a president who pledged to end to his predecessor's war on terror is still navigating how to explain the threats that persist to the American public, while also being mindful of the impact his words can have abroad.

"They do believe that part of the roots of terrorism comes from the way the United States acts and talks and is perceived globally," said Trevor McCrisken, a professor at Britain's University of ÌÇÐÄTV who has studied Obama's foreign policy rhetoric.

Julie’s piece can be read here:

The Associated Press story has featured in over 200 different publications worldwide, including , , , and .

Trevor appeared on as a follow up to the piece, you can view the video below:

Professor recently featured on a podcast for Chatham House, "Does Britain Matter in East Asia?"

Britain has a range of longstanding interests in East Asia, based on historic, commercial and military ties. The government has made strengthening bilateral relationships with emerging powers – in particular China – a central plank of its foreign policy, whilst trying to find a balance between an ambitious commercial agenda and the promotion of democracy and human rights. But while the UK has important interests it has limited influence in maintaining regional security, which is threatened by continuing tensions in the East and South China Seas and on the Korean peninsula.

The participants discuss these challenges, and consider how the next government can balance the UK’s sometimes competing interests in East Asia.

's latest article, titled "The conspiracy theorists are right. Research shows nations really do go to war over oil" for has been published by the Washington Post.

We found that the decision to interfere was dominated by the interveners’ need for oil – over and above historical, geographical or ethnic ties.

Military intervention is expensive and risky. No country joins another country’s civil war without balancing the cost against their own strategic interests and what possible benefits there are.

We found countries producing lots of oil or those with higher reserves (and considerable ) were more likely to attract military support. Most often this was to preserve oil prices on international markets. Indeed, there were on average more interventions in periods when there were only a few big oil producing countries and thus reduced competition (and more stable prices).

.

, an Assistant Professor and a British Academy Postdoctoral Fellow here in PAIS, has recently co-authored a paper, titled ‘“Oil above Water", Economic Interdependence and Third-Party Intervention,’ for the Journal of Conflict Resolution.

Alongside researchers from the Universities Portsmouth and Essex, they have for the first time provided strong evidence for what conspiracy theorists have long thought – oil is often the reason for interfering in another country’s war.

Throughout recent history, countries which need oil have found reasons to interfere in countries with a good supply of it and, the researchers argue, this could help explain the US interest in ISIS in northern Iraq.

The researchers have modelled the decision-making process of third-party countries in interfering in civil wars and examined their economic motives.

They found that the decision to interfere was dominated by the interveners’ need for oil over and above historical, geographical or ethnic ties.

The full paper is available, '"Oil above Water", Economic Interdependence and Third-Party Intervention', .

The paper has received considerable press coverage, the articles can be viewed below: