https://alkashaf.pk/index.php/Journal <p><strong>Al-Kashaf</strong> is an <a href="https://hjrs.hec.gov.pk/index.php?r=site%2Fresult&amp;id=1055322#journal_result">HEC-approved</a> quarterly, double-blind peer-reviewed, open-access journal. The journal is a multidisciplinary, trilingual (<strong>Urdu, English, and Arabic</strong>) publication covering all areas of the social sciences and their interlinked disciplines of knowledge. These subjects include legal studies, Islamic law, philosophy and theology, sociology, psychology, history, economics, social sciences in applied sciences and professions, social and natural sciences, etc.</p> <p>Al-Kashaf is actively working towards aligning its editorial and publishing practices with the standards of globally recognized indexing platforms, including Scopus and the Web of Science. The journal is also committed to publication ethics and transparency, adhering to the principles of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE).</p> GCLT (Global Center for Legal Thought) en-US Al-Kashaf 2790-8798 https://alkashaf.pk/index.php/Journal/article/view/260 <p>The transition from unipolarity to multipolarity has fundamentally reshaped the dynamics of global governance and international security. In this evolving order, United Nations (UN) peacekeeping operations face mounting challenges arising from great power rivalry, normative contestation, and institutional fragmentation. This article examines how multipolarity reshapes the mandates, operational practices, and normative foundations of UN peacekeeping, with particular attention to the competing strategic interests of major powers. Employing a qualitative doctrinal methodology, the study synthesizes contemporary scholarly literature, UN policy documents, and institutional analyses to assess emerging trends in peace operations. It analyses the interaction between geopolitical competition and multilateral governance frameworks, highlighting a shift from liberal peacebuilding models toward more pragmatic, sovereignty-centered approaches. The findings reveal a dual dynamic: while multipolarity constrains collective action through Security Council paralysis and intensified strategic rivalry, it simultaneously encourages adaptive responses, including increased reliance on regional actors and hybrid operational models. As a result, UN peacekeeping is transitioning from a predominantly norm-driven enterprise to a more negotiated and politically contingent instrument of conflict management. The article concludes that the future legitimacy and effectiveness of UN peacekeeping will depend on its capacity to reconcile divergent great power interests with foundational normative commitments. It recommends targeted institutional reforms, including enhanced P5 cooperation, strengthened multilateral coordination, and a recalibration of normative and operational priorities to sustain peacekeeping in an increasingly fragmented global order.</p> Saqib Shahbaz Dr. Zarqa Amber Copyright (c) 2026 Saqib Shahbaz, Dr. Zarqa Amber https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 2026-03-31 2026-03-31 6 01 01 14 https://alkashaf.pk/index.php/Journal/article/view/266 <p>Contested territories in the post-colonial international order present a fundamental challenge to international law, particularly in reconciling state sovereignty with the right of peoples to self-determination. Palestine and Jammu and Kashmir exemplify this tension, as both remain protracted disputes shaped by decolonization processes, competing sovereignty claims, and prolonged United Nations (UN) engagement. Despite extensive international involvement, these cases reveal a critical gap between the normative commitments of international law and the practical realities of governance under conditions of contested sovereignty. This study investigates how UN engagement and domestic constitutional frameworks have interacted to structure governance in Palestine and Kashmir, with particular focus on the concepts of “international legal subalternity” and “occupational constitutionalism”. The research adopts a qualitative, doctrinal, and comparative case study methodology, drawing on primary legal instruments including UN General Assembly Resolution 181 (1947) and UN Security Council Resolution 47 (1948) as well as domestic legal frameworks such as the Palestinian Basic Law (2003/2005) and the Jammu and Kashmir Reorganisation Act (2019). The analysis demonstrates that UN engagement has evolved from early mediation and plebiscite-oriented mandates toward a model of humanitarian management, reflecting structural constraints imposed by great-power politics within the Security Council. Simultaneously, domestic constitutional mechanisms in both contexts have facilitated the gradual erosion of autonomy and the consolidation of external control under a veneer of legality. The findings indicate that international legal processes often function within a “rule by law” paradigm, privileging geopolitical stability over substantive justice and thereby perpetuating conditions of legal subalternity. The study concludes that the persistence of these conflicts is not merely a failure of implementation but reflects structural limitations within the international legal order itself. It recommends a recalibration of UN institutional practices, including enhanced accountability mechanisms and a renewed emphasis on self-determination as a primary legal obligation, in order to move beyond the current state of institutional stasis.</p> Saqib Shahbaz Fatima Ilyas Muhammad Hammad Chaudary Copyright (c) 2026 Saqib Shahbaz, Fatima Ilyas, Muhammad Hammad Chaudary https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0 2026-03-31 2026-03-31 6 01 15 24