黎巴嫩孱弱的社會體質在無力消　於發展過程中所迸發的一連串危機下， 終在一九七五年釀成全面的內戰，其混沌險惡之勢全面肢解國家機器，生 民賤如螻蟻；也為飽受歷史巨擔磨難的中東地區，再上一層重枷，成為關 切中東事務者的研究課題。本研究論文即透過黎巴嫩的社會層面，地區關 係及國際關係的三大主軸去構築內戰的圖像。 @有鑑於政治情勢的變化乃 為導引社會興衰的主流，而歷史又為政治之母；所以本文擷取黎巴嫩史上 對其今日社會性格塑造有決定性影響的諸變點及所推演的事件作一說明來 作為本研究的基點。歷史遺續沉澱堆積在各個社會權力中心，其運作生態 已無法自外於非理性教派情結及偏狹地域家族、意識的感染，七０年代巴 勒斯坦問題在上述情境下被激化，其殺傷力足以割斷維繫社會體系的紐帶 。 黎國內戰不單純是本土化的戰爭，更是區域性、國際化的內戰。敘 利亞、以色列、伊朗以及伊拉克等地區強權的涉入，將內戰推向地區權力 鬥爭的深淵；美國為推動中東政策，儘管在行政部門仍有爭議下，也出兵 黎國。探討各外來行為者的涉入動因、參與過程、施展外交工具的手段及 與黎國民兵派系的互動都是本論文寫作的核心。唯有如此，才能真實體察 戰事的脈動，釐清錯綜複雜的表象，並有助對於如何重建黎巴嫩社會及推 展中東和平的議題上，提供一條全方位思考途徑。 @ 在結論中，將根 據整個研究心得，對黎巴嫩社會提出一兼具階段性 及跟本長久之計的方 案，以廓清內戰的亂源，重塑和平。

<p>The Syrian military intervention in Lebanon which began in 1976 has impacted the country in many ways. There are numerous reports about the negative impact of that intervention in addition to the ways in which Lebanon is currently being exploited by Syria in the global political arena so that Syria can achieve its goals. Manifestations of this exploitation are the many unfair, unbalanced and unjust bilateral treaties that Lebanon has signed with Syria in the aftermath of the Lebanese civil war. </p><p>However, the circumstances under which those treaties were signed as well as their implications have led to numerous debates. The manner in which Syria gained control over the Lebanese political system at the legislative, executive and judicial levels, in addition to the exploitation of Lebanon’s economic resources by means of those treaties has aroused serious concern. Therefore, the central question posed in this study is: Did the post Lebanese civil war bilateral treaties that Lebanon signed with Syria pave the way for Syrian hegemony over Lebanon? By employing the historical research method, I study past events in relation to the circumstances that led Lebanon to signing those treaties and then evaluate their effect and consequences on the present situation in terms of the economic advantages that Syria enjoys as a signatory to those treaties. </p><p>I apply a theoretical model based on Robert O Keohane’s definition of the theory of hegemonic stability. The result is that Syria, even though it is considered to be an underdeveloped market economy country, fulfills most of Keohane’s characteristics of hegemonic powers seeking preponderance of material resources. The central finding in this thesis is that the shortcomings of hegemony do apply to the Syrain presence in Lebanon due to the economic exploitation of Lebanon’s resources. </p><p>In addition, I employ Keohane’s cooperation theory and examine the “joint committees”, that were formed to regulate the application of the signed treaties, and their modus operandi. I argue tha Syria and Lebanon need to cooperate and that this cooperation needs to be regulated so that the two countries can deal with each other as equals rather than as a hegemon and a hegemonized. I claim that those committees can be the regimes that can enhance cooperation between Lebanon and Syria by means of trading based on the comparative advantages of their economic resources.</p>

The Syrian military intervention in Lebanon which began in 1976 has impacted the country in many ways. There are numerous reports about the negative impact of that intervention in addition to the ways in which Lebanon is currently being exploited by Syria in the global political arena so that Syria can achieve its goals. Manifestations of this exploitation are the many unfair, unbalanced and unjust bilateral treaties that Lebanon has signed with Syria in the aftermath of the Lebanese civil war. However, the circumstances under which those treaties were signed as well as their implications have led to numerous debates. The manner in which Syria gained control over the Lebanese political system at the legislative, executive and judicial levels, in addition to the exploitation of Lebanon’s economic resources by means of those treaties has aroused serious concern. Therefore, the central question posed in this study is: Did the post Lebanese civil war bilateral treaties that Lebanon signed with Syria pave the way for Syrian hegemony over Lebanon? By employing the historical research method, I study past events in relation to the circumstances that led Lebanon to signing those treaties and then evaluate their effect and consequences on the present situation in terms of the economic advantages that Syria enjoys as a signatory to those treaties. I apply a theoretical model based on Robert O Keohane’s definition of the theory of hegemonic stability. The result is that Syria, even though it is considered to be an underdeveloped market economy country, fulfills most of Keohane’s characteristics of hegemonic powers seeking preponderance of material resources. The central finding in this thesis is that the shortcomings of hegemony do apply to the Syrain presence in Lebanon due to the economic exploitation of Lebanon’s resources. In addition, I employ Keohane’s cooperation theory and examine the “joint committees”, that were formed to regulate the application of the signed treaties, and their modus operandi. I argue tha Syria and Lebanon need to cooperate and that this cooperation needs to be regulated so that the two countries can deal with each other as equals rather than as a hegemon and a hegemonized. I claim that those committees can be the regimes that can enhance cooperation between Lebanon and Syria by means of trading based on the comparative advantages of their economic resources.

This thesis analyzes the dynamics of bilateral relationship between the United States of America and Syrian Arab Republic from Hafez Asad&rsquo / s grasp of power in 1970 to the latest domestic uprising of 2011. The relationship will be considered under three main vectors / struggle over Lebanon, tensions regarding peace process and Israel, and rogue statehood of Syria attributed by the United States.

Hur ska resultatet av ett krig mätas, på vilket sätt är det möjligt att opartiskt bedöma vem som vunnit eller förlorat. I många fall är resultatet uppenbart, ingen tvivlar t.ex. på att Storbritannien vann Falklandskriget, utfallet på slagfältet motsvarar uppfattning av vem som vann kriget. Men i många moderna krig är situationen en annan, utgången kan vara omtvistad, eller så är det svårt att uppfatta om kriget överhuvudtaget har avslutats. I uppsatsen används score-keeping teorin som är ett sätt att analysera resultatet av ett krig, vilken aktör vann? Fallet som analyseras är Libanonkri-get 2006 som utkämpades mellan Israel och Hizbollah och är intressant då resultatet dels är om-tvistat samt att det skedde mellan en stat och en organisation som är grupperad inom och verkar ifrån en annan stat. Uppsatsens syfte är därför att utifrån score-keeping teorin analysera Libanonkriget 2006. Den vetenskapliga frågan som skall besvaras är: Vilken aktör kan sägas ha vunnit Libanonkriget 2006 utifrån score-keeping teorin. Designen för undersökningen är en teorikonsumerande studie av Libanonkriget 2006 där av teorin givna variabler operationaliseras för att kunna ställas mot ett urval ur empirin. Undersökningens resultat visar att utifrån score-keeping teorin kan Hizbollah anses vara vinnare i Libanonkriget 2006. Vidare visar undersökningen på ett antal utmaningar med att tillämpa score-keeping teorin på Libanonkriget 2006 med hänsyn till den asymmetri som rådde mellan aktörerna. / How can the outcome of a war be measured, in what way is it possible to impartially determine who won or lost. In many cases the result is obvious, as there is no doubt that Great Britain won the Falklands war, the outcome on the battlefield was equivalent of the perception of who won the war. But in many modern wars the situation can be different, the outcome may be disputed, or it is even hard to understand if the war has finished at all. This essay is using score-keeping theory, which is a way to analyze the outcome of a war, who won? The case analyzed in this essay is the Lebanon war in 2006 which was fought between Israel and Hezbollah and is interesting because the result is both much-disputed and it was fought between a government and an organization that was deployed within and acting from another state. The purpose of this essay is therefore to analyze the 2006 Lebanon war by applying the score-keeping theory. The scientific question to be answered is: Which participant can be stated to have won the 2006 Lebanon war on the basis of score-keeping theory. The design of the study is a theory-consuming survey of the 2006 Lebanon war, where the given variables from the theory are operationalized to be set against a selection from the empirics. The survey´s result shows that according to the score-keeping theory Hezbollah is considered to have won in the 2006 Lebanon war. Furthermore, the survey shows a number of challenges in applying the score-keeping theory in the 2006 Lebanon war, given the asymmetry that prevailed between the participants.

This thesis analyzes the European Neighbourhood Policy (ENP) towards Lebanon. The thesis looks into early European initiatives to demonstrate growing EU ambitions towards the Mediterranean region. Lebanon is examined with its specificities in historic context and EU&rsquo / s sending troops to UNIFIL army after the July 2006 war. As the 2004 enlargement brought the EU closer to Lebanon, and as the EU tends to play a growing international role, particularly in the Mediterranean region, the EU saw the Israeli attack on Lebanon as an opportunity to increase its engagement in Lebanon, thereby increasing its influence in the region. The thesis argues that the ENP is the newest foreign policy tool both to answer the concerns of EU in the Mediterranean region and to raise the EU&rsquo / s profile in the region.

This thesis analyzes the process of civil wars and political crisis in Lebanon in a historical context, covering the period starting from the civil war of 1860 until the Doha Agreement in 2008. This thesis defines confessional system as a type of democracy implemented in multi-religious societies, which did not change along two centuries in Lebanon. This study aims to establish a different approach on questions such as how far confessionalism can contribute to internal strives and political crisis in Lebanon. The thesis claims that the confessional system that was posed as a solution after civil war periods is the main resource of intercommunal conflicts and this system is open to the manipulation of the foreign actors for their own interests. This thesis also claims that if the national citizenship is applied instead of confessional system, and if Lebanese people unify in terms of national identity, civil wars, political crisis, and foreign intervention could be prevented.

This thesis analyses how Hezbollah has perceived Israel since its establishment. In this study it is argued that Israel is the main enemy of and source of hatred for Hezbollah. The references of this overall statement are the ideology and political, social and military history of Hezbollah. The armed struggle of Hezbollah against Israel started with the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon evolved into both a political participation with the continued armed militia in the period between 1982 to today. During this period, in addition to its armed conflict with Israel, Hezbollah came on the stage with social services for Lebanese society and political propaganda in Lebanese elections. The intersection point of these three identities is the endless encouragement of Hezbollah for a determined resistance against Israel. While on the one hand Hezbollah defines Israel to be the most dangerous threat for the world, in addition to being a prominent enemy for the Arab and Muslim community / on the other hand Israel regards Hezbollah to be the highest impact menace. Consequently, the thesis is finalized with outputs and predictions taking all historical and ideological aspects into concern.

The objective of this thesis is to analyze the bilateral relations between Lebanon and Syria between the years 1989-2005. In the defined time period, the Lebanese-Syrian relations were characterized by the establishment and fall of the Syrian domination over Lebanon. This study focuses on this transformation in their relations and mainly questions how the Lebanese-Syrian relations were transformed, how it affected and in turn were affected by the broader regional setting. Accordingly, the thesis is consistent of four main parts. In each historically divided time period, the major determinants of the direction of their relations and the changes and continuities in regard to these determinants are investigated. In the first part, the study focuses on the historical evolution of their relations with due attention to the dispatchment of Lebanon from Greater Syria and post-independence period. In the second part, their relations are analyzed in the era of Lebanese civil war which also signifies the beginning of active and effective Syrian involvement in Lebanese affairs. The third part encompasses the period of unquestioned Syrian domination over Lebanon in the post-civil war period up until the year 2000. In the fourth part, the changes in the direction of their relations studied in relate to the role of changing international and regional environment in affecting their relations.

The Tanzimat period had been an era of political change and transformation for the Ottoman Empire as it introduced many new new tools in political arena, particularly to reach centralization and the whole period is widely debated in many successful studies. However, the implementation of the Tanzimat reforms in specific provinces are generally ignored. Similarly, 19th century civil turmoil in the Syrian provinces of the Ottoman Empire had been a subject that discussed frequently. However, in many studies the events are generally discussed only as a religious conflict between Muslims and Druzes rather than a reflection of a complex system of political and socio-economic factors. In this context, the role of the Tanzimat reforms are generally ignored. This study aims to adress these two points at the same time. First it focuses on the specific implementation of the Tanzimat reforms in Lebanon rather than the promised aspects of the package. It details how the reforms were implemented, why it was implemented in that specific form, what were the complaints and the results. Second, it tries to understand the civil war in Lebanon in terms of a complex web of state-society relations. It puts the state at the center of analysis and shows how the implementation of the reforms effected the factors that led to the civil war and its different dimensions.