CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 68Middle East and Rwanda ConflictsMiddle East Politics and SocietyInternational Relations and Foreign Policy

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 21 of the 24 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The intra-GCC crises: mapping GCC fragmentation after 2011

Bianco, Cinzia, Stansfield, Gareth·2018·International Affairs
DOI 10.1093/ia/iiy025
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

If shared security perceptions were the foundation of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), 2011 might be analysed as the watershed year in which the GCC began to fragment from within. Both the 2014 and 2017 intra-GCC crises were manifestations of conflicting security perceptions, formed across the GCC countries in and since 2011. Through an in-depth analysis of the events and of the subsequent reaction of the GCC governments in terms of discourse and foreign policy, we distinguish three different categories of conceptualization. First, the governments of Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates perceived domestic protests as an ‘intermestic’ threat—triggered by the intersection of the international and domestic levels. Second, the leaders of Oman and Kuwait conceptualized protests in their countries as manageable domestic insecurity, rather than as fully-fledged externally orchestrated events—arguably because they did not perceive a direct danger to their stability and legitimacy. Finally, it can be argued that the government of Qatar did not see any real danger in the protests but instead viewed them as an opportunity to expand Doha's regional influence, arguably at Riyadh's expense. Unpacking the fundamental factors shaping such perceptions is the key to finding the appropriate framework for analysing GCC security in the future.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/ia/iiy025

Cites

21 of 21 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 24 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Bianco, C., & Stansfield, G.
ORCID
Venue
International Affairs
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2018-05-01
Volume
94
Issue
3
Pages
613-635
ISSN
  • 0020-5850 (ISSN-L)
  • 1468-2346
DOI
10.1093/ia/iiy025
OpenAlex
W2800161174
Cited by
64
References
24
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 4
FWCI
22.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • International Affairs (publishedVersion)
  • Open Research Exeter (University of Exeter) (acceptedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Middle East and Rwanda Conflicts
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Middle East Politics and Society
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › International Relations and Foreign Policy
Keywords
Gulf Cooperation Council, 2011 Arab uprisings, perceived security, regional fragmentation, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, United Arab Emirates, Oman, Kuwait, regional security

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review