Zugl.: Diss.

The use of cultural boycotts motivated by international conflicts between countries or regions has long been observed within sports. However, so far it has not been studied in other context of international competition like the Eurovision Song Contest. This essay aims to evaluate if we can understand political actions like boycotts or political symbolism through existing theories regarding political symbolism. This case study has chosen three withdrawals during the 21th century, which have been made due to conflict with another competing country. The withdrawals studied are Lebanon in 2005, Georgia in 2009 and Armenia in 2012. Through the use of political symbolism and boycotts as a political mean the three cases have been studied and classified. The result shows that current theories regarding political symbolism can be applied to understand two out of the three cases. The Lebanese withdrawal can be understood as a classic political boycott against Israel and the Georgian withdrawal as protest against Russia and therefor a case of political symbolism. The Armenian withdrawal has been characterized as a different kind of political symbolism than previously has been observed within the field of study. This essay has chosen to identify the case of Armenia as morally motivated political symbolism.

"Where You Sit Matters: Diplomatic Networks and International Conflict" examines how a state's structural position within diplomatic networks influences its foreign policy behaviors, particularly in the domain of international security. Despite the established understanding in International Relations (IR) that relationships among countries matter, there is little empirical knowledge on what exactly the complicated web of those relationships looks like and how it impacts state behavior. Much IR literature tends to focus only on dyadic or multilateral relationships and treat networks as background, which has left a gap in our understanding of how the structures of international networks affect international outcomes. To address this gap, my dissertation uses network analysis and a variety of statistical methods to reveal key structures of diplomatic networks and examine their impacts on a state's foreign policy behavior. My argument extends in three directions. The first part uses a large-n, cross-sectional analysis to examine the impacts of a state's broker position within diplomatic networks on its decision to initiate and escalate militarized interstate disputes (MIDs). By using the rare events logit and Heckman selection models, I find that occupying a broker position in diplomatic networks increases a state's decision to initiate MIDs over the nearly 200-year period from 1817 to 2001; its marginal impact is nearly twice that of military capability. The second part employs a separable temporal exponential random graph model (STERGM) to examine how key structures of diplomatic networks influence a state's decision to terminate diplomatic ties. My findings show that the breakdown of diplomatic ties is not a rare event and network dynamics play a role in terminating ties: states take cues from other countries in the network to decide whether or not to terminate diplomatic ties. The last part uses a community detection method, specifically a link communities method, to reveal latent communities of the diplomatic network and identify key countries that belong to multiple communities. I find that the diplomatic network resembles a hierarchical structure in that diplomatic communities tend to overlap; only a small number of major powers simultaneously belong to multiple communities and few communities are independent from those major powers.

Does a leader's psychology affect his/her likelihood of initiating a militarized interstate dispute? The study of leadership psychology has continuously found support for the central assumption that leaders matter in explaining a state's foreign policy behavior. However, many of these research projects have relied on small-sample case studies and experimental methods that have limited generalizability. In this paper, I use two variables drawn from the research program on leadership trait analysis (distrust and need for power) in a multivariate large-n study to explain the initiation of militarized interstate disputes (MIDs). 1,601 cases are drawn from the Correlates of War MID data set. First, using an ANOVA model, I demonstrate that MID initiators have higher average scores for both distrust and need for power and that this difference is statistically significant. Then, using logistic regression, I demonstrate that distrust and need for power have statistically significant positive effects on the likelihood of MID initiation. I conclude by comparing the predicted probabilities of the psychological variables of interest with territorial contiguity. All of these methods demonstrate that the psychological traits of leaders have an important effect on the likelihood of MID initiation.

No description available.

Since 1945, there has been a proliferation of armed groups in conflict theatres across the globe. Although these groups exist outside of the regular forces of States, they are in most instances supported and controlled by States. Despite this, the complicit support of States in the commission of international crimes by armed groups is not recognised under international law and the tests of control through which the conduct of individuals could be attributed to States are almost impossible to meet. This allows States to maintain compelling roles in international crimes committed by armed groups with impunity. Despite this, the role played by States in modern international conflict has received only intermittent attention in the literature. This thesis seeks to address this disparity by addressing the critical role of State support of armed groups in the commission of international crimes by challenging the existing tests of attribution of conduct to States under the present rules of international responsibility. Therefore this thesis asks whether there can be variation to the current tests for attribution of conduct of individuals who are members of non-State armed groups to States which provide support to them, by approaching the interpretation of "control" in a purposive, less literal manner. It argues this by analysing the limitations of the current law through selected case studies. It further examines alternative approaches in the fields of international human rights law and international criminal law, again through selected case studies with a view to determining whether they can assist in crafting more purposive approaches towards the determination of State control over armed groups. This will augment the current corpus of literature by suggesting improvements that can, hopefully, pass into the lex lata and stymie continued State impunity in this area.

Esta dissertação tem o objetivo de examinar o comportamento do estado brasileiro diante das manifestações de insatisfação do Paraguai com o Tratado de Itaipu que reivindicou renegociações sobre o uso da água e a distribuição da geração elétrica. Elas resultaram em revisões de partes do Tratado ao longo da década de 2000. O subsistema platino está dividido em dois tempos, o primeiro de ocupação da fronteira, no período da construção da usina em que a ordem regional rivalizava com a Argentina, e o segundo a partir da década de 2000, quando se consolida uma nova ordem regional voltada à integração. A Itaipu Binacional usa as águas transfronteiriças da bacia onde os dois Estados fazem fronteira e sua existência depende do alinhamento de interesses entre os Estados ribeirinhos no projeto binacional. Isto demonstrou a superação da função de separação política, no entanto tornou mais evidente as desigualdades entre as Partes. As assimetrias no uso das águas transfronteiriças revelam relações de poder entre os Estados ribeirinhos e sugere a existência de agente hidro-hegemônico. No diálogo entre Geografia Política, Geopolítica e Relações Internacionais, defende-se a ideia de que o uso compartilhado da água transfronteiriça impõe uma realidade de interdependente que adapta o comportamento dos Estados, a distribuição de poder e as suas fontes, mas, mesmo assim, mantém a racionalidade estratégica autointeressada. Para viabilizar a investigação foram analisados documentos elaborados pelo Itamaraty e pela Itaipu Binacional, além de fontes secundárias. / This dissertation aims to examine the behavior of the Brazilian state in face of the manifestations of dissatisfaction of Paraguay with the Treaty of Itaipu that demanded renegotiations on the use of water and the distribution of electricity generation. They resulted in revisions of parts of the Treaty throughout the 2000s. The Platinum subsystem is divided into two periods, the first to occupy the frontier, during the construction of the plant in which the regional order rivaled Argentina, and the second from the 2000s, when a new regional order for integration was consolidated. Itaipu Binacional uses the transboundary waters of the basin where the two States border and their existence depends on the alignment of interests among the riparian states in the binational project. This has demonstrated the overcoming of the political separation function, but has made more evident the inequalities between the Parties. Asymmetries in the use of transboundary waters reveal power relations among riparian states and suggests the existence of a hydrohegemonic agent. In the dialogue between Political Geography, Geopolitics and International Relations, the idea is defended that the shared use of transboundary water imposes an interdependent reality that adapts the behavior of States, the distribution of power and its sources, maintains the self-interested strategic rationality. In order to facilitate the investigation, documents prepared by Itamaraty and Itaipu Binacional were analyzed, as well as secondary sources.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Carleton University, 2004. / Includes bibliographical references (p. 286-312). Also available in electronic format on the Internet.

This thesis deals with the ethical aspects of reporting wars and conflicts. First of all, it defines the ethical principles in journalism and the ethical dilemmas that journalists face in the war as well as the rules enshrined in the ethical codes of the media. Afterwards it focuses on the specifics of international conflict reporting and defines two ways to deal with it. These are, as the title suggests, war journalism, which emphasizes violence, the aspects of warship itself and the elites, and peaceful journalism, which focuses on civilians, deescalation of violence, and peace-related solutions. In the practical part, this work aims to find and define individual signs of peace and war journalism in reporting of global news media. Finally, the characteristics of these two approaches undergo a comparative analysis to find out what ethical rules apply to these approaches and what extent they differ. Analyzed media are Reuters and AFP news agencies and the British print media and their internet versions The Guardian and The Telegraph. Selected conflicts include the 2008 South Ossetian war and the Pillar of Defense, a conflict in the Gaza Strip dating back to 2012.

Despite the growing prominence of ‘international contact groups’ in the field of peacemaking, there is little academic attention for such ad hoc informal negotiating groups of third-party states. This study seeks to contribute to this understudied topic by investigating under what conditions contact groups are most likely to achieve negotiation success. Based on the framework of ‘recognition theory’, I argue that respect for each member as equal partner of the negotiating group helps to prevent obstructive behaviour. It is therefore hypothesised that ‘recognition for all members of the contact group enhances the likelihood of reaching agreement on a peacemaking strategy’. This is tested by means of a structured focused comparison in a most-similar cases design, studying two contact groups that operated during the 1999 conflict in Kosovo. I subsequently probe the generalisability of my findings by extending the analysis with a third case of contact group negotiations on Syria in 2012. The empirical findings provide support for the hypothesis and hint at the theory’s relevance in today’s context of increasingly dispersed power and mediation leverage. Nevertheless, further research is needed to establish with greater validity and reliability the effect of recognition and how it relates to other conditions for success.