This study examines the impact of political information conveyed through computer-mediated social networks. Using a popular social networking website, Facebook, a randomized field experiment involving Georgia State University undergraduates explores the extent to which computer-mediated peer-to-peer communication can increase political knowledge. For this experiment two Facebook profiles were created, one to administer information about the 2009 Atlanta mayoral election and the other to administer timely entertainment information. Students were randomly assigned one of these profiles to “friend.” Students choosing not to “friend” their assigned profile were aggregated to create an additional control condition. Treatments were administered to those who “friended” their assigned profile for the seven days preceding the mayoral election. To assess the transfer of knowledge between the profiles and the students a subsequent in-person survey was conducted (N=374). Results reveal that being exposed to political information by a peer through a social networking website increases the probability of recalling at least some of that information by 18.2 percent. Notably, the same method of exposure to entertainment information produces no significant effects on the recall of that information.

This research examines the commonly explicated theory that democracy is a moderating force on the public’s support for terrorism. Specifically, I test the hypothesis that living in a democracy will decrease support for terror in Muslim populations. I analyze survey data on support for terrorism from the 2006 Pew Global Attitudes Survey, which has data from 10 nations. I use an ordered logistic regression model to test what determines support for terrorism. The results show that democracy negatively correlates with support for terror. Additionally, I find that opinions toward US policy in the region, including the ‘Global War on Terror’ and US support for Israel, do not correlate with support for terrorism. The results inform our understanding of why certain members of Muslim society that do not engage in acts of violence against civilians in defense of Islam support terror none-the-less.

The human rights of women in The Middle East and North Africa (MENA) have been a subject of unresolved debate among sociologists, economists, and political scientists alike, as this region’s gender related human rights performance remains uniquely weaker compared to other geographic regions in the world. Most notably, the human rights of women in the region have been lagging in the area of family law. The following paper assesses gender inequity in the MENA region from a legal perspective, with a focus on family law and legal pluralism, and with the intent to shed light on domestic legal institutions as means of influencing the economic and political status of women both in the Middle East and globally.

The effects of unemployment on the genesis of civil conflict are examined as both a social and economic factor, with particular emphasis on civil conflict in ethnically heterogeneous nations. A logit statistical analysis of a data set indicates that increased unemployment rates do contribute to the onset of civil conflict.

International criminal tribunals rely on international support. However, in the case of the ICTY and the ICTR, international support has been uneven. I argue that this uneven support is related to the post-atrocity status of the domestic governing authority. In cases where the governing authority retains the status of victim, as in Rwanda following the 1994 Tutsi genocide, the international community has been reluctant to back the ICTR in its attempts to prosecute all participants of the 1994 genocide. In cases where the governing authority retains the status of perpetrator, as in Serbia following the Bosnian genocide of the 1990s, the international community has been more supportive of the ICTY. In cases where the post-atrocity status is mixed, as in Croatia, the backing of the international community of the ICTY has been similarly mixed.

An extensive literature examines how distributive (i.e., “pork barrel”) spending is allocated among congressional districts. Much of this research finds evidence that intra-chamber factors like ideology, party, and committee membership are the primary determinants of various forms of distributive spending. However, we know much less about how extra-chamber factors such as district-level demand and the economy impact the distribution of federal outlays. In this study, I find that district-level demand and variation in economic factors, in particular, income and unemployment, significantly predict the distribution of new bureaucratic awards in the 110th Congress. The results support the contention that districts get what they need, and this raises questions about the ability of members of powerful committees to steer awards selectively to their districts. It also provides evidence for the economic “law of increasing state activity,” by which districts with higher income levels receive a larger share of federal assistance.

Mixed regimes are often viewed as inherently less stable and more war prone than fully democratic or autocratic systems due to their low levels of institutionalization. I ask, are certain mixed regimes more or less war prone than other mixed regimes, based on the strength and orientation (more democratic or autocratic) of their political institutions? At ends with previous research, my findings suggest that institutionalization levels play little, if any role in the onset of interstate war.

This thesis examines the factors which impact societal willingness to integrate in a post conflict, post power sharing agreement environment. Utilizing the Northern Ireland case, this study analyzes variance in willingness to integrate between Protestant and Catholic groups. Analysis of the Northern Ireland Life and Times survey data illustrates the shifting relationship between political trust and ingroup/outgroup frustrations on levels of willingness to integrate since the Good Friday Agreement. Statistical analyses indicate confirmation of ingroup attachment and elite political trust hypotheses, and reduced impact of outgroup benefit perceptions on willingness to integrate since the Good Friday Agreement.

With the extant work on civil war duration as a starting point, this project uses the Ugandan case to identify and address theoretical aporias in our existing understanding of the determinants of duration. The vast majority of existing work begins with the assumption that the rebel force is the determining factor in the duration of conflict. Challenging this assumption, I argue that civil war duration should be understood as a function of the calculations made by both the rebel units and the established state, a dynamic that has implications for the way in which we think of the preferences of the state. Finally, that incentive structures exist, given the nature of post-colonial states that lower the utility of peace for elected leadership and reduce their willingness to provide peace as a collective good to the broader population as civil war can be used as one of Jeffrey Herbst’s buffer mechanisms.

Bátora alleges that political accountability has been “almost entirely overlooked” (2010, 2) in studies of the European External Action Service. An examination of the subject that extends previous studies on agency design, the co-decision procedure, the “democratic deficit,” and European Union foreign policy would resolve the neglect. As a result, the study derives a hypothesis from an established theory of bureaucratic structure. Findings suggest that during the design of EU agencies co-decision power improves the ability of the European Parliament to institutionalize methods of accountability to it.