No description available.

This dissertation addresses the puzzle as to why some regions in the world are engulfed in militarized disputes among member states, while other regions live under peaceful conditions. It argues that domestic regime-societal management strategies have significant explanatory value to understand variance in regional orders. These domestic factors have largely been ignored in International Relations (IR) literature. A domestic politics-based analytical framework explains how states with inclusionary governing regimes (those which account for the interests of societal actors in policy formulation and consequently give them stakes in the survival of the regime) are more likely to move the regional order towards stability. On the other hand, states with exclusionary regimes (those which do not account for the interests of societal actors in policy formulation and consequently do not give them stakes in the survival of the regime) are more likely to push the regional order toward instability. / The dissertation also addresses a frequently underexposed dimension of IR theory: exactly how do major powers influence regional orders? It argues that major powers penetrate regional states in support of either societal actors or regimes (and sometimes both). In that process major powers help alter the power asymmetries inside regional states affecting their preferences and strategies, and hence their behaviour towards the regional order. / The analytical framework is used to explain variations in Middle East regional orders through four paired comparisons of six states: Israel-Egypt, Israel-Turkey, Israel-Syria, and Iran-Saudi Arabia. The time frame under study is from 1950 to 2000. The change in the Middle East regional order post-1990 did not correspond in magnitude to the change in the international system, adding credibility to this framework which prioritizes domestic level variables in shaping regional orders.

No description available.

This thesis is an attempt to examine one of the most important on-going debates in contemporary Islamists' discourses, namely, the status and rights of religious minorities in an Islamic state. The call by Islamists for the establishment of such a state governed by the Shari'ah has given rise to criticism that Islamization would entail the revival of the discriminatory rulings of traditional Islamic law with respect to non-Muslim citizens and the negation of the modern principle of the right to equality for all citizens irrespective of religious belief. To provide a background to the problem, this study presents a brief review of the stance of traditional Islamic law on the status and rights of non-Muslims living within the domain of Islam. This tradition has informed the discourses of contemporary Islamists on the question. Two currents of thought are examined: radical and moderate Islamism. Radical Islamists assert that granting non-Muslim citizens equal status and rights with Muslims is inconsistent with the teachings of Islam, although in stating this they confirm the apprehensions that Islamization would result in institutionalizing discrimination against religious minorities. Moderate Islamists on the other hand maintain that the concept of equal rights for all citizens is compatible with the tenets of Islam. Nonetheless, their arguments are not without problems as there are limits to how far they are willing to go in offering equal status and rights to non-Muslims.

Thesis (M.S.)--Rochester Institute of Technology, 2009. / Typescript. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 23-24).

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Hebrew University, 2000. / "December 2000". Includes bibliographical references (p. 194-201).

Thesis (Ph. D.)--UCLA, 2008. / Vita. Description based on print version record. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 456-548).

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of California, Santa Cruz, 1992. / Typescript. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 237-249).

D.Litt. et Phil. / Please refer to full text to view abstract

The objective of this study is to describe and analyze the management of communal conflict in the Middle East, focusing on the Kurds. To this end, an effort is made to examine (1) the means that have been used to manage the Kurdish conflict by Middle Eastern countries; (2) the degree of success or failure of applied measures and (3) possible explanations for the first two questions.