Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Wisconsin--Madison, 1947. / Typescript. eContent provider-neutral record in process. Description based on print version record.

Thesis (PH.D.) -- Syracuse University, 2005. / "Publication number AAT 3251481"

Thesis (PH.D.) -- Syracuse University, 2006 / "Publication number AAT 3242489."

Relations among China, the United States, and Japan constitute some of the most complicated and dynamic relations in the contemporary era. Since the end of the second half of the twentieth century, all three nations, which were not in favor of regional multilateralism, have changed their strategy and have actively engaged in regional Asia-Pacific institutions. This research attempts to integrate realist discourse on the balance of power and liberal analysis of institutions to look at the China–U.S.–Japan interactions within regional institutions. This study explores why China, the United States, and Japan have increased their cooperative interaction in regional institutions in the Asia-Pacific region, despite having divergent interests and different visions of the future regional power structure. By searching and analyzing archives documenting China–U.S.–Japan regional policies and policies directed at regional institutions and observing in detail China– U.S.–Japan interactions within Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), this dissertation argues that institutional balancing provides a framework that helps identify countries’ overlooked intention to check and balance targeted powers in regional institutions. Regional institutions not only provide an opportunity for participant countries to discover and address common interests but also provide an opportunity for participant countries to lobby for their own interests and to balance the gains and influences of the other powers. This dissertation explores conditions under which institutional balancing is an optimal choice for countries and notes key methods: controlling membership; shaping institutional norms, rules, and mechanisms; and pursuing balanced alliances that have been practiced by China, the United States, and Japan in regional institutions in the Asia-Pacific region.

Over the years member states of the United Nations have created various UN mechanisms to influence states to respect human rights. This study assesses their effectiveness and concludes that international human rights standards, institutions and procedures constitute a still-evolving multilateral human rights regime that in some cases has had positive impact. UN effectiveness is rooted in fact that states are members of a community, within which they pursue goals whose achievement depends significantly on avoiding political isolation. This need has permitted the gradual development of community mechanisms that can bring steady, year-round pressure on a state to reduce abuses. After examining the conceptual and legal foundations of this emerging regime, the study compares the structural and operational advantages of treaty-based and Charter-based UN institutions, concluding that the latter are more effective. Four Charter-based mechanisms are then analyzed: two thematic agents--the Working Group on Enforced Disappearances and the Special Rapporteur on the Elimination of Religious Discrimination--and two country-specific agents--the Special Rapporteurs on Chile and on Iran. The study concludes that both Charter-based types have been significant secondary factors in contributing to improved human rights practices, at least temporarily. While domestic economic and political developments, bilateral pressures, and international economic factors normally weigh more heavily in states' policy deliberations, UN human rights mechanisms have become part of the external political environment within which states make choices. Effectiveness of any UN human rights mechanism depends importantly on how much a government desires to maintain or restore an international image of civilized and humane behavior and to avoid political isolation. In a deteriorating human rights situation, a government is more likely to cooperate with a thematic than a country-specific mechanism. The reverse is true in an improving situation, since the country-specific procedure can generate more positive publicity. Also enhancing effectiveness are simultaneous pressure by two UN mechanisms, the international community's willingness to sustain its efforts, a prudent balance between public criticism and praise, and the personality and energy of individual UN human rights agents.

This dissertation examines the general proposition that formal international institution promote national security in Europe. Analytically, the features of international institutions are the independent variables and the degree of security is the dependent variable. The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is the primary focus of the analysis. The project draws from realist and institutionalist approaches to the study of international relations to assess what institutional characteristics of NATO have developed over time which may contribute to national security into the 21st century. The dissertation is organized into seven chapters. The empirical research is based on primary and secondary sources including personal interviews conducted with senior policy makers and academic sources in Europe and the US ongoing since 1991. The dissertation is divided into seven chapters including a theoretical and methodological overview; the origins of NATO; NATO during the Cold War; NATO's post-Cold War institutional adaptation (including the Partnership for Peace and the Balkan crisis); NATO enlargement; and NATO's internal transformation and the future of the transatlantic relationship. This dissertation moves the debate over the relationship between international institutions and security in international relations theory. The general conclusion is that variations in institutional form can have a dramatic impact on the degree of security, positive or negative, in the European context and that a major test of that claim is coming in the next several decades.

This study of state compliance with international norms against torture focuses on the period 1979-1993. Configurations of factors are compared using the Qualitative Comparative Approach. The first part of the study is a cross-national analysis of government compliance in 1993. To elucidate the circumstances under which states that are democracies or are in transition to democracy may improve their records of compliance with norms against torture, the second part of this study presents the results of a comparison of a group of such states where the governments improved compliance and a group of states where the governments continued to torture at high levels. This study shows that the record of compliance with international norms against torture in 1993 is a weak one. Total compliance was rarely achieved and difficult to maintain. The states that improved from the worst levels were still in 1993 torturing at middle levels. Both the cross-national study and the analysis of selected governments' behavior from 1979 to 1993, present evidence of the importance of type of political regime. This study demonstrates that in many cases the presence or absence of armed conflict distinguishes democracies or states in transition that complied from those that did not. However, while there are clear patterns among some states that torture, these important factors do not alone distinguish governments that torture from those that do not. They are clearly not sufficient to explain government behavior. The second part of this study, looking at behavior over time, shows that membership in any of the torture regimes has not had any serious impact on government behavior. An analysis of the comparison also confirms and further develops the importance of armed conflict as a domestic factor and indicates the circumstances under which the presence of minor armed conflict may be overcome. This study also highlights the importance of foreign pressure and the more limited circumstances under which NGOs with transnational links may have been able to effect government practice.

This dissertation concerns the issues surrounding the debate over the strategic defense initiative and its implications for U.S. deterrence policy. While ballistic missile defenses (formerly called ABMs) were believed foreclosed from the nuclear balance as a result of the ABM Treaty, the SDI program has brought ballistic missile defenses back into the strategic equation. It is possible to suggest that missile defenses, as envisioned by President Reagan, may make a significant contribution to U.S. national security. Given this proposition, the dissertation follows the analysis as outlined below: (1) The original ABM debate of the late 1960s is reviewed with respect to the arguments of proponents and opponents of the ABM. This debate led the U.S. to accept the dominance of offensive nuclear forces in the nuclear balance. Additionally, the U.S. decided to adhere to a policy for assured destruction based on the precept of mutual national vulnerability. (2) While the U.S. had foresworn working on ballistic missile defenses during the 1970s, the strategic nuclear balance and foundations of deterrence have changed. As a result, the U.S. is seeking to evaluate the potential advantages of ballistic missile defenses. Three defense models are analyzed relative to their missions as well as major obstacles to their implementation. (3) United States strategic nuclear policy has evolved since the late 1960s to incorporate three major policy schools: assured destruction, countervailing, and nuclear war-fighting. Ballistic missile defenses fit with these policies in quite different ways. Additionally, a U.S. ballistic missile defense will have profound implications for the stability of the nuclear balance. There are a number of major obstacles to the integration of a missile defense into U.S. nuclear policy to include technology, program costs, and major political hurdles. (4) United States strategic offensive nuclear forces may be altered significantly by the deployment of a missile defense. However, new offensive weapons such as the cruise missile and advanced bomber could enhance the ability of offensive forces to penetrate strategic defenses. (5) A U.S. missile defense could effectively break up the ABM Treaty and spell an end to the arms control process. On the other hand, the SDI also may serve as an impetus to a new arms control treaty which incorporates reductions in offensive nuclear forces.

Abstract not available

Abstract not available