Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Chicago, Dept. of Political Science, 2001. / Includes bibliographical references. Also available on the Internet.

International criminality has been a challenging phenomenon for national police forces for years. States have developed international police cooperation relations and extradition instruments in order to fight international criminal activity. This treatise explores the reasons for the rise in transnational organized crime activities in Europe and presents an in-depth explanation concerning the emergence, mandates, and structures of multilateral police collaboration systems such as Interpol, Trevi, Schengen, and Europol. Since the extradition has become an inseparable part of international policing, this study examines the improvements in extradition procedure and emphasizes the importance of extradition. Finally this study compares traditional (European Convention on Extradition of 1957) and new (European Arrest Warrant) extradition systems.

Le droit international contemporain est placé face à un défi majeur : assurer la sécurité et laliberté des espaces maritimes alors que l’on y observe une recrudescence des activités illicitesou dangereuses. L’étude s’inscrit dans le cadre de ce défi et tente de cerner la problématiquede l’emploi de la force en mer afin de lutter contre ces activités. Elle se place alors dans lasphère du développement et de la mise en oeuvre de pouvoirs de police dans les zonesmaritimes et tente de montrer l’ambivalence de la police internationale relative à la mer. Elleest caractérisée par une double juxtaposition entre l’objet de l’emploi de la force en mer(activités illicites de personnes privées ou actes illicites des Etats) et entre les acteurs chargésde lutter contre l’illicite en mer. Elle se traduit par deux dialectiques distinctes maisétroitement imbriquées. La première, police internationale en mer et police internationale desmers, repose sur les acteurs de l’illicite et déterminera le corps de règles applicable. Laseconde, emploi de la force décentralisé et emploi de la force centralisé, met en scène lesacteurs de la police relative à la mer et permet de mettre en lumière le besoin croissant d’unegestion commune centralisée des atteintes à l’ordre des mers. / Contemporary international law is facing a great challenge: ensuring both the security and theliberty of the oceans while unlawful or hazardous activities at sea are constantly increasing.The study takes its place within this challenge and tries to shed light on the issue of the use offorce at sea in order to combat these activities. It lies within the framework of thedevelopment and the enforcement of police powers on the maritime zones and attempts to putforward the ambivalence of the international police relating to the sea. The ambivalence ischaracterized by a couple of juxtapositions, both between the object of the use of force at sea(private unlawful activities or States’ unlawful acts) and between the actors in charge of thestruggle for the safety of the oceans. It results in two distinct but closely linked dialectics. Thefirst, international police at sea and international police of the sea, relies on the actors of theunlawful acts and determines the relevant body of rules. The second, decentralized andcentralized use of force, emphasizes the increasing need for a global and shared managementof the breaches of the legal order of the sea.

Peacekeeping is a means by which international or regional organizations control conflict situations that are likely to endanger international peace and security. Most scholars have viewed the contributions of peacekeeping forces only in terms of failures, and they have not investigated fully the political-military circumstances" under which conflict control measures succeed. This dissertation is an attempt to bridge this gap and to show how the OAU compares with the UN in carrying out peacekeeping missions. The method of research was the case study method in which primary and secondary data was used to describe the situations in which six peacekeeping forces operated. The content of resolutions, official reports and secondary data were examined for non-trivial evidences of impediments to implementation of mandates. Findings from the research indicate that peacekeeping missions not properly backed by political efforts at settlement of disputes, cooperation of the superpowers, and financial and logistic support were ineffective and usually unsuccessful. Lack of consensus and pursuit of national interests have resulted in ambiguous or unrealistic mandates and have reduced the effectiveness of peacekeeping operations. Moreover, parties to a conflict were interested only in solutions that favored their interests and were often skeptical about the role and credibility of peacekeeping forces. But the continued violations of ceasefire agreements in defiance of the presence of peacekeeping forces were due partly to the force's inability to use force except in self-defense , Most of the forces operated under serious operational and logistical difficulties and they were inadequately funded. But none of the three factors has been responsible alone for the failure of peacekeeping missions. The coordination of UN operations has been better than that of the OAU. In civil war situations, national governments have requested peacekeeping forces because they could not, unaided, put down their opponents. The UN has deployed its forces only as a means of relaxing tensions while member-states have pursued other interests.