Thesis (Ph. D.)--Humanities Programme, Concordia University, 1999. / "May, 1999." Includes bibliographical references (leaves 459-479). Available also on the Internet.

Thesis (M.S. in Joint Campaign Planning and Strategy)--Joint Forces Staff College, Joint Advanced Warfighting School, 2007. / Title from title screen; viewed on July 9, 2007. "1 June 2007." Electronic version of original print document. Includes bibliographical references (p. 96-100).

Thesis (M.A.)--Ohio State University, 1986. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 167-173). Available online via OhioLINK's ETD Center

No description available.

abstract: Following the implementation of federal immigration control measures in the 1990s, Arizona became the main point of entry for undocumented immigrants along the US border with Mexico in the early 2000s. Since then, reports have blamed human smuggling facilitators for the increase of undocumented immigration into the state and the apparent development of violent practices targeting the undocumented. However, little is known about the organization of the groups who work at facilitating the transit of undocumented immigrants along the US Mexico Border. Based on interviews and narratives present in legal files of smuggling cases prosecuted in Phoenix, Arizona, the present study provides an analysis of local human smuggling operations. It argues that far from being under the control of organized crime, smuggling is an income generating strategy of the poor that generates financial opportunities for community members in financial distress. The study, raises questions over smuggling's perceptions as violent and instead identifies smuggling-related violence as a reflection of the structural violence carried out by the state against immigrant communities through policing, surveillance and the consistent and systematic exercise of race-based policies. / Dissertation/Thesis / Ph.D. Justice Studies 2011

Existing literature suggests evidence that American citizens have implicit and explicit biases against Muslims that influence or allow biased policies. In general, many of these biases stem from media framing, ethnic discrimination, and religious stereotypes. Some of these stereotypes associate Muslims with terrorism and violence, and public opinion research has concluded that Americans do not believe Muslims uphold American values. Thus, after 9/11, security policies against Muslims have resurfaced the question of suppressing individual liberties for the general welfare of all. My paper analyzes public opinion towards security legislation that discriminates against Muslims and examines how willing Americans are to support policies that infringe on civil liberties. My research poses three main questions: 1) Are opinions on national security influenced by the framing; 2) Does bias and ethnic-profiling make minorities more prone to support protection of civil liberties and 3) Are discriminatory policies against Muslims politicized by party affiliates? Using a survey, I found that framing the chosen policies to emphasize liberty or security had little influence on responses. Furthermore, I argue that, while literature suggests that minority groups tend lean pro-liberty relative to the White demographic, this concept is not substantial across all races when considering current Muslim-profiling policies. Finally, we find some evidence that ideology and ethnocentrism have become closely related factors after the 2016 Presidential Campaign, and that negative feelings of Muslims and national security policy have become more polarized than in the past.

This work has a single aim, focusing on developing a political risk model relevant for tourism organisations, which are operating in an increasingly complex and turbulent international environment. It pays particular attention to the language of risk (how risks are articulated and described), the culture of risk (how risks are viewed), and the risk process (how they are analysed and assessed). The work critically evaluates a variety of methods that can be utilised to scan, analyse and assess political hazards and risks. It finds that many of the existing methods of political and country risk assessment are limited and not sufficiently contextualised to the needs of the tourism industry. Whilst many models can have an attractive façade of using positivistic methods to calculate political risks, in practice these are fraught with problems. The study also highlights a more complex relationship between tourism and political instability, whereby tourism can be characterised as much by its robustness, as its sensitivity. A model is developed which primarily adapts a systems theory approach, whereby a language, culture and practical process is developed through which the analysis of various factors and indicators can take place. The approach adopted has a number of stages, which vary in the amount of data necessary for the analysis and assessment of political risks. The model begins by utilising existing travel advice databases, moving onto an analysis of the frequency of past events, then to the nature of the political system itself, finishing with an analysis and assessment of more complex input factors and indicators which relate to notions of causation. One of the more provocative features of the model is the argument that it is more than possible to make an assessment of the risks that the political environment can pose to a tourism organisation, without necessarily understanding theories of causation.

This work has a single aim, focusing on developing a political risk model relevant for tourism organisations, which are operating in an increasingly complex and turbulent international environment. It pays particular attention to the language of risk (how risks are articulated and described), the culture of risk (how risks are viewed), and the risk process (how they are analysed and assessed). The work critically evaluates a variety of methods that can be utilised to scan, analyse and assess political hazards and risks. It finds that many of the existing methods of political and country risk assessment are limited and not sufficiently contextualised to the needs of the tourism industry. Whilst many models can have an attractive façade of using positivistic methods to calculate political risks, in practice these are fraught with problems. The study also highlights a more complex relationship between tourism and political instability, whereby tourism can be characterised as much by its robustness, as its sensitivity. A model is developed which primarily adapts a systems theory approach, whereby a language, culture and practical process is developed through which the analysis of various factors and indicators can take place. The approach adopted has a number of stages, which vary in the amount of data necessary for the analysis and assessment of political risks. The model begins by utilising existing travel advice databases, moving onto an analysis of the frequency of past events, then to the nature of the political system itself, finishing with an analysis and assessment of more complex input factors and indicators which relate to notions of causation. One of the more provocative features of the model is the argument that it is more than possible to make an assessment of the risks that the political environment can pose to a tourism organisation, without necessarily understanding theories of causation.

Este trabalho investiga quantitativamente as causas da adesão de países a tratados internacionais de segurança. Mais precisamente, tratados de controle de armamentos. O principal tratado a ser estudado aqui é o Tratado de Não-Proliferação de Armas Nucleares. Primeiramente fiz uma reconstrução racional dos programas realista e liberal das relações internacionais, com enfoque em regimes internacionais. Trata-se de uma abordagem qualitativa, feita com o intuito de subsidiar a pesquisa quantitativa. O cerne do trabalho é a análise econométrica do problema da adesão. Utilizo dados em painel na forma país/ano. Utilizo o universo dos países entre os anos 1968 e 2004. A técnica utilizada é a regressão logística com erro padrão robusto agrupado por país. O principal achado é que democracias aderem mais que autocracias na razão de dois para um. Por fim, temos uma modelagem formal, ainda bastante tentativa, do problema da adesão a tratados de segurança, feita com o intuito de prover uma ferramenta de policy implementation, com base num estudo de caso, qual seja, o da adesão de Índia e Paquistão ao Tratado de Não-Proliferação de Armas Nucleares. A metodologia usada nesta parte é a de desenho de mecanismo. / This study investigates the causes of adhesion to security treaties. The main case of study is the Non-Proliferation Treaty. The rational reconstructions of the liberal and realist research programs inform the quantitative work that follows them. The kernel of this piece is the econometric analysis. I use panel data and cluster robust logits to infer the causes of adhesion of countries to arms control treaties. The main finding is that democracies adhere more than authoritarian domestic regimes with a two to one odds ratio. Finally, I model the strategic situation between India and Pakistan. These two countries are not yet signatories of the NPT. I use mechanism design to come up with a means of promoting better equilibria.

In 2015, Europe experienced the most significant refugees' outbreak in modern history. Millions of displaced persons crossed the external borders of the European Union. Some of the EU member states represented and handled the outbreak as an opportunity. Some others framed and dealt with the migratory pressures as a security threat. The designation of an issue as an existential threat to a referent object constitutes a security speech act. According to the Copenhagen School of Security Studies, when extraordinary measures and the acceptance of the audience follow a security speech act, then we observe successful securitization. Motivated by the desire to examine the securitization of the refugee crisis in Europe, from a Copenhagen School's perspective, I performed a thorough assessment of the relevant literature which brought into the light a research gap. Despite the persistence of the Copenhagen School's scholars to underline the importance of their analytical framework's 'audience acceptance' component, most of the securitization literature focuses on the other two components of a successful securitization: the security speech act and the emergency action. As a result, the audience acceptance component suffers from under-theorization, underdevelopment, and under-assessment. To enhance the analytical potential of the Copenhagen School's theorem, I develop two methodological novelties -the Triangulation Method of Audience Identification and the Comprehensive Securitization Empirical Framework. The first guarantees the accurate identification of the securitization audience. The second classifies ten different forms of securitization based on the presence or absence of the three securitization components and on the placement of the 'audience acceptance' within the securitization's timeline. To demonstrate the applicability of the novel analytical tools, I test them on the securitization of the European refugee crisis. To support my findings, I perform a comparative case study of five case studies: Greece, Poland, Hungary, Germany, and the EU. To draw my conclusions, I consult thousands of official statements, hundreds of surveys and opinion polls, dozens of relevant books and peer-reviewed articles and several in-person interviews with renowned decision-makers. The outcomes of the research suggest that, in the case of the European refugee crisis, the primary targeted audience was the general public. However, the opinion of the general public about the designation of the existential threat and about the necessity of the extraordinary measures' adoption was rarely considered after the utterance of the security speech acts. In most of the cases, the securitizing actors assessed the feelings of the general public before uttering the speech acts. The findings of this research also indicate that the higher the negativity of the general public towards immigrants and refugees, the most likely the political elites to perform a security speech act and to resort to emergency action. Despite the indisputable impact of the public opinion, the final decision about the securitization of the refugee crisis belongs to the political actors