Analysis of the causes of the Arab revolutions has understandably focused on the domestic pathologies associated with authoritarianism, whose symptoms were exposed and challenged by the popular uprisings. These include bloated security apparatuses, entrenched inequality, rampant corruption and cronyism, restrictive labour policies, systematic violations of civil and political rights, suffocated public spheres, and distorted wealth concentration. However, often overlooked in both academic and journalistic accounts of these revolutions have been the grievances expressed by protesters that touch on what Rashid Khalidi (2011) has referred to as their ‘collective dignity’. This form of dignity relates to the subordination of the political, economic, and social well-being of the people of the region to the dictates of foreign economic and geopolitical interests. In both the Tunisian and Egyptian contexts, this has been expressed as frustration at their country’s abbreviated sovereignty in a global economic order seen to be enforced by and for the benefit of international financial institutions and their western backers, and a global ‘security’ order that is perceived to have privileged the security and prosperity of the ‘west’ at the expense of the region’s own states and peoples. Furthermore, from the perspective of many of the activists involved in these uprisings, the structural inequality at the heart of relations between Arab and western states is a legacy of European colonialism, which was only partially overturned by their post-colonial leaders. Hence, for these activists, the Arab revolutions not only challenged domestic despotism, but also the post-colonial structures and international actors that enabled, maintained and benefited from this form of rule. This paper will engage various IR theories, including post-colonialism and constructivism, to conceptualise the dynamic relationship between the international and domestic spheres in the context of the Arab revolutions, focusing on Tunisia and Egypt in particular. It will consider the impact of collective memories of colonialism, as well as popular perceptions of more recent examples of European intervention, including diplomatic and military support given to repressive dictators in return for what are often viewed as indefensible domestic and foreign policy concessions. Of particular concern are states’ adoption of neoliberal policies seen to contribute to structural inequalities between Arab and European states, and government complacency, or even tacit complicity, in the face of Israel’s colonial project and regional aggression.