<p> Examines early attempts to formalize congressional oversight of intelligence, and details what level of congressional oversight existed for the Bay of Pigs operation.</p>

Thesis (Ph.D.)--Indiana University, Dept. of History, 2007. / Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 68-11, Section: A, page: 4830. Adviser: Carl Ipsen. Title from dissertation home page (viewed May 22, 2008).

Thesis (Ph.D.)--Brown University, 2008. / Vita. Advisor : Tim Harris.

No description available.

<p> Jeffery K. Tulis authored a book entitled <i>The Rhetorical Presidency</i>, in which he argues the role of the United States chief executive now centers on his, or her, ability to speak over Congress and directly to the public. A modern or contemporary president&rsquo;s ability to accomplish roles typically associated with the executive office is principally dependent on his/her implicit role: to appeal to public opinion. Presidential power comes from how effectively the chief executive can employ rhetorical discourse to affect change from the audience. This is an interesting concept for consideration, especially as it relates to contemporary President John F. Kennedy. In a 2013 <i> Gallup</i> poll, Americans rated Kennedy as the most outstanding, above average president in the contemporary era&mdash;the inception of which came around the turn of the 20<i>th</i> century. The primary inquiry, &ldquo;why is this so,&rdquo; can be answered through an examination into Kennedy&rsquo;s rhetorical discourse, specifically his foreign crisis speeches. This thesis&rsquo; primary analysis centers on Kennedy&rsquo;s address to the American Society of Newspaper Editors on April 20, 1961 following the failure of the Bay of Pigs invasion on Cuba. Utilizing a unique analytic framework provided from the theoretical understandings of Lloyd F. Bitzer&rsquo;s <i> rhetorical situation</i> and Karlyn Kohrs Campbell and Kathleen Hall Jamieson&rsquo;s <i>rhetorical hybrids</i> model, with supplement aide from scholars such as Bonnie Dow and Denise Bostdorff, the aim is to provide value to the subject of rhetorical communication by researching, studying and analyzing an area of interest that has not received much to any scholarly emphasis in the past.</p><p>

Thesis (Ph.D.)--Indiana University, Dept. of Communication and Culture, 2005. / Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 67-02, Section: A, page: 0545. Adviser: Carolyn Calloway-Thomas. "Title from dissertation home page (viewed March 13, 2007)."

<p> The abstract is not available from PDF copy and paste.</p>

<p> Abstract The proclamation of the <i>Universal Declaration of Human Rights</i> by the United Nations on December 10, 1948 gave birth to the contemporary human rights movement. Despite the worldwide influence the idea of human rights has enjoyed, the concept of human rights has been plagued by a number of criticisms. Among the most pervasive and persistent criticisms of human rights are that they represent an individualist viewpoint, and they are a relative product of Western society that are hardly universal. One purpose of this dissertation is to challenge these criticisms. However, in recent decades the idea of human rights has been expanded past its original individual focus to incorporate the idea of collective, or group rights. The juxtaposition of universal, individual rights with particular, collective rights raises anew the issues of individualism and universalism in the human rights debate. In this dissertation, I compare the work of the French Catholic philosopher Jacques Maritain, the Peruvian theologian Gustavo Guti&eacute;rrez, and the American philosopher Martha Nussbaum in order to yield a contextually sensitive natural law approach to human rights that will serve as a common justificatory basis for individual and collective human rights. This common justificatory basis is capable of addressing the questions of individualism and universalism generated by the theoretical tensions generated by the juxtaposition of the <i>Universal Declaration of Human Rights</i> (1948), which enshrines individual, universal rights, and the more recent <i>United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples</i> (2007), which enshrines more particularistic, group rights.</p>

<p> This thesis aims to determine the effectiveness of the largest corporate social responsibility initiative, the United Nations Global Compact, in the protection of human rights by businesses. Certain scholars critique the Compact's human rights principles and voluntary aspect while others support it. The main critique is that the principles fail to provide adequate direction to businesses. However, my assertion is that the voluntary initiative's human rights principles are effective. I have relied on secondary literature in analyzing the paths of a number of signatory businesses, each from differing sectors, in addressing human rights. It appears that the vagueness of the principles serves a purpose for businesses of different industry types and contexts. In other words, my originally proposed thesis was strengthened after examining how various signatory businesses have sought to support human rights. Rather than turning the principles into a highly structured code of conduct for all businesses as the critics have argued, I argue that the principles should remain general and that more detailed direction must be developed for each individual business according to industry type, geographical location, size, and other particular circumstances.</p>

<p> Using historical case studies I demonstrate that in the post-1494 European states-system, alliances could be formed to address the problem created by the presence of a potential hegemon only if there was a great power to coordinate and finance opposition to the challenger. This state's undertakings, as coordinator and financier, played a necessary but not sufficient role providing the means needed to address the collective action problem which, most of the times, interfered with the formation of an alliance. Not all states can fulfill the function of systemic coordinator. Only a great power with high levels of wealth and security, with spare resources to spend on allies, and with its political elite sharing the same foreign policy's goal--to contain or defeat the challenger--can be a coordinating state. It was only when there was an active coordinator in the European system that alliances were formed to deal with the destabilizing presence of a systemic challenger. Yet, the mere presence of an alliance never guaranteed that the challenger would not win. It was only when there was a coordinator with the capacity to provide directly and indirectly high amounts of additional-military-capacity that the alliance was successful. The amount of additional-military-capacity available is the result of the interaction of two independent variables, the amount of spare resources used by the leader of the coordinating state, and this leader's level of skills. The two-step model I build goes against the deterministic element located at the heart of the balance of power theory. Alliances were not necessarily formed and victorious as the theory states. It was the presence of a coordinator which made this double outcome possible. With the addition of the coordinator model, the balance of power theory becomes a powerful analytical tool at the disposal of IR specialists and statesmen.</p>