O presente trabalho tem por objetivo analisar o papel do estreito de Ormuz nas dinâmicas de competição no Golfo Pérsico. Ormuz é um estreito geograficamente estratégico, uma vez que é a única via marítima entre o Golfo Pérsico, o Golfo de Omã e o Oceano Índico e encontra-se em uma área rica em hidrocarbonetos. Em vista disso, o primeiro capítulo busca analisar o conceito e as características que qualificam a relevância que alguns estreitos possuem para o Sistema Internacional, caracterizando-os como Pontos de Estrangulamento e, nesse sentido, averiguar as razões que definem o estreito de Ormuz como o principal ponto de estrangulamento marítimo no mundo. Já o segundo capítulo tem como foco o estudo da Competição Estratégica, estabelecida entre Estados Unidos e Irã (2003-2013), que somente tornou-se possível graças às características de Ormuz (e, à assimetria de capacidades). Por fim, o terceiro capítulo procura averiguar o papel do estreito na escalada das rivalidades entre Arábia Saudita e Irã que deflagram a Guerra Proxy, e o seu transbordamento para outros pontos de estrangulamento do Oriente Médio. Espera-se como resultado oferecer uma melhor contextualização e compreensão sobre o tema de Ormuz em particular, bem como dos pontos de estrangulamento, contribuindo dessa forma para a instrumentalização dessas categorias no estudo das Relações Internacionais contemporâneas. / This study aims to analyze the Strait of Hormuz role in the competition dynamics in the Persian Gulf. Hormuz is a strait geographically strategic, since it is the only maritime way between the Persian Gulf, the Gulf of Oman and the Indian Ocean and is located in an area rich in hydrocarbons. In view of this, the first chapter analyzes the concept and characteristics that qualify the relevance of some straits to the International System, characterizing them as Choke points and, accordingly, find out the reasons that define the Strait of Hormuz as the main maritime choke point in the world. The second chapter focuses on the study of the Strategic Competition, established between the United States and Iran (2003-2013), which only became possible because of the characteristics of Hormuz (and because of capacity asymmetry). Finally, the third chapter seeks to ascertain the strait role in escalating rivalries between Saudi Arabia and Iran that trigger the Proxy War and its spillover to other bottlenecks in the Middle East. It is expected as a result provide better context and understanding of Hormuz particular theme and bottlenecks, thus contributing to the exploitation of these categories in the study of contemporary international relations.

O presente trabalho tem por objetivo analisar o papel do estreito de Ormuz nas dinâmicas de competição no Golfo Pérsico. Ormuz é um estreito geograficamente estratégico, uma vez que é a única via marítima entre o Golfo Pérsico, o Golfo de Omã e o Oceano Índico e encontra-se em uma área rica em hidrocarbonetos. Em vista disso, o primeiro capítulo busca analisar o conceito e as características que qualificam a relevância que alguns estreitos possuem para o Sistema Internacional, caracterizando-os como Pontos de Estrangulamento e, nesse sentido, averiguar as razões que definem o estreito de Ormuz como o principal ponto de estrangulamento marítimo no mundo. Já o segundo capítulo tem como foco o estudo da Competição Estratégica, estabelecida entre Estados Unidos e Irã (2003-2013), que somente tornou-se possível graças às características de Ormuz (e, à assimetria de capacidades). Por fim, o terceiro capítulo procura averiguar o papel do estreito na escalada das rivalidades entre Arábia Saudita e Irã que deflagram a Guerra Proxy, e o seu transbordamento para outros pontos de estrangulamento do Oriente Médio. Espera-se como resultado oferecer uma melhor contextualização e compreensão sobre o tema de Ormuz em particular, bem como dos pontos de estrangulamento, contribuindo dessa forma para a instrumentalização dessas categorias no estudo das Relações Internacionais contemporâneas. / This study aims to analyze the Strait of Hormuz role in the competition dynamics in the Persian Gulf. Hormuz is a strait geographically strategic, since it is the only maritime way between the Persian Gulf, the Gulf of Oman and the Indian Ocean and is located in an area rich in hydrocarbons. In view of this, the first chapter analyzes the concept and characteristics that qualify the relevance of some straits to the International System, characterizing them as Choke points and, accordingly, find out the reasons that define the Strait of Hormuz as the main maritime choke point in the world. The second chapter focuses on the study of the Strategic Competition, established between the United States and Iran (2003-2013), which only became possible because of the characteristics of Hormuz (and because of capacity asymmetry). Finally, the third chapter seeks to ascertain the strait role in escalating rivalries between Saudi Arabia and Iran that trigger the Proxy War and its spillover to other bottlenecks in the Middle East. It is expected as a result provide better context and understanding of Hormuz particular theme and bottlenecks, thus contributing to the exploitation of these categories in the study of contemporary international relations.

No description available.

Coral reef ecosystems are in rapid decline due to global and local anthropogenic factors. Being among the most diverse ecosystems on Earth, a loss will decrease species diversity, and remove food source for people along the coast. The coral together with its symbionts (i.e. Symbiodinium, bacteria, and other microorganisms) is called the ‘coral holobiont’. The coral host offers its associated symbionts suitable habitats and nutrients, while Symbiodinium and coral-associated bacteria provide the host with photosynthates and vital nutrients. Association of corals with certain types of Symbiodinium and bacteria confer coral stress tolerance, and lack or loss of these symbionts coincides with diseased or bleached corals. However, a detailed understanding of the coral holobiont diversity and structure in regard to diseases and health states or across global scales is missing. This dissertation addressed coral-associated symbiont diversity, specifically of Symbiodinium and bacteria, in various coral species from different geographic locations and different health states. The main aims were (1) to expand the scope of existing technologies, (2) to establish a standardized framework to facilitate comparison of symbiont assemblages over coral species and sites, (3) to assess Symbiodinium diversity in the Arabian Seas, and (4) to elucidate whether coral health states have conserved bacterial footprints. In summary, a next generation sequencing pipeline for Symbiodinium diversity typing of the ITS2 marker is developed and applied to describe Symbiodinium diversity in corals around the Arabian Peninsula. The data show that corals in the Arabian Seas are dominated by a single Symbiodinium type, but harbor a rich variety of types in low abundant. Further, association with different Symbiodinium types is structured according to geographic locations. In addition, the application of 16S rRNA gene microarrays to investigate how differences in microbiome structure relate to differences in health and disease demonstrate that coral species share common microbial footprints in phenotypically similar diseases that are conserved between regional seas. Moreover, corals harbor bacteria that are species-specific and distinct from the diseased microbial footprints. The existence of conserved coral disease microbiomes allows for cataloging diseases based on bacterial assemblage over coral species boundaries and will greatly facilitate future comparative analyses.

Critical discourse analysis (CDA) is an interdisciplinary approach that studies the relationship between power, language, ideology, and social structures in the various forms of discourse.  Fairclough’s three-dimensional model was employed as the foundation and van Dijk’s ideological square as an assist to deepen the analytical focus on the speeches held by George H. W Bush addressing Somalia and Kuwait. The size of conflict and period differ, this study sees the relevance of comparing the two speeches since they were given by the same person during his period as presidents of the United States and Commander in Chief. The results have shown how Bush uses language to lay arguments for U.S. military action in the out-group nations. By employing concepts such as national self-glorification, empathy, lexicalization, victimization, and polarization: He lay the grounds for the U.S. interventions through language. The results show that representing the United States in a positive light and the out-groups in a negative light e.g. as threat leads to the justification for U.S. intervention but also exposes the underlying power structures and inequality of power.

This dissertation seeks to explain why states sometimes produce disintegrated wartime grand strategies; doing so is of both scholarly and policy importance because wartime grand strategy is a key component of military effectiveness, and therefore has a vital role to play in military victory or defeat. To do so, this dissertation explores the link between militarism, civil-military bargaining, and the formation of integrated—or disintegrated—grand strategy. I hypothesize that civilians and military leaders possess divergent preferences over the use of force that are exogenous to any one conflict, and represent enduring, rational preference divergences between civilian and military positions on the use of force. Under conditions of militarism, defined as high levels of societal admiration for the military, the civil-military bargaining space will be distorted in favor of military preferences, with the military having more power in the civil-military negotiating process due to its potentially outsized ability to shape public opinion compared to civilians. This will lead to the formation of disintegrated grand strategy—one which does not balance civilian and military preferences—which has been shown in the literature to be linked to reduced military effectiveness. I provide evidence for my hypotheses in the form of two case studies which are examined via process-tracing methodology—the United States performance in the 1991 Gulf War, and the United States performance in the 2003 invasion of Iraq. I conclude that under conditions of militarism, states produce disintegrated wartime grand strategies.

The origins of the just war theory date back to medieval times, with the early Catholic scholars, Augustine and Aquinas, and have continued into modem times, with revisions of the theory by Elshtain and Walzer. So why is a new just war theory needed? The primary problem with the old theories is not the concept of the theory itself, but the questions that prior theories of just war leave unanswered. The just war theory of today continues to be unspecific, and does not deal with contemporary issues, such as nuclear, chemical and biological weapons; terrorism; and discrimination between combatants and noncombatants in an age of airborne warfare. In the years since September 11 th, and following the 2003 invasion of Iraq sans the support of the United Nations, the concept of the just war has gained prominence in political theory and commentary. In a twofold manner, this thesis deals with the problems left unanswered by current just war theory. First, a new just war theory is proposed, which addresses many of the abovementioned issues that remain unsolved by former theories. Second, this theory is tested through application to the 1991 Persian Gulf War; the decade after the war in which economic sanctions were placed against Iraq; and the three-year period directly after the September 11th attacks, in which the world again entered into conflict with Iraq. The classic just war theory template is used, with the war and the decade-long period following it classified under the traditional jus ad bellum (just cause ),jus in bello (just conduct), and conclusion categories. The post September 11th period is dealt with using the jus ad bellum template, as a precursor to the 2003 Iraq War. This thesis tests the applicability of the new just war theory in the face of modem wartime considerations, such as advanced weapons technology, wartime military conduct, military occupation, and civilian welfare. The new just war theory has been designed to take these issues into consideration, and as such, it accommodates the just limitations of war (what a state can and cannot do in the course of a conflict), while still defining what is and is not a just cause to go to war. There is also new consideration given to the conclusion of the war, and specifically, the rights and responsibilities of both the occupied and the occupying parties, as well as the issue of rebuilding and recovery in the country or countries involved in the conflict. These are considerations that are new to war, and were not considered previous to the past century of conflict. As such, older just war theories do not adequately discuss these responsibilities, and the new theory strives to fill this gap.

This thesis analyzes Iran-Saudi relations in the context of growing regional hostility. This research encompasses the domestic and foreign policies enacted by both states since 1979, accompanying a discussion of the historical background of their ties. Moreover, the future prospects of their relations regarding the utilization of Oman as a neutral negotiator for regional conflicts are examined. The significant contributing factors of each state to such dynamic ties include: the leadership, national security, religion-politics connection, and their reaction to global instability indicators. Recently, Iran-Saudi hostility has been worsening due to their policies in the region in reaction to regional events. Thus, some may argue that the outlook of success for Omani role in negotiating between the two is seemingly less likely. The relations of these two Persian Gulf regional powers need to be examined further for future prospects.

No description available.

No description available.