acase@tulane.edu

This dissertation is an in-depth study of the underlying characteristics of the eight nation-states bordering the Persian Gulf--Behrain, Iran, Iraq, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates--and of their behavioral interactions (the 'structure of relations') between and among them over a period of approximately a dozen years spanning the decade of the 1970s The study proceeds from the hypothesis that the Persian Gulf area constitutes an incipient, and indeed already emerging 'core' of the long-conceived Middle East subsystem of the global political system--i.e., an emerging 'focus of international politics' in the Middle East. Both the concept of a core and the basic research strategy for testing its existence were derived from the writings of Louis J. Cantori and Stephen L. Spiegel and their 'empirical systems' approach to the study of the international politics of regions Through successive evaluations of the hypothesized core in terms of Cantori's and Speigel's 'pattern variables,' it is concluded that the analytical core has a concrete analog--that it 'exists' in the real world of international politics. Not only is a Persian Gulf core substantiated, but three transformations in the structure of the core are discerned during the period under study In addition to testing the hypothesis of an emerging core, this dissertation also seeks to evaluate the efficacy of the subsystemic approach to the study of regional political relationships. Several improvements to the Cantori-Spiegel framework are proposed and employed, including a number derived from the scholarly literature of political geography and geopolitics, long neglected by political scientists. It is a major objective of this dissertation to help remedy that oversight and to determine the uses and usefulness of geography-based concepts in the study of regional subsystems / acase@tulane.edu

In order to enforce copyrights efficiently in the international field, only a modest step is needed. There is a need for an international mechanism for the enforcement of existing rights. As it has become easier to infringe upon copyright, it has to become easier to enforce copyright as well This mechanism will include rules about its applicability, questions of jurisdiction, applicable law, problems with preliminary injunctions, and finally, grounds for non recognition The scope of the proposed mechanism covers all the questions arising from an infringement action, succession of rights, or ownership if it is necessary. There are two basis for jurisdiction: (1) Persons domiciled in a member state can be sued in that member state; (2) Non residents conducting actions with consequences in the forum can be sued in that forum, providing that U.S. principles of minimum contacts are applied. It is recommended to have those principles codified for the proposed mechanism For preliminary injunctions, it is recommended following the European Union approach, consisting of the application of the preliminary injunction in the court where the infringement is taking place The applicable law would be the law of the place where the infringement is taking place. However, it is going to be proposed that courts should have wide discretion to determine the place of infringement and consequently the applicable law The proposed mechanism also will contain grounds of non recognition I will propose another two alternative paths, in case that the main proposal fails in international negotiations. The paper includes philosophical justifications for copyrights around the globe, and it also includes an explanation of major international treaties regulating copyrights and neighboring rights / acase@tulane.edu

acase@tulane.edu

acase@tulane.edu

acase@tulane.edu

acase@tulane.edu

acase@tulane.edu

This study both extends neorealist research on the role of structure and explores the limitations of the neorealist paradigm by applying its concepts and theories to armament behavior. As first advanced by Kenneth N. Waltz, neorealism has argued that structure both creates and constrains opportunities open to the constituents of the international system. Problematic in the argument is the claim for the primacy of structure in explaining international phenomena like arming behavior We apply the basic logic inherent in the neorealist argument to a particular form of structure, namely bipolarity, to see how its structural characteristics influence armament behavior of states. The upshot of theoretical research is a structuralist theory of armament under bipolarity, which intends to explain different characteristic patterns of armament behavior among poles, non-pole, and neutral members. We put structural hypotheses derived from the theory to a test against empirical reality, the armament history of the Northeast Asian states Our findings demonstrate the importance of structure as a necessary ingredient for explaining armament behavior--it shapes and drives, and therefore conditions, armament behavior of states in Northeast Asia--but without reckoning with the unit-level theories that correspond to structural theories, an explanation cannot be causally complete. We expose methodological shortcomings which cannot be easily remedied / acase@tulane.edu

The increased trade and contact among nationals of Canada, Mexico, and the United States since NAFTA was enacted requires greater uniformity in the laws of each country. Products liability legislation in the three countries is no exception. While each country's laws do address civil liability for product defects, they approach this regulation in different ways. Mexico's laws in this area lag far behind those of the United States and Canada in offering consumer protection. As a result, Canadian and U.S. manufacturers and distributors face much less of a risk of liability when they introduce inferior products into the Mexican market than Mexican manufacturers and distributors encounter in the Canadian and U.S. markets. Mexico's producer-friendly laws encourage manufacturers in all three countries to produce poor-quality products for the Mexican consumer Another problem that emerges from this lack of integration of the three countries' products liability laws is the ability of Mexican manufacturer's to escape liability under judgments issued against them in the United States and Canada. Through the use of the 'Amparo' in Mexico, Mexican manufacturers can prevent Mexican courts from enforcing these foreign judgments. 'Amparo' is a constitutional instrument that protects the guaranties of freedom, equality, property, and security. A party that is held liable for a product defect may use this legal instrument by arguing that the execution of a judgment against it goes against the public order and therefore affects its constitutional guarantees. The amparo typically would be used when a foreign court requires a Mexican manufacturer to pay punitive damages. The concept of punitive damages is not contemplated in Mexican law; therefore, the manufacturer could show that enforcing the judgment would violate its constitutional rights This Dissertation argues for the improvement of Mexican products liability laws to bring these laws more in line with those of the other NAFTA countries. These proposed improvements to Mexican law are based on a study of the products liability laws in place in the civil law system (Continental Law) of Spain. This Dissertation also proposes certain legal reforms that need to be made within the Mexican legal system so that products liability judgments dictated in the United States and Canada may be executed with the assistance of Mexican courts, without violating the constitutional guarantees of the affected parties. This Dissertation is addressed to readers who are familiar with the legal system for products liability in the United States. Therefore, while an overview of Mexico's and Canada's laws in this area will be presented, this Dissertation does not include an overview of the corresponding U.S. laws / acase@tulane.edu