The following dissertation is an attempt of analysis and understanding of the foreign policy of the United States in the Middle East region and its evolution through time. Considering the fact that the Middle East region is or at least used to be a vital region for the United States national interests, the dissertation presents an exhaustive list of major events that have been major shifts in the US foreign policy in the region. The more or less chronological timeline allows the reader to have a better understanding of the evolution of the US foreign policy. The result of the dissertation is the identification of different patterns of foreign policy and to put the spot on the reasons of the changes of these patterns. Nevertheless, the history of the Middle East region and the incredible number of major events through the 2Oth century and the early 21st century make impossible to deal with all of them. Moreover, analysis and comments are based on academic research, but the dissertation remains subjective and may lead to discussions and debates.

This thesis presents a Strategic-Relational (SR) analysis of the processes ofchange and continuity in Mexican foreign policy during the Fox government. In2000, the election of President Fox determined the victory of a new party after71 years of Partido Revolucionario Institucional (PRI) rule, producing thedemocratisation of the country. Domestic and international changes generatedby the end of the Cold War, and the presence of new actors in the Mexicanscenario created momentum for the country, helped also by the introduction ofa new foreign policy paradigm. Despite the significance of these elements, thestudy of their reciprocal influence in foreign policy has been neglected. Thesetransformations and the discrepancy between the discourse of change and itsimplementation are considered an ideal scenario for the study of continuity andchange in foreign policy-making. This research focuses on the application ofJessop and Hay’s Strategic-Relational Approach (SRA), considered able togenerate an understanding of this complex process of interaction. However,although the SRA theorises the impact of these interplays in policy-making,scarce consideration has been given to this approach in the study of foreignpolicy change. Therefore, the thesis aims to understand the dynamicsgrounding Fox’s foreign policy, employing the SRA to identify those conditionsnecessary for the implementation of change and appreciate how the interplayamong different elements was manifest. After explaining the SRA and its relevance to the study of change in foreignpolicy, the thesis provides a historical framework explaining Mexico’s evolutionin the years up to 2000. Building on these chapters, three empirical casestudies presenting different degrees of foreign policy change are then analysedthrough the SRA. They respectively consider Mexico’s approach topeacekeeping operations, its participation in the United Nations SecurityCouncil and its refusal to support the Iraq War, and Mexico’s internationalapproach to human rights. The thesis compares how, in the presence ofconsistent general conditions, the processes of change and continuity weredifferently implemented. The interplay established among the fundamental SRelements is interpreted as pivotal in every empirical chapter for its capacity toaccount for the complexity of the foreign policy process and the generation ofconcrete change in foreign policy.

This study focuses on how perceived security environment affect U.S. unilateral, military intervention in civil conflicts, using the concept of Bayesian learning to illustrate how threat perceptions are formed, how they change, and how they affect the U.S. decision to intervene militarily in civil conflicts. I assess the validity of two primary hypotheses: (1) the U.S. is more likely to intervene in civil conflicts with connections to a threatening actor or ideology; and (2) the U.S. is more likely to intervene in civil conflicts for humanitarian motives in a less threatening security context. To test these hypotheses, I compare U.S. military intervention in three temporal contexts reflecting more threatening security contexts (Cold War and post-9/11) and less threatening security contexts (1992-2001). Results of logit regression analysis reveal that a conflict’s connection to a threatening actor or ideology is the most statistically and substantively significant determinant of U.S. military intervention in civil conflicts, both in more and less threatening security contexts. They also indicate that humanitarian motives are not a statistically significant determinant of U.S. military intervention in civil conflicts, even in a more benign security environment. These findings imply that U.S. unilateral military intervention is reserved for more direct national security threats, even those that are less grave, and that the perception of the U.S. as “global cop” may be misleading, at least in terms of unilateral military intervention.

During the Cold War the foreign policy of the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO), was heavily criticized by scholars and activists for following the lead of the U.S. state in its overseas operations. In a wide range of states, the AFL-CIO worked to destabilize governments selected by the U.S. state for regime change, while in others the Federation helped stabilize client regimes of the U.S. state. In 1997 the four regional organizations that previously carried out AFL-CIO foreign policy were consolidated into the American Center for International Labor Solidarity (Solidarity Center). My dissertation is an attempt to analyze whether the foreign policy of the AFL-CIO in the Solidarity Center era is marked by continuity or change with past practices. At the same time, this study will attempt to add to the debate over the role of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in the post-Cold War era, and its implications for future study. Using the qualitative “process-tracing” detailed by of Alexander George and Andrew Bennett (2005) my study examines a wide array of primary and secondary sources, including documents from the NED and AFL-CIO, in order to analyze the relationship between the Solidarity Center and the U.S. state from 2002-2009. Furthermore, after analyzing broad trends of NED grants to the Solidarity Center, this study examines three dissimilar case studies including Venezuela, Haiti, and Iraq and the Middle East and North African (MENA) region to further explore the connections between U.S. foreign policy goals and the Solidarity Center operations. The study concludes that the evidence indicates continuity with past AFL-CIO foreign policy practices whereby the Solidarity Center follows the lead of the U.S. state. It has been found that the patterns of NED funding indicate that the Solidarity Center closely tailors its operations abroad in areas of importance to the U.S. state, that it is heavily reliant on state funding via the NED for its operations, and that the Solidarity Center works closely with U.S. allies and coalitions in these regions. Finally, this study argues for the relevance of “top-down” NGO creation and direction in the post-Cold War era.

The thesis examines the European Union as a mediator in the case of Belgrade-Pristina dialogue. It tends to discover which factors led to lower mediation effectiveness after 2015, by EU's mediation strategy, leverage and coherence. The thesis is designed as a qualitative case study which compares three different stages of the case by implementing a combination of congruence method and process tracing. Drawing for the content and document analysis as well as four interviews conducted and two personal communications, the thesis analyses the factors which influenced effectiveness and compares them throughout three different phases of the mediation. In the end, the analysis shows that while strategy remained the same, levels coherence and leverages changed and concluded that it was the weaking of EU's leverage strength that influenced mediation effectiveness the most.

In the aftermath of the South African election, as a non-permanent member of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) in 2011, the country amongst other things, promised to pursue an African Agenda for Peace and Stability on the continent and in all regions of the world, especially in the Global South. This was coupled with the promise to promote the importance of developing effective partnerships between the United Nations (UN) as well as regional and sub-regional organizations in maintaining international peace and security. These became fundamental foreign policy principles of how South Africa would behave in the Security Council. The UN Charter mandates the primary responsibility for maintaining international peace and security to the Council. Scholars that have analysed the United Nations often argue that the Council’s decision-making process is driven by the interests of the five permanent members who possess veto power. Thus, it is widely believed that, members that have continuous membership and veto power not only affect the passage of resolutions but also prevent certain issues from entering the agenda through the threat of a veto. While veto-wielding member states can use the veto to bargain their positions, non-permanent members of the Council can have limited influence on the agenda due to the unequal distribution of power. The power-politics argument is widely discussed in the literature of the United Nations; however, limited systematic analytical research has been done to understand how countries other than big powers exercise their influence in the UN Security Council, despite lacking the right to veto power. To contribute to the understanding of the power-politics argument, ways in which emerging countries influence the agenda will be identified. This research report analyses whether and how South Africa delivered on the promise to pursue African interests during its tenure in the UNSC in 2011-2012. This study embarks on content analysis of selected South African interventions and reports regarding African issues in the UNSC. / Mini Dissertation (MDIPS)--University of Pretoria, 2018. / Political Sciences / MDIPS / Unrestricted

No description available.

See the attached abstract below

This thesis focuses on the contest that can be defined as an epoch in Irish political discourse, the Treaty of Lisbon referendum 2008. It approaches the subject from an alternative angle to current research, which predominately focuses on the outcome of the referendum rather than the causes of the outcome. Principally, this research offers a critical discourse analysis of the preliminary debate covering the sessions of Dáil Éireann from the begin of the debate on 3rd April 2008 to the final statements on the 23rd April 2008 which debated the controversial government backed Treaty of Lisbon. This thesis wishes to trace the ways in which opposition actors attempted to resonate their arguments with chronicled master frameworks of Irish foreign policy a tactic which has emerged as a key ideological resource, and to the extent they utilised neutrality as a persuasive tool in influencing the outcome of the debate.

In the last decade or so, Iran and Israel have found a new domain where to translate and protract their conflictual relationship: the cyberspace. Since the discovery of Stuxnet both countries have embarked on a significant cyber capabilities build-up, in accordance with their resources, and driven as well by mutual threat and perception of threat they pose to each other. Following their own cyber strategies embedded in their respective broader foreign policy agendas, the two foes confronted each other several times in a cyber feud which lasts to present days. Through the use of Event Data methodology, it is examined quantitatively the impact of cyber conflict on the Iranian- Israeli relationship, when cyber capabilities are utilized as a foreign policy tool vis-à-vis each other. The results of the quantitative study show no significant alteration of the conflict-cooperation dynamics between the dyad of interest due to the utilization of cyber capabilities. Furthermore, the qualitative assessment of the cyber feud shows that the balance of power between the two sides is not affected by increasing cyber capabilities, since Israel has the clear upper hand in the cyberspace. Keywords Iran, Israel, Foreign Policy, Cyber Capabilities, Cyber Conflict, Event Data