Orientador: Paulo José dos Reis Pereira / Banca: Reginaldo Mattar Nasser / Banca: Deisy de Freitas Lima Ventura / O Programa de Pós-Graduação em Relações Internacionais é instituído em parceria com a Unesp/Unicamp/PUC-SP, em projeto subsidiado pela CAPES, intitulado "Programa San Tiago Dantas" / Resumo: Entre março de 2003 e junho de 2004, os Estados Unidos da América, em conjunto com a Grã-Bretanha, ocuparam o Iraque e obtiveram o status de Autoridade Provisória emitido pelo Conselho de Segurança da Organização das Nações Unidas (CSONU) na Resolução 1483 para reconstruir o Estado iraquiano após a derrubada do Regime Baath. Pela primeira vez desde o final da segunda Guerra Mundial, uma potência ganhava status de força ocupante pela Organização das Nações Unidas (ONU), sem ser um mandato da ONU propriamente, como usualmente nas operações de paz (Peacekeeping operations) regidas pelo órgão internacional. A invasão do Iraque em 2003, contou com um consenso no pensamento político norteamericano no qual os EUA teriam a responsabilidade e o dever de derrubar o regime de Saddam Hussein, que supostamente cometia crimes contra humanidade, representava uma ameaça à segurança internacional. Em grande medida, a fórmula norte-americana para a invasão e ocupação do Iraque consistiu em justificar suas ações em termos de "razão humanitária" e legitimá-las por meio de mecanismos jurídicos. A execução do plano de ocupação do Iraque contou com um papel fundamental de membros da elite iraquiana da oposição ao Regime Baath em apoio a agenda das potências anglo-americanas. Entretanto, se esse inédito processo de statebuilding for analisado deixando de lado essas premissas humanitárias, ao contrário do que fazem as análises mainstream de política externa dos EUA, pode-se identificar possíveis benefícios político-econômicos consequentes a esse projeto de reconstrução do Iraque. A partir da análise dos documentos oficiais da Coalizão de Autoridade Provisória (CAP) e o questionamento às premissas liberais internacionalistas que pautaram a justificativa e posteriormente as críticas aos resultados da administração ... (Resumo completo, clicar acesso eletrônico abaixo) / Abstract: Between March 2003 and June 2004, the United States of America (US), together with Britain, occupied Iraq and obtained the status of Provisional Authority granted by the UN Security Council in Resolution 1483 to rebuild the Iraqi state after the overthrow of the Baath Regime. For the first time since the end of World War II, an international power gained occupying power status through United Nations (UN), without being a UN proper mandate, as usually in peacekeeping operations governed by the international body. The 2003 invasion of Iraq had a consensus in American political though that the United States would have the responsibility and duty to overthrow Saddam's regime, which allegedly committed crimes against humanity, posed a threat to international security. To a large extent, the American formula for the invasion and occupation of Iraq consisted in justifying its actions in terms of "humanitarian reason" and legitimizing them by means of legal mechanisms. Implementation of the Iraq occupation plan had a key role for members of the Iraqi opposition elite to the Baath Regime in support of the Anglo-American powers agenda. However, if this unprecedented statebuilding process is analyzed by leaving aside these humanitarian premises, unlike the mainstream US foreign policy analysis, one can identify possible political-economic benefits that result from this reconstruction project in Iraq. Based on the analysis of the official documents of the Provisional Authority Coalition (CPA) and questioning the internationalist liberal premises that guided the justification and later criticism of the results of CPA administration, we were able to identify possible political-economic benefits to the US and its corporations during The 14 months of occupation. Particularly in the energy, agriculture, security services and infrastructure ... - (Complete abstract click electronic access below) / Mestre

L’invasion et l’occupation de l’Irak ont montré les capacités des Etats-Unis de renverser un ordre politique, et les difficultés d’en construire un à leur profit. Le postulat de départ de la présente recherche consiste à s’interroger sur les effets produits par la présence américaine en Irak. Ceux-ci ne peuvent être analysés indépendamment des logiques qui en sont à l’origine ni de l’interaction avec de multiples acteurs. C’est donc à une analyse stratégique que cette interrogation invite : analyse du raisonnement, de l’articulation entre fins, voies et moyens, mais aussi de l’interdépendance entre les actions américaines et celles des acteurs irakiens. A cette aune, l’histoire militaire devient l’occasion d’une étude sociologique de l’utilisation de la force ainsi que des rapports entre sphères politiques et militaires. D’autre part, l’inscription des actions militaires dans un contexte sociopolitique dynamique porte à se poser la question du rôle joué par la coercition dans l’établissement d’un ordre politique au niveau local. Plus largement enfin, cette thèse interroge les prétentions des Etats occidentaux et de la communauté internationale à promouvoir un ordre libéral dans un contexte de consolidation de l’Etat. / The US invasion and subsequent occupation of Iraq seem to highlight the capability of the United States to overthrow a given political order as well as the difficulties in building another order more favorable to their interests. That research is premised on the analytical necessity to interrogate the effects produced by the American presence in Iraq. Indeed, the effects of military actions cannot be studied independently from their underlying logic. In addition, one has to take into account the dialectical interaction between US military actions and those of the various actors at play in Iraq. Hence a strategic analysis, drawing on the Clausewitzian strategic theory and encompassing the reasoning, the articulation between ends, ways and means, and the interplay between the US and Iraqi actors. In the light of this analysis, military history gives way to a more sociological study of the use of force and of the civil-military relations. Furthermore, as military actions are inscribed in a broader and dynamic sociopolitical context, it is necessary to question the role of coercion in building a political order at the local level. At a higher level, this study questions Western States’ and international community’s claims to promote a liberal order in a context of state consolidation.

Ce mémoire a comme objectif principal de mettre à jour les mécanismes discursifs qui ont rendu possibles les actes de torture commis par des militaires étasuniens à l'encontre de détenus de la prison d'Abou Ghraïb en Irak. Pour ce faire, je montrerai en quoi le discours des instances gouvernementales et militaires a permis de créer une réalité, un monde qui tolère et/ou encourage des pratiques tortionnaires au niveau local. J'identifierai deux processus sociaux - la déshumanisation et l'autorisation - émergeant de documents gouvernementaux étasuniens tels que des mémorandums et des rapports militaires qui ont mis en place une torture-sustaining reality révélée au niveau local par le scandale d'Abou Ghraïb.

ix, 99 p. A print copy of this thesis is available through the UO Libraries. Search the library catalog for the location and call number. / This study examines how the news media and U.S. officials within the Bush administration utilized rhetoric and specific words over others to frame the violence and civil unrest in Iraq following the U.S. invasion. This study incorporates a mixed methods approach to framing analysis. It seeks to advance framing research into the role of the media in presenting dominant frames set forth by powerful political elites. By examining Department of Defense news briefings, this study critiques the officials' framing of the violence and unrest in Iraq. Likewise, through a content analysis of two newspapers' coverage of the Iraq War, it examines the frequency of certain key terms as it attempts to locate the emergence of dominant rhetorical frames, particularly "insurgency." Results reveal that officials framed Iraq's insurgency as part of the war on terror and the insurgency frame emerged in print during the periods of study. / Committee in charge: Prof. John Russial, Chair; Prof. Patricia A Curtin; Prof. Carl Bybee

Tese (doutorado) - Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Centro de Filosofia e Ciências Humanas, Programa de Pós-Graduação em Sociologia Política, Florianópolis, 2013 / Made available in DSpace on 2013-12-06T00:03:40Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 319878.pdf: 1896748 bytes, checksum: 9ced9dd93a8004cf629787296d627768 (MD5) / Esta tese aborda o contemporâneo movimento de inclusão educacional da surdez, entre os anos de 2003 a 2011, a partir da análise de seus usos e efeitos num setor intermediário da burocracia brasileira, a Secretaria de Estado da Educação do Paraná. Para isso, um investimento etnográfico de aproximadamente dois anos (2009 a 2011) foi realizado junto ao Departamento de Educação Especial e Inclusão Educacional dessa Secretaria. O objetivo era compreender como as práticas que historicamente regulamentaram a população surda sob a tutela de concepções clínico-terapêuticas puderam se modificar com a emergência de discursos em defesa do potencial político e pedagógico da ?língua de sinais?. Desse modo, o objeto desta investigação não se refere às vivências e experiências das pessoas surdas em fase de escolarização, mas ao projeto institucional que pretendeu inseri-las nas escolas públicas regulares por intermédio da fabricação de uma categoria pedagógica relativamente estável, homogênea e passível de inclusão. Portanto, este estudo é uma tentativa de apresentar um campo regional de disputas em torno das palavras autorizadas e das interpretações dominantes que estão impondo sentidos práticos às atuais políticas de significação da surdez no interior da ?nova? gramática inclusiva adotada pelo Estado. <br>

Orientador: Reginaldo Nasser / Banca: Antonio Pedro Tota / Banca: Igor Fuser / O programa de Pós-Graduação em Relações Internacionais é instituido em parceria com a UNESP/UNICAMP/PUC-SP, em projeto subsidiado pela CAPES, intitulado "Programa San Tiago Dantas" / Resumo: O presente trabalho tem por objetivo analisar a percepção e o posicionamento do jornal americano The New York Times sobre a Guerra do Iraque conduzida por George W. Bush em 2003. Também será trabalhada a questão da relação entre mídia e governo. O alicerce teórico do trabalho consiste de literatura do campo de relações internacionais, política externa americana e comunicação política. A parte empírica omplicará na tentativa de estabelecer uma correlação entre o tom e o conteúdo dos editoriais do referido jornal e a popularidade do presidente durante a guerra / Abstract: This study aims to analyze the perception and positioning of the American newspaper The New York Times about the Iraq war led by George W. Bush in 2003. It will also approach the question of the relationship between media and government. The theoretical foundation of the work consists of the literature of the field of international relations, American foreign policy and political communication. The empirical part will involve the attempt to establish a correlation between the tone and content of the newspaper editorials and the president's popularity during the war / Mestre

The Horse Latitudes is a collection of stories that documents one infantry squad's time in Baghdad, Iraq. The missions are long stretches of boredom, broken up by flashes of violence. The single sniper shot fired. An IED loosely buried in the roadside, waiting. A schoolyard of kids throwing fist-sized rocks at gun-trucks. The enemy is vast and changing. The downtime is a combination of homesickness, RPGs, and mortar fire. These men suffer through the war, heat, and each other. These stories look into the fire-fights and their aftermath to get to soldiers' struggles within themselves: how to fight a faceless enemy, what it means to serve, how one soldiers, what makes a man, what makes a good man, what will it mean to die here, and what does it mean not to. This collection dismisses what we think we know about war -- violence, camaraderie, masculinity, enemy, victory -- in order to tell a harder, truer story.

This dissertation seeks to explain why states sometimes produce disintegrated wartime grand strategies; doing so is of both scholarly and policy importance because wartime grand strategy is a key component of military effectiveness, and therefore has a vital role to play in military victory or defeat. To do so, this dissertation explores the link between militarism, civil-military bargaining, and the formation of integrated—or disintegrated—grand strategy. I hypothesize that civilians and military leaders possess divergent preferences over the use of force that are exogenous to any one conflict, and represent enduring, rational preference divergences between civilian and military positions on the use of force. Under conditions of militarism, defined as high levels of societal admiration for the military, the civil-military bargaining space will be distorted in favor of military preferences, with the military having more power in the civil-military negotiating process due to its potentially outsized ability to shape public opinion compared to civilians. This will lead to the formation of disintegrated grand strategy—one which does not balance civilian and military preferences—which has been shown in the literature to be linked to reduced military effectiveness. I provide evidence for my hypotheses in the form of two case studies which are examined via process-tracing methodology—the United States performance in the 1991 Gulf War, and the United States performance in the 2003 invasion of Iraq. I conclude that under conditions of militarism, states produce disintegrated wartime grand strategies.

The origins of the just war theory date back to medieval times, with the early Catholic scholars, Augustine and Aquinas, and have continued into modem times, with revisions of the theory by Elshtain and Walzer. So why is a new just war theory needed? The primary problem with the old theories is not the concept of the theory itself, but the questions that prior theories of just war leave unanswered. The just war theory of today continues to be unspecific, and does not deal with contemporary issues, such as nuclear, chemical and biological weapons; terrorism; and discrimination between combatants and noncombatants in an age of airborne warfare. In the years since September 11 th, and following the 2003 invasion of Iraq sans the support of the United Nations, the concept of the just war has gained prominence in political theory and commentary. In a twofold manner, this thesis deals with the problems left unanswered by current just war theory. First, a new just war theory is proposed, which addresses many of the abovementioned issues that remain unsolved by former theories. Second, this theory is tested through application to the 1991 Persian Gulf War; the decade after the war in which economic sanctions were placed against Iraq; and the three-year period directly after the September 11th attacks, in which the world again entered into conflict with Iraq. The classic just war theory template is used, with the war and the decade-long period following it classified under the traditional jus ad bellum (just cause ),jus in bello (just conduct), and conclusion categories. The post September 11th period is dealt with using the jus ad bellum template, as a precursor to the 2003 Iraq War. This thesis tests the applicability of the new just war theory in the face of modem wartime considerations, such as advanced weapons technology, wartime military conduct, military occupation, and civilian welfare. The new just war theory has been designed to take these issues into consideration, and as such, it accommodates the just limitations of war (what a state can and cannot do in the course of a conflict), while still defining what is and is not a just cause to go to war. There is also new consideration given to the conclusion of the war, and specifically, the rights and responsibilities of both the occupied and the occupying parties, as well as the issue of rebuilding and recovery in the country or countries involved in the conflict. These are considerations that are new to war, and were not considered previous to the past century of conflict. As such, older just war theories do not adequately discuss these responsibilities, and the new theory strives to fill this gap.

L'invasion et l'occupation de l'Irak ont montré les capacités des Etats-Unis de renverser un ordre politique, et les difficultés d'en construire un à leur profit. Le postulat de départ de la présente recherche consiste à s'interroger sur les effets produits par la présence américaine en Irak. Ceux-ci ne peuvent être analysés indépendamment des logiques qui en sont à l'origine ni de l'interaction avec de multiples acteurs. C'est donc à une analyse stratégique que cette interrogation invite : analyse du raisonnement, de l'articulation entre fins, voies et moyens, mais aussi de l'interdépendance entre les actions américaines et celles des acteurs irakiens. A cette aune, l'histoire militaire devient l'occasion d'une étude sociologique de l'utilisation de la force ainsi que des rapports entre sphères politiques et militaires. D'autre part, l'inscription des actions militaires dans un contexte sociopolitique dynamique porte à se poser la question du rôle joué par la coercition dans l'établissement d'un ordre politique au niveau local. Plus largement enfin, cette thèse interroge les prétentions des Etats occidentaux et de la communauté internationale à promouvoir un ordre libéral dans un contexte de consolidation de l'Etat.