Thesis (Ph.D. in Nursing) -- University of Colorado, 2005. / Typescript. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 225-249). Free to UCDHSC affiliates. Online version available via ProQuest Digital Dissertations;

“That there are no humanitarian solutions to human problems” David Rieff (2002) states.  Proceeding from this argument, perhaps the solutions are compatible with the nature of the factors causing the problem. Thus, it is necessary to understand the dynamics of the factors that caused and exacerbated the crisis. Wars and their political factors are one of the most important causes of humanitarian crises in the current era. So, the thesis presents a dual political and humanitarian vision that aims to understand the humanitarian crisis in a particular region from the background of the intertwining of the international and local relations of the conflict, to discover the impact of these issues on the humanitarian crises.   This thesis uses Al-Hasakah Governorate in northeastern Syria as a case study, focusing on the humanitarian crisis in this region resulting from the autonomy conflict which is represented by the conflict of some Kurdish factions against the Syrian government to obtain autonomy through imposing military control. In that context, the research sheds light on external intervention and the role played by international actors in this conflict. The conclusions indicate how the conflict and its political nature which moved from the local level to the international through external intervention, plus the conflicting geopolitical interests led to the spread of most types of violence, exacerbated the humanitarian crisis, and created challenges for the humanitarian response.

This thesis provides an institutional explanation for the peaceful solution of the conflict between the Moldovan state and its small Gagauz minority in the period from 1988 to 1995. The central argument is that different institutional arrangements during this time had a direct effect on the Moldovan state’s capacity to bring about autonomy for the Gagauz. I show how Gagauz leaders, conditioned by the territorial-based structures of the Soviet Union, mobilized a political movement to push for the creation of an autonomous republic, and how this preference for autonomy remained the consistent demand of the Gagauz throughout the early years of post-communist transition. This finding supports the contention that Gagauz preferences cannot be used to explain the rich variation in political outcomes during this period. I assert that the critical changes were essentially institutional: new electoral laws; revised parliamentary rules and procedures; and a complete rewriting of Moldova’s constitution. These innovations were crucial in enabling the inclusive-minded majority in the Moldovan parliament to overcome the power of nationalist veto players by increasing the majority’s control of the legislative agenda. The importance of these institutional factors is examined by careful analysis of the different stages of the Moldovan parliament’s accommodation of the Gagauz: from separatism and stalemate to compromise. Furthermore, I reassert the central role of institutional arrangements by discounting the external influence of Turkey as a patron state on the successful negotiations between Moldova and the Gagauz. Using previously unresearched archival material, unstructured interviews with many of the key actors, and local media reporting, this thesis challenges existing accounts of the Gagauz conflict in Moldova. These accounts assert that either the Gagauz reaction to titular nationalism or the shifting preferences of strategic-thinking elites was the key causal factor of the political outcomes observed during this period. In contrast, this thesis shows that institutional design played a decisive role in the resolution of this conflict. The findings of this research offer useful lessons for other ethnically-divided states with mobilized minorities.