While the promotion and growth of global public-private partnerships (PPPs) is indisputable, the same enthusiasm has not fuelled their disciplined study; thus, their potential to deliver on their promise of being effective and legitimate governance entities is far from established. Addressing this lack, this work investigates the universe of transnational PPPs in form, functioning and effects. It suggests that as PPPs are institutional innovations, partnership analysis can benefit from applying theoretical constructs from international regime research complemented with adjacent literature from management and organisational studies. Building an analytical framework based on the notions of input and output legitimacy, the work analyses how variation in partnership inputs (focus, actors involved, organisational dynamics and institutionalisation) interacts with varying internal management processes to result in varying outputs. The thesis utilises the operational notion of effects rather than the more subjective notion of partnership effectiveness, and considers effects related to goal attainment and problem solving. Applying a systematic methodology, the work also defines and describes the universe of PPPs, creating a transnational partnership database (TPD) which pulls together all existing sources, thus encompassing 757 partnerships. The resultant analysis reveals a marked variation across the universe of transnational partnerships as well as distinct differences in their operational capacity. It also highlights that while highly institutionalised PPPs are more likely to produce tangible outputs and effects, the extent of these is highly dependent upon internal management. By building a cumulative understanding of these institutional models, the work furthers debates regarding the role of PPPs as legitimate and effective governing actors.

This thesis offers a philosophical defence of military humanitarian intervention (MHI). To do so, it develops the ‘other-defensive conception’ of MHI. The other- defensive conception of MHI draws an analogy between so-called rescue killings in domestic society and MHI. In a domestic rescue killing, a rescuer defends a victim against an unjust aggressor. In fact, the thesis argues that the rescuer has a right to intervene on behalf of the victim. This right is correlated to a negative duty falling upon the attacker not to resist the intervention. By analogy, a state that is guilty of committing Atrocity Crimes against those under its rule forfeits its equal sovereign standing in international society. As a result, an intervening state does not violate negative duties not to aggress the ‘target’ state. Further, like a rescuer in a domestic rescue killing, the intervening state is holder of a (moral) right to intervene. The latter obliges the target state not to resist the intervention. The thesis supports this claim through two additional arguments. First, it argues that because Atrocity Crimes constitute grave moral evils, a military response to them is proportionate. Second, states that commit Atrocity Crimes do not perform their sovereign function of preserving the peace amongst those under their rule. Accordingly, the purpose of MHI is not merely to halt Atrocity Crimes, but also to reconstruct stable political institutions in the target state. On this basis the thesis explores the following four issues: 1) the relationship between the declaration of war and its conduct, 2) the problem of non-combatant immunity, 3) the foundation of a duty to intervene, and 4) the ethics of humanitarian occupation. In doings so, it offers a comprehensive discussion of central problems in contemporary just war theory and the ethics of killing and saving.

This thesis studies variation in Russian hegemony in the post-Soviet region. The concept of changing hegemony is used as a starting point to examine how regional hierarchy has changed in the post-Soviet period. Russian hegemony tightens and loosens depending on the time, territory and type of power logic being exercised. This systemic condition characterised by change arises not only because the way that Russia exercises its power changes, but also because the responses of the other countries of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) to that power fluctuate. Depending on the consent and dissent shown by the other CIS countries to the attenuation of their sovereignty, Russia’s regional hegemony either grows or lessens in intensity. This study uncovers dissent from those who do not fit within or are unprepared to adapt to the status quo of hegemony, and consent from those who accept diminishing sovereignty. Thus, hegemonies in the context of this study are characterised by regular and open-ended dialogue between states that remain independent enough to constantly negotiate the system through their consent and dissent to hierarchy. In making these claims, this study examines concepts such as sovereignty, hierarchy and legitimacy in the context of the CIS region as well as key developments in the CIS region. Specifically, it makes conclusions on how regional hierarchy around Russia is perpetuated, the factors that determine the extent of that hegemony, how bilateral and group relationships have developed between other CIS countries and Russia, and how the CIS system of states is best classified at different periods in time.

This thesis is a study of US-Syrian relations, and the legacy of mistrust between the two states. While there has been a recent growth in the study of Syria’s domestic and regional politics, its foreign policy in a global systemic context remains understudied within mainstream International Relations (IR), Foreign Policy Analysis (FPA), and even Middle Eastern studies, despite Syria’s geo-political centrality in the region. The primary purpose of the thesis is to analyse and understand the driving factors in US-Syrian relations, both the continuities – distinctive in the context of the region’s dynamic political landscape – and the rarer instances of discontinuity. By analysing the causes and constituents of US-Syrian relations, the thesis will also challenge a purely realist and power-political explanation that has dominated the discourse on Middle Eastern foreign policy; without discarding the value of alternative conceptual explanations, the thesis will argue that Syria’s position towards the US has been significantly (though not exclusively) influenced by a politically embedded set of ideas and principles that have evolved from an anti-colonial Arab nationalist ideology. Though recent constructivist debates have (rightly) brought the role of identity and social structure back to the fore, ideological or value-laden motives are still at times treated dismissively as an instrument of power politics (particularly in relation to Middle Eastern regimes) or, conversely, as a sign of regime irrationality. The apparent methodological impasse in credibly connecting ideational motives with foreign policy implementation and the perceived incompatibility between ideas and pragmatic decision-making have prevented a deeper and more sophisticated exploration of ideological influences within IR. Thus the second aim of the thesis is to redress this imbalance by introducing a methodological framework of analysis for studying ideology in foreign policy-making; this will be operationalised by historically charting the development and influence of ideas on Syria’s position towards the US, drawing upon original archival material that has hitherto not been utilised in existing literature on this subject. I argue that in Syria’s case state interests and security concerns are not dichotomous to ideational values; rather the two are coterminous goals in Syrian foreign policy. In doing so the thesis employs historical analysis and FPA methods to assess the significance of the following factors in influencing Syria’s ideology, and thereby its relations with the US: Syria’s colonised past and contemporary US interventionism in the region; the policies and ideology of Israel; and finally the structure of the Syrian regime, and its connection to public opinion.

This thesis examines the special treatment of the Least Developed Countries (LDCs) in the World Trade Organisation (WTO). The categorisation of the LDCs by the United Nations in 1971 not only created a new classification of counties, but also created an international norm of special treatment for these countries. The norm of special treatment for LDCs has, since then, slowly spread throughout the international system and has been institutionalised in many international organisations, including the WTO. Evidence of the institutionalisation of the norm within the WTO can be found in its founding documents and agreements, as well as in the Doha Development Agenda. This institutionalisation of the norm has meant that LDCs have been provided with special treatment in the trade regime, which is not provided to other categories of member. This thesis will trace the development and institutionalisation of the international norm of special treatment for LDCs and will focus specifically on its institutionalisation within the GATT/WTO. The thesis uses the concept of the norm lifecycle to demonstrate how the norm of special treatment for LDCs has grown in strength over time and become institutionalised, but has yet to be fully internalised. Through the use of case studies looking at accession, market access and cotton, it argues that the recent agency of the LDCs means that they can be seen as norm entrepreneurs helping to further the norm of special treatment by their appeals to it.

This dissertation examines the interaction between a particular type of global governance mechanism – social standardisation – and national political economic structures in two countries of the global South: Argentina and Brazil. In doing so it provides a greater understanding of the emergence of new governance structures and the growing role of actors from emerging countries. The dissertation develops three lines of analysis. First, it studies the evolution of the institutional attempts to establish global social standards since the onset of the twentieth century, with specific attention to three global governance initiatives emerging around the 2000s: the UN Global Compact, the Global Reporting Initiative, and the ISO 26000 Guidance Standard on Social Responsibility. Second, it investigates the participation in these latest initiatives of actors from Argentina and Brazil, detailing institutional connections, central players, clusters and overall participation patterns. Third, it analyses and contrasts national participation patterns in light of the trajectory of social standardisation and the political economic environment of these two countries. As a result, the dissertation offers a distinct contribution to the governance and standardisation literature by highlighting the relevance of national political variables in structuring engagement with global governance projects. The dissertation uses a combination of methodologies, sources and analytical techniques including historical analysis, network analysis, interviews with local actors, and direct observation of one instance of global standard-setting. The main line of argument is that local participation in global initiatives of social standard-setting depends on two main elements: the pre-existence of compatible cleavages of social standardisation, and the local resonance of governance frames. Moreover, the thesis reveals that these elements are strongly connected with ‘Southern’ political variables regarding the pattern of political, social and economic development, the model of state-society relations, and the political discourse promoted by the government. On this basis, this thesis can explain the divergent participation patterns found in Brazil and Argentina regarding the three global case study initiatives and their overall acceptance of social standardisation programmes. The dissertation provides two main contributions: 1) it emphasises the relevance of communicative dynamics in the diffusion of global governance, relativising economistic and power-led approaches, and 2) demonstrates the relevance of Southern political institutions, traditions, and discourses in structuring global/local communications.

This thesis investigates Sino-Japanese relations and the post-Cold War security order in Northeast Asia. In particular, it asks whether a ‘security regime’ now exists in the region. Security analysis of Northeast Asia has often focussed upon the likely effects of changes in material power. This has led to predictions of a ‘Back to the future’ scenario of rivalry and possible war. While acknowledging the value of this approach, I question whether it is sufficient; other approaches, notably an investigation of normative changes, are required. In considering both material and non-material factors, I follow the precepts of RSCT – which view RSCs as essentially social constructions. Thus, I employ RSCT’s eclectic posture, exploring three distinctive approaches to the possibility of structural change – Waltz and neorealism, Wendt and social constructivism, and Buzan and the English school. Thus, while not ignoring the impact of shifts in the balance of power on security practices, I also investigate ideational variables – that is the kinds of values, norms and institutions that are shared by the members of the East Asian RSC. I go on to ask why they are shared, how their identities and interests evolve over time and how these changes influence securitisation and desecuritisation practices. By examining these variables through societal, economic and military-political sectors, and locating them at domestic, regional, interregional and global levels, I conclude that, together with Southeast Asia, Northeast Asia has formed a single ‘East Asian security regime’. This conclusion is based upon my interpretation of domestic normative constructions in Japan and in China; the growing regional identity/society in East Asia (especially after the Asian financial crisis); and the increased willingness and ability of regional actors to deal with security challenges. But challenges remain, with recurrent tensions and crises as well as continuing historical mistrust. I believe that, as yet, ideational factors, the shared norms and institutions in the East Asian RSC, are still associated with acceptance of a pluralist Westphalian international society, and these are shared largely instrumentally rather than by genuine belief. Thus, despite enthusiasm for community building, progress has been limited in collective identity formation; and balancing behaviour is still common. This means that, while East Asia has reached at least the lower or middle stages of a ‘security regime’, it is still far away from becoming a ‘security community’.

John Rawls’s international theory, The Law of Peoples, has been read and criticized as “A Theory of International Justice”. His major objective, however, is not the establishment of a just (liberal) world order, but to guide liberal societies towards a reasonable peaceful, stable and just international system. From this starting point, the thesis assesses whether Rawls’s international theory can meet its task to function as a guideline for the promotion of international peace, stability and justice and how that peace might be conceived. The author argues that Rawls sketches the path to a “decent peace”. The scrutiny of the issue takes the form of an in-depth analysis and discussion of The Law of Peoples and a systematic investigation of a number of cases. The dissertation examines the possible contribution of Rawls’s ideas, primarily the Society of Peoples and the principles of the Law of Peoples, to international peace, stability and justice. As the focus lies on decent regimes and a decent peace, three actual decent societies are identified (Oman, Qatar and Singapore), in order to highlight the applicability of the notion to the international system, as well as to ensure that decent regimes are not mere constructions serving to justify imposing liberal principles of non-liberal regimes. The dissertation finally investigates the enlargement of the democratic peace thesis towards a decent peace; it discusses the arguments for a democratic peace and applies them to Rawls’s conception of decent peoples as well as to the identified regimes. It concludes asserting that the decent peace thesis is theoretically wellfounded, whereas the empirical evidence is – due to only three identified regimes – rather weak. As a guideline for the foreign policy of liberal (and decent) societies The Law of Peoples can contribute to more stability and justice in the international realm and promote a decent peace.

The aim of this dissertation is to investigate the genesis of Plan Colombia, the aid programme that transferred US$1.3 billion to Colombia during fiscal year 2000/2001 alone. It was found that President Andres Pastrana invited the intervention of the US in many aspects of Colombia’s internal affairs, from his peace process with guerrilla insurgents to his project to reassert the authority of the state over Colombia’s ‘internal periphery’. A complex, three-way negotiation between the two core Executives and the US Congress ensued, which yielded a more limited intervention than the Colombians desired. It was also found that, the vast power asymmetry notwithstanding, it was the small state that took the initiative and managed to exert influence over the great power. These findings conclusively refute the paradigmatic presumption in the IR literature that Plan Colombia was hegemonically imposed. To the contrary, the protracted (two years long) negotiation of terms showed the ‘hegemon’ decidedly reluctant to be drawn too far into its internal affairs of its ‘victim’. Plan Colombia follows a characteristic pattern in US foreign relations, which has been noted before; a unique form of ‘imperialism’ whereby subject states actually invite the intervention of the great power, in some cases even to the point of occupation. Unlike the approach typical of the IR field, which is predominantly a priori in method, the treatment herein is essentially inductive. For my fieldwork I interviewed the gamut of elite participants in the making of the Plan, from ex-President Pastrana himself to Thomas Pickering, the third-ranking officer in the US State Department. Letting the facts from all sources speak for themselves, I have arrived at counterintuitive results of interest to theorists and practitioners of international relations.

The military has been a symbol of nationhood and state control for the past two hundred years. As representatives of a society’s cultural values and political ambitions, the armed forces have traditionally been held within the confines of the modern state. Today, however, soldiers are expected to operate in the shadows of conflicts, drawing little attention to themselves and to their actions; they are physically and emotionally secluded from a civilian population whose governments, especially in the ‘West’, are proceeding to an unprecedented wave of demilitarisation and military budget cuts. Simultaneously, these same governments are increasingly opening their armies to foreign nationals and outsourcing military operations to private military and security companies. These experiments with the hybridisation of the armed forces have effectively changed the face of national security. This thesis explores the impact of hybridisation on the values, cohesion and effectiveness of the armed forces by comparing and contrasting the experiences of the French Foreign Legion, the private military companies in Angola, and the merging of private contractors and American troops in Iraq. Mercenaries have been used as a foreign policy tool to improve the strategic impact of national armies. As non-state actors, however, they are unaccountable to the hiring state and beyond the control of the military establishment. It is both timely and important to understand the experiences of soldiers and mercenaries fighting together in modern battlefields as this appears to be the trend for the future, and has a direct impact on civil-military relations, military effectiveness, and consequently on the overall security of the state. The study concludes that, although mercenaries and private security companies can contribute to the military effort and may be a useful foreign policy tool, the impact that these non-state actors have on the national army must be taken into consideration to avoid weakening the state’s armed forces. Furthermore, the differences between warriors of various nationalities and allegiances, and the difficulties in coordinating public-private partnerships in joint military operations undermine the legitimacy of the state – and by default its policies – by weakening the cohesiveness and morale of the national armed forces and by alienating the citizen iv and the soldier. Results can be used to inform national governments and the armed forces in their inevitable process of hybridising their troops with foreigners and private contractors in the quest to answer the budgetary and moral concerns of their country.