Often considered as an insignificant, sleepy, rural backwater, the county of Shropshire has attracted little academic interest, particularly concerning the period covering the civil war and Interregnum. Recent studies on the county have concentrated solely on the military aspect of the conflict and have not ventured into the Commonwealth and Protectorate years, nor looked at the administration and the internal politics of the shire. Yet in the first months of the war, the county was seen by Charles I as being vital to his success given its location on the Welsh border and with good transport links to the neighbouring Marcher counties. Shrewsbury was the main rallying point for the crown, and many of the local gentry flocked to the town with donations for the royal coffers. From then, up until 1645, most the county was held for the crown, until the fall of Shrewsbury in 1645 signalled an end to royalist dominance. This thesis is not an analysis of the causes of, or the actual events of, the war, as those matters are peripheral to this examination, being mentioned only briefly during the examination. It is, however, a full analysis of both county society and government, and will consider local issues, some of which had a wide-ranging effect, finances, justice and religion. But, most importantly, it will examine the personnel involved in both local and central government, how they changed over the period according to their allegiance and who was in power, and whether in the aftermath of war former royalists were welcomed back into the Commission of the Peace and other local committees to resume what they saw as being their rightful place in society. The academic study of the county is not a unique concept, having been promoted by Professor Alan Everitt in the 1960s in his study of Kent. In that research, Everitt proposed the concept of the county community, whereby the insular gentry were more interested in local affairs than national issues, and very much resented any interference from central government into what they considered was their domain. This thesis is not an attempt to try and slot Shropshire into that category, for Everitt’s argument has long been considered void. However, the basic framework of research into the county community that many academics have used in the past will be utilised to a certain extent, and the findings compared as much as possible with other neighbouring counties to try and ascertain whether there were any peculiarities within this Marcher society.

ix, 107 p. : maps. 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 the effect oil has on the onset and duration of conflict. In the "resource curse" literature, researchers argue that a state's abundance in natural resources can raise the likelihood of civil war. Such findings are largely based on correlations from large-n statistical studies or are hypotheses from individual case studies. These approaches fail to check the causal validity of key variables in multiple cases. Using a data-set comprised of sixteen countries that have experienced both oil extraction and civil war, this study conducts a qualitative causal variable analysis within these cases, while also checking the causal significance of key variables across cases. This study of oil-related civil wars analyzes the cross-case validity and overall relevance of: rebel greed, citizen grievances, unemployment in oil-rich regions, state military spending, clientelistic patterns of oil rent distribution, and oil-sector nationalization schemes. / Committee in Charge: Dr. Jane K. Cramer, Chair; Dr. Shaul E. Cohen; Dr. Anita M. Weiss

Addressing the military organisation of both Royalists and Parliamentarians, the subject of this thesis is an examination of war effort during the mid-seventeenth century English Civil Wars by taking the example of Shropshire. The county was contested during the First Civil War of 1642-6 and also saw armed conflict on a smaller scale during the Second Civil War of 1648. This detailed study provides a comprehensive bipartisan analysis of military endeavour, in terms of organisation and of the engagements fought. Drawing on numerous primary sources, it explores: leadership and administration; recruitment and the armed forces; military finance; supply and logistics; and the nature and conduct of the fighting. The extent of military activity in Shropshire is explained for the first time, informing the history of the conflict there while reflecting on the nature of warfare across Civil War England. It shows how local Royalist and Parliamentarian activists and 'outsider' leaders provided direction, while the populace widely was involved in the administrative and material tasks of war effort. The war in Shropshire was mainly fought between the opposing county-based forces, but with considerable external military support. Similarly, fiscal and military assets were obtained locally and from much further afield. Attritional war in Shropshire from 1643 to 1646 involved the occupying Royalists engaging Parliamentarian inroads, in fighting the garrison warfare characteristic of the period. Although the outcome of both wars in Shropshire was determined by wider national events, in 1646 and again in 1648 the defeat of the county Royalists was due largely to their local Parliamentarian adversaries. Broadening this study to 1648 has provided insight into Parliamentarian county administration during the short interwar period.

The purpose of IHL is to protect civilians and provide obligations that parties to the conflict are to adhere to. These obligations in case of a non-international armed conflict emanate from Common Article 3, Additional Protocol II and customary international humanitarian law. The reason for the imposition of these obligations on the parties to the conflict is for the need to protect the civilian population against the effects of hostilities which mostly are women and children. As the conflict in Somalia has gone on for too long, IHL plays an important role in protecting civilians. As the Geneva Conventions regulate armed conflicts together with its Additional Protocols they set out the requirements for the treatment of those not taking part in hostilities. In direct contravention of the Geneva Conventions by the parties to the conflict, the persons not taking part in hostilities have been the victims of attacks by armed groups. Even though armed groups have obligations, breaches have continued to occur resulting in impunity and perpetrators of violence have gone unpunished and there is need to close the accountability gap in respect of holding armed groups accountable in Somalia. The aim of this research is to assess how armed groups in Somalia can be held accountable for the atrocities they have committed. In an attempt to close the gap the researcher discusses the obligations that armed groups have, and when these obligations are breached many result in criminal accountability in respect of war crimes. It is also stated in the research that a State has an obligation to prosecute those in breach of IHL obligations. For prosecution to be possible in Somalia there is need for the Federal government of Somalia to adopt new legislation to enforce the justice system in the attempt to hold armed groups accountable and where possible to also utilise available courts as it is difficult and expensive to establish a tribunal. To end impunity armed groups are to be held accountable.

My work—studying Roman Catholics in the South during the American Civil War— is a remedy to a two-directional historiographical neglect. Much of American Catholic scholarship focuses on the twentieth century (especially the Second Vatican Council and its aftermath), the North, and issues of race, class, urbanization, and gender giving sparse treatment to the nineteenth century South; when the nineteenth century is discussed the focus is once more usually on the North, immigration, and societal tensions between Catholics and Protestants. On the other hand, Civil War religious scholarship is largely Protestant in nature and while treating the nineteenth century South there is sparse coverage of how Catholicism fits within this paradigm. My work addresses both issues, adding the nineteenth century Southern voice to American Catholic scholarship and the Catholic voice to Civil War religious studies. My work is a study of allegiance and the interplay between religious and political attachments. Clergy—Catholic bishops, priests (usually chaplains), sisters, and the Pope, Pius IX—are the main characters of the study with a lay component present as well via Catholic soldiers. I argue that all of the Catholics of my study were fully “Confederatized,” committed to and involved in the Southern nation and cause, and both “devout Catholics and devoted Confederates.” They found no tension between their faith and their politics and lived both allegiances to the maximum with chaplains and soldiers the most ardent Confederates. The one exception to the “devoted Confederates” label were Catholic nuns. They were almost exclusively focused on their faith and providing spiritual and medical assistance to the men they ministered to in their role as Sister-nurses. While the Sister-nurses were apolitical their participation in the Confederate cause as battlefield medics shows the all encompassing involvement of Southern Catholics in the Confederacy—as soldiers, medics, and religious and social leaders as the bishops were, and both men and women, clergy and laity—and demonstrates that future studies of American Catholic, and Civil War religious, history can no longer overlook these men and women.

From 1847 to 1891, Guy Morrison Bryan was a prominent Texas politician who influenced many of the policies and events that shaped the state. Raised in his Uncle Stephen F. Austin's shadow, he was a Texas nationalist who felt responsible for promoting the interests of his state, its earliest settlers, and his family. During his nineteen years in the Texas Legislature and two years in the United States House of Representatives, he safeguarded land grants, supported internal improvements and education, and challenged northern hostility towards slavery. Convinced that abolitionists would stop at nothing to destroy the institution and Texas, he led his state's walkout of the National Democratic Convention in 1860 and became a leading proponet of secession. During the Civil War, he served as a staff officer, and his ability to mediate conflicts between local and national leaders propped up the isolated Confederate Trans-Mississippi Department. Finally as Speaker of the House, he helped oust Governor Edmund J. Davis in 1874 and "redeem" the state from Republican rule before convincing President Rutherford B. Hayes to adopt a conciliatory policy towards Texas and the South. Despite the tremendous influence Bryan wielded, scholars have largely ignored his contributions. This dissertation establishes his significance, uses his willingness to transfer national allegiances to consider nationalism--whether Texan, American, or Confederate--in the United States-Mexico Borderlands, and sheds light on neglected subjects like the role of staff officers in the Civil War.

No description available.

All of the writers who went to Spain during the Spanish Civil War had to cope with the differentness of Spain, with the fact that it was a foreign experience. How they handled that foreign experience, whether or not they found an entry point where they could cross the border between being an outsider to being an insider, why some writers were able to cross over and others halted: these are aspects of the outside/inside duality that this paper will bring to the surface in some of the writing of the period. The focus will be on the following women writers: Florence Farmborough, Helen Nicholson, Martha Gellhorn, Josephine Herbst, Frances Davis, Valentine Ackland and Sylvia Townsend Warner. This paper will argue that these women writers, although they came to Spain with different purposes — because they identified with Republican ideology, or to warn their home countries of the dangers of Red Spain, or to spur their home countries into action — shared a common struggle in attempting to become insiders to the war in Spain, and succeeded in varying and revealing degrees. / Master of Arts

This study argues that foreign intervention is not a concept that could lend itself to any theoretical inquiry. It is a norm that is applicable mainly in juridical inquiries and in systems theory. It is a norm in systems theory in that the system is made up of two important elements: (1) the distribution of resources; and (2) the norms of conduct that accompany the resources. As a systemic norm, the norm of nonintervention seeks to guarantee stability and predictability in the international system. It is a juridical norm in that it calls either for the indictment or vindication for the violation of sovereign sanctity. It produces a dichotomous debate (such as legal/illegal; right/wrong; etc.) that has none of the operational ingredients of a theory. If foreign intervention is a norm and not a theoretical concept, it means therefore that social scientists have yet to come up with a theory for the study of the pervasive phenomenon of foreign involvement in civil conflicts. Conceptual tools such as 'power theory,' and the psychoanalysis of perceptions/misperceptions have been used by social scientists to study the Vietnam, Nicaragua and other wars simply for lack of more specific conceptual tools. While these concepts have been successful in describing and in explaining these conflicts, they still in a sense remain broad conceptual tools. Explaining the Soviet involvement in Afghanistan in terms of the power theory rationale of national security interest, or the U.S. involvement there in terms of the psychoanalysis of perceived Soviet expansionism only recreate a dichotomous, non-dialectic evaluation of "who's wrong/who's right" elements of the conflict. Crucial factors such as factionalization, escalation, and stalemate, remain unexplained and unaccounted for when these broad concepts are used to analyze such conflicts. It is for this reason that the present study tailors the concept of "Interventionary Alliance" in a manner that addresses both systemic as well as subsystemic properties, internal as well as external (f)actors; and provides explanations that account for the escalations and stalemates that are characteristic of the civil conflicts that proliferate our present international system.

Despite widespread depiction of civil war as a pathway to autocracy or state failure, the empirical record shows significant variation in post-civil war states' regime trajectories. While some states settled into durable authoritarianism, others went on to enter the ranks of electoral democracies shortly after belligerents laid down their arms. What explains this variation? In the extreme, how is it that a state that is staunchly autocratic at the war's outbreak can emerge from it a nascent democracy? This study proposes that post-civil war regime outcomes have wartime origins. Differences in the nature of rebel governance of civilians generate different social and institutional legacies across civil wars. These legacies can endure into peacetime politics, affecting the latter in often unintended ways. The theory centers on two wartime transformations that result from different forms of rebel governance. First, where rebels depend heavily on civilian material support, civilians become mobilized as a political force. Widespread social mobilization can in turn create political pressures on postwar elites to respond with a democratization strategy. Second, where rebel groups engage in extensive wartime "statebuilding," they create formal and informal institutions of governance which they can carry over into postwar politics should they prevail in the war. Because institutions are sticky, how they govern civilians in times of war can affect how they will govern in times of peace. These arguments are tested using both quantitative and qualitative methods. An original cross-national dataset on rebel governance for all civil wars ending between 1950 and 2006 serves as the basis, first, for a novel empirical analysis of rebel governance in civil war, then for statistical tests of the theory. To further probe the theory's causal claims, the study engages in an in-depth analysis of the Nepalese civil war and its political aftermath based on field interviews. The theory is further tested in a comparative analysis of the Ugandan, Tajik, and Mozambican civil wars. Together, empirical findings show that rebel governance in civil war can catalyze significant social and political change, with enduring impacts on postwar political regimes. The study offers theoretical and practical implications for our understanding of, and response to, the politics of violent rebellion and its effects on regime development.