My dissertation focuses on the rise and spread of Aboriginal mobilization in Canada between 1951 and 2000. Using social movement and social-political theories, it questions the relationship between contentious actions and formal organizational growth comparing among social movement and political sociological perspectives. In most accounts, contentious action is assumed to be influenced by organization, political opportunity and identity. Few scholars, however, have examined the reverse relationships, namely the effect of contentious action on each of these. Drawing upon time-series data and qualitative interviews with Aboriginal leaders and representatives of organizations, I found that critical events surrounding moments of federal state building prompted contentious action, which then sparked mobilization among Aboriginal communities. I argue that three events: the 1969 White paper, the 1982 patriation of the Constitution, and the 1990 'Indian Summer' led to mass mobilization and the semblance of an emerging PanAboriginal identity. This finding returns to older collective behaviour perspectives, which note that organizations, opportunities, and identities are driven by triggering actions and shared experiences that produce emerging norms. Nevertheless, in the case of Canadian Aboriginal mobilization, unlike that of Indigenous movements in other countries, building a movement on triggering actions led to mass mobilization but was not sustainable because of a saturation of efficacy. As a result, Aboriginal mobilization in Canada has been characterized by divergent interests and unsustained contention.

Communitarianism is an internationally contentious anti-liberal theory which is becoming increasingly popular in political philosophy. It commonly is employed to motivate and legitimate �identity politics� - a politics which is used to defend the rights of disadvantaged aboriginal minorities to maintain their traditional ways. Recently �identity politics� has been exploited in mainstream poltical/educational academic literature in New Zealand, especially in literature that deals with Maori issues. This is significant because in the recent history of New Zealand, liberal political theory has been dominant. Notions of rights and of fairness are fundamental to communitarianism and to liberalism, but communitarians and liberals hold very different ideas about what these notions involve. My PhD thesis compares their ideas and relates them to New Zealand. It views certain social and political issues in New Zealand, by way of liberal and then communitarian theories. It examines how liberalism and communitarianism have been, and can be, used to support and to legitimate particular policies and practices in terms of �fairness� and �justice�. My work considers the explanatory and the practical application of communitarianism and liberalism with respect to their conceptions of human nature, political ideals, rights and rationality. It defends liberalism against the communities the protections they �need� in order to flourish. With respect to New Zealand it recognises that Maori have been treated unjustly by the crown, but argues that much of the injustice happened, not because of liberalism, but because liberal values were not upheld. The thesis concludes that liberalism is better equipped than communitarianism to describe Maori and Pakeha relations, and to formulate a framework for positive and constructive trans-cultural policies that will respect both Maori and Pakeha cultures.

Canada has actively incorporated human security into its foreign policy framework ever since the first articulation of human security in the 1994 United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) Annual Report. The Canadian Government has been at the forefront of promoting the concept internationally, thereby identifying Canada as one of the leading 'humanist-activist' states. This thesis, however, takes a more skeptical approach towards the emancipatory claims of Canada's human security discourse. It argues that, despite its overarching humanistic tone, the question of who is secured through the language and operationalization of human security remains problematic. In examining Canada's human security discourse in reference to this central question, this thesis analyses the promotion and operationalization of human security within Canada and abroad. The central argument of this thesis is that with its overwhelmingly statist and liberal language, Canada's interpretation of human security is far from being a challenge to the traditional ontological claims of security as being the provider of political order. The Canadian human security agenda is driven by a traditional fear of national insecurity. It aims to secure national unity and identity in Canada, and its national and economic security abroad, by promoting the ideals of liberal democratic peace. Drawing upon the insights of critical security studies and post-structuralist approaches to international relations, this thesis reveals several meaning-producing effects of Canada's human security discourse. First, domestically, it perpetuates the truth claims of the discourse of Canadian identity by naturalizing the idea of Canadian goodness. Canada's human security discourse enhances the social control of the population by masking 'human insecurities' within Canada. Second, by framing 'failed' and 'fragile' states as a threat to Canadian security and liberal international order, the Canadian Government perpetuates the constant struggle between the zones of peace and the zones of chaos, and overcodes human security with simultaneously a statist and universalist language that aims to control as well as emancipate the 'borderlands' Third, while Canadian discourse on human security claims to encourage a bottom-up approach to security, it works ironically as an elitist policy which endorses an ideal form of governance in Canada and abroad.

This thesis examines the possibilities for building a reconciliatory jurisprudence for the protection of indigenous rights under the Australian Constitution. The thesis first examines what could be meant by the term ???reconciliation??? in a legal context and argues that it requires (1) acknowledgement of and atonement for past wrongdoing, (2) the provision of recompense, and (3) the establishment of legal and constitutional structures designed to ensure that similar wrongs are not repeated in the future. The thesis focuses on the last of these three requirements. It is further argued that developing a reconciliatory jurisprudence first requires the courts to free themselves from the dominant paradigm of strict positivism so that they are liberated to pay due regard to questions of morality. Given this framework, the thesis then sets out to examine the purpose and scope of the race power (section 51(xxvi)) of the Australian Constitution, with particular regard to the case of Kartinyeri v Commonwealth in which the High Court directly considered the power. The thesis concludes that the majority of the Court had not, for various reasons, properly considered the nature of the power. An appropriate ruling, it is argued, should find that the power does not enable Parliament to discriminate adversely against racial minorities. The thesis then proceeds to consider whether there are implied terms under the Constitution that protect fundamental rights. It is argued that these rights are indeed protected because the Constitution is based upon the rule of law. In addition constitutional provisions are to be interpreted subject to the presumption that its terms are not to be understood as undermining fundamental rights unless a constitutional provision expressly states otherwise. The thesis also considers whether there is an implied right to equality under the Constitution. The conclusion drawn is that such a right exists and that it is both procedural and substantive in nature.

Australian debates about racial vilification legislation have been dominated by mainstream American First Amendment jurisprudence and popular American notions of 'free speech' to the exclusion of alternative Europeans models. This can be seen from notions of Australian racial vilification legislation as inconsistent with 'free speech' rights as well as the influence of some of the basic assumptions of First Amendment jurisprudence on political speech cases in the Australian High Court. Despite the widespread existence of legislation that penalises racial vilification at State and Federal levels, there has been a rise in Australia over the past 10 years of divisive 'race' politics. Against that background, this thesis considers the scope and limits of racial vilification legislation in Australia. It is argued that First Amendment jurisprudence is inadequate in the Australian context, because it is heavily dependent upon economic metaphors, individualistic notions of identity and outdated theories of communication. It assumes that 'free speech' in terms of lack of government intervention is essential to 'democracy'. It ignores the content, context and effect of harmful speech, except in extreme cases, with the result that socially harmful speech is protected in the name of 'free speech'. This has narrowed the parameters within which racial vilification is understood and hindered the development of a broader discourse on the realities of racist harms, and the mechanisms necessary for their redress. The author calls for the development of an Australian jurisprudence of harmful speech. Failing an Australian Bill of Rights, that jurisprudence would be grounded upon the implied constitutional right of free political speech, informed by an awareness that modern structures of public speech favour a very limited range of speech and speakers. The jurisprudence would take advantage of the insights of Critical Race Theory into the connections between racial vilification and racist behaviour, as well as the personal and social harms of racial vilification. Finally, it is argued that the concepts of human dignity and equality, which underpin European discrimination legislation and notions of justice, provide a way forward for Australian jurisprudence in this area.

Australian debates about racial vilification legislation have been dominated by mainstream American First Amendment jurisprudence and popular American notions of 'free speech' to the exclusion of alternative Europeans models. This can be seen from notions of Australian racial vilification legislation as inconsistent with 'free speech' rights as well as the influence of some of the basic assumptions of First Amendment jurisprudence on political speech cases in the Australian High Court. Despite the widespread existence of legislation that penalises racial vilification at State and Federal levels, there has been a rise in Australia over the past 10 years of divisive 'race' politics. Against that background, this thesis considers the scope and limits of racial vilification legislation in Australia. It is argued that First Amendment jurisprudence is inadequate in the Australian context, because it is heavily dependent upon economic metaphors, individualistic notions of identity and outdated theories of communication. It assumes that 'free speech' in terms of lack of government intervention is essential to 'democracy'. It ignores the content, context and effect of harmful speech, except in extreme cases, with the result that socially harmful speech is protected in the name of 'free speech'. This has narrowed the parameters within which racial vilification is understood and hindered the development of a broader discourse on the realities of racist harms, and the mechanisms necessary for their redress. The author calls for the development of an Australian jurisprudence of harmful speech. Failing an Australian Bill of Rights, that jurisprudence would be grounded upon the implied constitutional right of free political speech, informed by an awareness that modern structures of public speech favour a very limited range of speech and speakers. The jurisprudence would take advantage of the insights of Critical Race Theory into the connections between racial vilification and racist behaviour, as well as the personal and social harms of racial vilification. Finally, it is argued that the concepts of human dignity and equality, which underpin European discrimination legislation and notions of justice, provide a way forward for Australian jurisprudence in this area.

Australian debates about racial vilification legislation have been dominated by mainstream American First Amendment jurisprudence and popular American notions of 'free speech' to the exclusion of alternative Europeans models. This can be seen from notions of Australian racial vilification legislation as inconsistent with 'free speech' rights as well as the influence of some of the basic assumptions of First Amendment jurisprudence on political speech cases in the Australian High Court. Despite the widespread existence of legislation that penalises racial vilification at State and Federal levels, there has been a rise in Australia over the past 10 years of divisive 'race' politics. Against that background, this thesis considers the scope and limits of racial vilification legislation in Australia. It is argued that First Amendment jurisprudence is inadequate in the Australian context, because it is heavily dependent upon economic metaphors, individualistic notions of identity and outdated theories of communication. It assumes that 'free speech' in terms of lack of government intervention is essential to 'democracy'. It ignores the content, context and effect of harmful speech, except in extreme cases, with the result that socially harmful speech is protected in the name of 'free speech'. This has narrowed the parameters within which racial vilification is understood and hindered the development of a broader discourse on the realities of racist harms, and the mechanisms necessary for their redress. The author calls for the development of an Australian jurisprudence of harmful speech. Failing an Australian Bill of Rights, that jurisprudence would be grounded upon the implied constitutional right of free political speech, informed by an awareness that modern structures of public speech favour a very limited range of speech and speakers. The jurisprudence would take advantage of the insights of Critical Race Theory into the connections between racial vilification and racist behaviour, as well as the personal and social harms of racial vilification. Finally, it is argued that the concepts of human dignity and equality, which underpin European discrimination legislation and notions of justice, provide a way forward for Australian jurisprudence in this area.

Thesis (M.A.)--University of Missouri-Columbia, 2007. / The entire dissertation/thesis text is included in the research.pdf file; the official abstract appears in the short.pdf file (which also appears in the research.pdf); a non-technical general description, or public abstract, appears in the public.pdf file. Title from title screen of research.pdf file (viewed on March 25, 2008) Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--Bowling Green State University, 2007. / Document formatted into pages; contains x, 268 p. : ill. Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (J.C.L.)--Catholic University of America, 1989. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 48-55).