The diploma thesis is dealing with theoretical concept of negativity and investigates its concrete form on the concept of "antibabisism". The thesis refers to concepts of negativity in general, negativity in media content and also to negativity in political media content. Individual research of the thesis focuses on quantitative content analysis in a few selected czech media and also tries to confirm or reject existence of "antibabisism" in media and politics.

No description available.

Presidential power and constitutional issues are at the very core of recent popular upheavals in the former Soviet republics, as demonstrated by the Orange Revolution in Ukraine in 2004, and similar protests in Georgia in 2003 and in Kyrgyzstan in 2005. After the demise of the Soviet Union, these countries opted for a particular form of semi-presidentialism, here referred to as president-parliamentary. This dissertation deals with president-parliamentary systems, as well as with the other form of semi-presidentialism, namely premier-presidentialism. The study examines a typical feature of semi-presidentialism, i.e. intra-executive conflicts between the president and the prime minister/cabinet, by analysing the pattern, institutional triggers, and implications of such conflicts in Central and Eastern Europe. In addition, the choice of semi-presidentialism and differences in transitional context and constitutional building are accounted for. The following countries are specifically dealt with: Bulgaria, Croatia, Lithuania, Moldova, Poland, and Romania, Russia and Ukraine. The study’s empirical base is a mixture of data derived from literature, reports, review of constitutional documents, as well as from an expert survey conducted among analysts with an expert knowledge on the countries under scrutiny. The results suggest that both actor-oriented and historical-institutional factors have to be considered in order to understand why so many post-communist countries ended up with semi-presidentialism, and why there is such a sharp divide between Central Europe and the (non-Baltic) former Soviet republics with regard to the choice of semi-presidential type. The pattern of intra-executive struggles reveals that conflicts were somewhat more recurrent in the early period following the transition, but persist as a frequently occurring phenomenon throughout the post-communist period. The most common type of conflict has revolved around division of powers within the executive branch. As for triggers of conflict, the study suggests that certain institutional factors, such as electoral concurrence and party system fragmentation, have been important. Regarding the management of conflict, and the options available to the conflicting parties, the analysis indicates that the constitutional courts have played an important role as conflict mediators, and that attempts of changing the constitution, and using public addresses are options preferred by the presidents. Finally, the analysis shows that intra-executive conflict is associated with cabinet instability. A case study example also illustrates how the president-parliamentary framework can be related to policy ineffectiveness. The study finally concludes that premier-presidential systems have great governance potential provided that the party systems develop and consolidate. The conclusions regarding the president-parliamentary system are less encouraging, and it is argued that the adoption of this system is an important factor in relation to the failed democratisation in many post-Soviet countries.

Cette recherche porte sur l’entourage institutionnel de Georges Pompidou, Premier ministre d’avril 1962 à juillet 1968, puis président de la République de juin 1969 à son décès le 2 avril 1974. Histoire politique de l’administration, elle étudie l’organisation, la structure, et le fonctionnement des deux institutions coutumières que sont le cabinet du Premier ministre et le Secrétariat général de la présidence de la République sous Georges Pompidou. Elle analyse les évolutions de ces organes sur le temps long et étudie les adaptations apportées par Georges Pompidou en terme de rupture et de continuité. Elle s’interroge notamment sur le poids des héritages gaulliens et sur le rôle de Georges Pompidou dans la stabilisation des institutions de la Ve République. Cette recherche retrace également l’histoire des hommes et des femmes qui ont travaillé à ses cabinets civils et militaires à Matignon puis au Secrétariat général de l’Élysée entre 1962 et 1974. À travers l’étude de leur formation, de leur profil, de leur carrière, elle précise les caractéristiques propres à cet entourage politique et enrichit les travaux sur le personnel politico-administratif au cours des années 1960-1970. Enfin, l’analyse des relations entre Georges Pompidou et son entourage, entre ses collaborateurs et d’autres entourages politiques, pose la délicate question de l’influence de conseillers du Premier ministre puis du chef de l’État sur lui-même, et sur le processus décisionnel. / This research is about the institutionnal entourage of Georges Pompidou during his mandates as a Primer Minister (April 1962-July 1968) and as a President of the French Republic (June 1969-April 2th 1974, when he prematurely died). It focuses on two institutions whose organisation, structure and internal functioning have been empirically shaped : the Prime Minister Cabinet and the Secretary-Generalship of the Presidency. It analyses their long-term evolution and the way Georges Pompidou modified them, from both points of view of rupture and continuity. It interrogates the impact of the gaullist legacy and Pompidou's personal influence regarding the global stabilisation of the Fifth Republic's institutions. This research also aims to depict the history of men and women that worked for Pompidou in its civilian and military cabinets, in Matignon and at the Elysee's Secretary-Generalship between 1962 and 1974. A thorough exploration of their professional background, their profile and career allows us to describe the specificities of this political entourage. Furthermore, it contributes to the understanding of the political and administrative high-level servants during the 1960's and the 1970's. Finally, by analysing the relations between Georges Pompidou and his staff, and between this staff and other political circles, we get onto the sensitive question of influence. This research then tries to assess the influence that the advisors may have exerted on their Prime Minister and President, and on the decision-making process.

Le régime politique d'un pays ne se construit pas instantanément. Il se forme enpassant par plusieurs étapes d'évolutions continuelles et par les expériences historiques, les particularités nationales et, bien entendu, les influences exercées par les paysenvironnants. La Corée du Sud et la France ont respectivement subi d'importantesévolutions politiques dans le passage de la monarchie absolue à la démocratie,évolutions ancrées dans le régime politique en vigueur.En France, les bases démocratiques sont apportées par la Révolution française.La République s'est établie à la suite de l'expérimentation de plusieurs régimespolitiques. La Cinquième République actuellement en place est le fruit d'expériencespassées et notamment de la Première et la Deuxième Guerre mondiale. Contrairement à la France, dans les années 1800 en Corée, les révolutions bourgeoises ont été unéchec. La Corée a été longtemps absorbée par le Japon et le régime démocratique n'a vu le jour qu'à la fin de la Deuxième Guerre mondiale. Depuis, elle a connudifférents régimes politiques allant du régime de présidentiel ou parlementaire auxgouvernements militaires. Ce n'est qu'en 1987 que la sixième République actuellementenvigueur est établie.Actuellement, ces deux pays connaissent des formes de gouvernements différentes. La Corée est un régime présidentiel que l'on peut qualifier de dénaturé alors que la France connaît un régime parlementaire rationalisé, que certains auteurs vont jusqu'à qualifier de semi-présidentiel. Cependant, dans l'administration réelle du régimepolitique, les deux pays connaissent beaucoup de similitudes. Celles-ci s'expliquent par la forme de gouvernement retenue. Le régime constitutionnel en Corée du Suds'inspire fortement du régime présidentiel des Etats-Unis, mais celui-ci s’atténue parl'introduction d'éléments propres au régime parlementaire. En France, l'héritage desprécédentes Républiques implique que le régime soit parlementaire, mais deséléments du régime présidentiel ont été ajoutés tels que le suffrage universel directpour l'élection du Président.Cependant, lorsque le parti politique du président et le parti majoritaire à l'Assembléediffèrent, la forme de gouvernement respective des deux pays se différencie nettement. Premièrement, selon leurs constitutions actuelles, le pouvoir de dissolution parlementairedu Président et l'existence ou la non-existence de la motion de censure que lachambre basse peut exercer à l'encontre du gouvernement forment une premièregrande différence. Deuxièmement, en ce qui concerne le pouvoir exécutif,en Corée du Sud, le Premier ministre est relégué à la seconde place alors qu'enFrance, il peut être un élément indépendant au sein de l'exécutif. Ainsi, entre ces deux pays, la forme de gouvernement et le pouvoir exécutif ont des fortes similitudes, tout en conservant des différences notables.En fonction des formations politiques et des circonstances, un gouvernement divisé(en Corée du Sud) ou de cohabitation (en France) peuvent apparaître. Selon cesdifférentes formes de gouvernement, le Premier ministre peut être soumis au Présidentcomme en Corée du Sud, ou bien au contraire il peut exercer le pouvoir au bénéfice d’un partage des attributionsconstitutionnelles avec le Président comme en France. / Political systems are not created spontaneously, but are the combined results of a nation’s history, the characteristics of its people, and the influences of neighboring countries over an extended period. They are in constant flux and development. Case in point, Korea and France have undergone many political changes from absolute monarchy to the democratic system of government currently in place.In the case of France, after establishing the foundation of democracy through a popular revolution and experiencing various political systems after the establishment of the Republic, it underwent the First and Second World Wars to arrive at today’s system of the Fifth Republic. On the other hand, in the case of Korea, the popular revolution of the late 1800s failed to succeed, and after annexation by Japan, democracy was established only after the end of the Second World War. Since then, Korea has experienced a presidential system of government, a parliamentary government, and a military regime amongst others. The current political regime of the Sixth Republic was stabilized in 1987.Presently, Korea and France are operating under different forms of government: a modified presidential system and a dual executive system respectively. Nevertheless, there are many similarities between the actual operations of the two. The main reason for this phenomenon is that both political systems share common elements. The political system of Korea is the American presidential system with a parliamentary element added to it, while France has elements of direct presidential elections and a presidential system based upon a parliamentary system of government.However, when the president and the majority of parliament disagree, the difference in the political systems of Korea and France is that the president’s right to dissolve parliament and the right to parliamentary disapproval are the most important. Secondly, in terms of executive power, the Korean prime minister is the second in command, whereas in France the prime minister is another form of executive power.Thus, the form and power of government in Korea and France share many similarities but appear to be different. Depending on what political conditions are present, a strong presidential system may appear, or a cohabitation government can take place. Under such a form of government, the prime minister is subordinate to the president. On the contrary, in France, the prime minister exercises his constitutional powers.

Le monde académique a récemment démontré un vif intérêt envers les théories de la socialisation. Pourtant, de nombreux penseurs argumentent que le terme de « socialisation », surtout la socialisation des acteurs internationaux au sein des institutions internationales, demeure peu développé.Différentes approches des relations internationales traitent ce concept de façon divergente. Si le néoréalisme utilise la « socialisation » pour décrire l’homogénéisation de la conduite des acteurs internationaux sous les conditions de l’anarchie1, l’institutionnalisme contractuel aborde l’interaction sociale au sein des institutions comme un phénomène n’ayant pas d’impact sur les «identités» et les « intérêts » des acteurs. Par ailleurs, pour les constructivistes, la socialisation constitue un concept pivot. Dans leurs analyses sur la création et la diffusion des normes internationales, les constructivistes portent leur attention sur les «logics of appropriateness”. Ils expliquent que le comportement des acteurs pertinents subit des mutations dues aux changements endogènes dans leurscaractéristiques normatives et leurs identités. Une autre tendance peu développée dans le monde académique est l’application du concept de la socialisation dans le domaine d’étude de la paix, tout particulièrement, la médiation internationale. Il n’y a pas davantage de consensus parmi les spécialistes de la question même si la nature, l’identité et les caractéristiques cognitives sont indispensables pour effectuer une médiation efficace.Alors qu’un groupe d’experts (Oran Young, Jacob Bercovitch) a présenté l’identité des médiateurs en faveur de la paix comme une raison du succès de la médiation, un autre groupe (auquel appartient Marvin Ott) a réduit ce sujet à une position secondaire. La littérature sur la médiation a étudié plusieurs exemples significatifs, tant à propos du contexte que des conditions de l’intervention diplomatique au plus haut niveau. Parmi ces contributions académiques on peut remarquer une étude de cas sur le rôle du Président américain Carter au cours des négociations de Camp-David2. Dans le même esprit, Brian S. Mandell and Brian W. Tomlin ont étudié les activités de médiation d’Henry Kissinger pendant la période 1973-1976, et ont observé comment sa stratégie a modifié les paramètres qui régissaient la dispute entre les Israéliens et les Arabes, et a contribué à l’introduction de nouvelles conditions3de discussion. Pourtant cet exemple et d’autres études analytiques de la participation de hautes personnalités dans la médiation, n’ont pas suffisamment traité de l’impact des institutionsinternationales sur les processus cognitifs des acteurs. Nous croyons que l’exploration des approches stratégiques des médiateurs avant leur intégration au sein des institutions et l’impact de cette intégration sur leur compréhensionantérieure de la question pourrait constituer un profond intérêt académique. C’est pour cette raison que notre analyse doctorale vise à contribuer à remplir le vide mentionné ci-dessus en combinant ces deux perspectives : l’approche sociologique et la résolution des conflits. L’axe de notre étude doctorale est Tony Blair, ancien Premier ministre britannique et actuellement Représentant du Quartet international pour le Moyen Orient. Nous visons à investiguer sur l’attitude cognitive de Tony Blair à l’égard de la paix entre les Palestiniens et Israël dans les deux contextes institutionnels : d’abord, en tant que Premier ministre (de 1997 à 2007), ensuite en tant qu’Envoyé du Quartet (depuis 2007 jusqu’à maintenant).En termes généraux, nous tenterons de présenter un aperçu de la compréhension conceptuelle de Tony Blair sur des causes du conflit, sa perception des intentions et des capacités des partis concernés, ainsi que sa vision des stratégies les plus efficaces pour résoudre ce conflit. Nous suggerons que le choix de cette personnalité comme unité de notre analyse, parce qu’il a été Premier ministre britannique et qu’il est actuellement Représentant du Quartet est un choix assez pertinent par rapport aux argumentations des constructivistes. Premièrement, selon Cederman, les structures sociales et les caractéristiques des agents sont mutuellement constitutives4. De cela vient la proposition que la stabilité et leschangements dans le système cognitif et la position politique d’un Premier ministre de la Grande-Bretagne (Tony Blair ou d’autres) va produire certains effets sur le comportement gouvernemental. Deuxièmement, ce serait une tâche analytiquement intéressante de montrer comment des interactions internationales peuvent influencer les perceptions du conflit et les prescriptions politiques d’un ancien leader d’une puissance, actuellement envoyé pour la paix. En faisant appel à la rationalité pour notre étude mentionnée ci-dessus, nous pouvons formuler la question de cette recherche de la façon suivante : Comment la conception stratégique de Tony Blair évolue-t-elle avec le changement du contexte institutionnel? Comme il a été explicitement noté, nous observons dans notre étude les processus cognitifs de Tony Blair dans deux contextes institutionnels différents. Pour cela, nous allons diviser le travail en deux parties constitutives, ou deux études de cas. Dans la première étude de cas, nous allons traiter de l’approche stratégie de Tony Blair envers le processus de paix en qualité de Premier ministre. Dans la seconde étude, nous explorerons la stabilité ou le changement de ses conceptions stratégiques en tant que Représentant international. La première étude est divisée en deux chapitres inégaux. Le chapitre I est consacré aux processus cognitifs du Premier ministre du 11 septembre 2001 à janvier 2006. Le chapitre II est concerné par sa dynamique cognitive de janvier 2006 jusqu’à son départ du pouvoir en juin 2007. Cette division inégale est justifiée par notre choix de présenter les événements de début 2006 qui auraient pu potentiellement changer la conception de Tony Blair. En effet, en 2006, le groupe palestinien Hamas a remporté la victoire dans les élections nationales. Un responsable du gouvernement de Blair l’a rappelé: « Personne n’attendait ce résultat.L’élection avait été planifiée comme moyen de neutraliser le Hamas, mais tout d’un coup cela est survenu […] de manière surprenante ». Dans ce contexte, et du point de vue analytique la question principale est de voir comment le Premier ministre Tony Blair a fait face à la situation évoquée. Celle-ci pouvait, soit engendrer des changements dans le contenu de ses convictions sur les approches stratégiques les plus optimales envers le conflit, soit il pouvait interpréter la nouvelle situation de telle façon que sa connaissance et ses idées soient conservées intactes. Comme la victoire du Hamas aux élections de 2006 était passible de produire des changements relatifs à la stabilité du processus de paix, nous avons décidé de traiter cette question dans un chapitre séparé, bien que cette période (2006-2007) soit plus courte que lapériode précedente. / Recently there has been increasing interest in the socialization theory in the academic world. Yet, many scholars claim that the socialization within international institutions remains underdeveloped. Different international relations approaches treat this concept in a different way. Neorealism uses socialization to describe the homogenization of self-help balancing behavior among security-seeking states interacting under conditions of anarchy. Contractual institutionalism generally does not focus on socialization pro- cesses in international relations per se. The notion that social interaction can change preferences and interests or fundamental security philosophies and ideologies is not a central concern. For thisperspective social interaction inside institutions is assumed to have little or no effect on the "identities" or "interests" of actors, or at least institutionalists are divided as to whether there are any effects. The quality or quantity of prior social interaction among players should be irrelevant to the calculus of whether or not to defect. For social constructivists, socialization is a central concept. According to Onuf, “social relations make or construct people-ourselves-into the kinds of beings we are”. In their accounts of the creation and diffusion of international norms constructivists mostly focus onthe "logics of appropriateness" – pro-norm behavior that is so deeply internalized as to be unquestioned, taken for granted. This naturally raises questions about which norms are internalized by agents, how and to what degree. Kratochwil and Ruggie imply that by treating institutions as social institutions "around which actor expectations converge" the interestingquestion becomes the processes by which this intersubjective convergence takes place. On the one hand, most mainstream international relations theorists contend that there are two main ways in which involvement in international institutions changes state behavior in more cooperative directions. The first is through material rewards and punishments: in pursuit of a (mostly) constant set of interests or preferences a state responds to positive and negative sanctions providedexogenously by the institution (rules, membership requirements, etc.) or by certain actors within the institution. The second is through changes in the domestic distributions of power among social groups pursuing (mostly) a constant set of interests or preferences such that different distributions lead to different aggregated state preferences6.On the other hand, constructivists hold that the behavior of relevant actors changes due to endogenous change in their normative characteristics and identities. In other words, change in the behavior of the participants in a social interaction may have little to do with exogenous constraints on the individual and the group and a lot to do with socialization7.The constructivist approach to international institutions proposes the following definition of the concept of socialization: “It is defined as a process of inducting actors into the norms and rules of a given community. Its outcome is sustained compliance based on the internalization of these new norms. In adopting community rules, socialization implies that anagent switches from following a logic of consequences to a logic of appropriateness; this adoption is sustained over time and is quite independent from a particular structure of material incentives or sanctions”. Unlike mainstream neorealist perspectives, sociological approaches would treat institutions as ‘environments’ of social interaction, rather than as ‘boxes’ of material constraints. This means the research focus shifts to the non-material (e.g. psychological, affective, ideological) effects on pro-group behavior that interaction with other human agents can generate9.Thus one of the most frequent research questions posed by them are “When do international institutions create senses of community and belonging? If and when this happens, what does it mean for individual and state allegiances, interests, and identities? What processes underlie such transformative dynamics? For many scholars applying sociological approaches to the exploration of institutions the unit of analysis is the individual who interacts with the social environments inside international institutions. This differs from many of the sociologically oriented studies to date. For the most part, when IR specialists or sociological institutionalists have look for the effects of social interaction at the international level the unit of analysis has tended to be the state (or state elites in a fairly aggregated way). Johnston believes that this focus on the international level where the unit of analysis is the state presents obvious problems when examining particular institutions as social environments since states as unitary actors don't participate in institutions; rather, state agents do, e.g. diplomats, decisionmakers, analysts, policy specialists, non-governmental agents of state principals. In reference specifically to constructivism, Cederman point out that its ontology can best be captured by the notion of complex adaptive systems whereby social structures and agent characteristics are mutually constitutive, or locked in tight feedback loops, where smallperturbations in the characteristics of agents interacting with each other can have large, nonlinear effects on social structures13. This perceptive posits that it is relevant to explore how individual agents or small groups are socialized, because their impact on larger properties of the social environment can be significant. Another underdeveloped trend in academic scholarship is application of socialization approaches to the domain of peace studies and, in particular, international mediation. Neither is there consensus about whether identity, nature and cognitive characteristics of a mediator are indispensable for effective mediation. If on the one hand, certain scholars have addressed the identity of a mediator as predictors of success (for example, Oran Young, Jacob Bercovitch). On the other hand, others would reduce it to a secondary position (for example, Marvin Ott) arguing that they are essentially irrelevant compared to other contextualvariables. Mediation scholarship has undertaken a number of essential case studies about the context and condition of high-level third party involvement. For example, among these contributions are case-studies on President Carter’s role in Camp David negotiations. Brian S. Mandell and Brian W. Tomlin have also carried on a case study of the mediation activities of Henry Kissinger in the Middle East during the period 1973-1976 to verify how his strategy altered the parameters of the dispute and brought about conditions necessary for the creation of new norms. Yet these and other analyses of high-level actors taking part in mediation activities have not sufficiently treated the impact of international institutions on cognitive processes of mediators. We suggest that exploration of belief systems of high-level mediators prior to the entry into international institutions and the impact of the latter on their understanding of the issue would be of essential academic interest. For this reason, our doctoral analysis seeks to contribute to filling the above-mentionedgaps by combining these two perspectives: sociological and conflict resolution. The focus of our work is Tony Blair in the context of the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians. We seek to investigate Tony Blair’s cognitive attitude towards the Middle East peace process within two institutional contexts: first, as British Prime Minister (1997-2007) and,subsequently, as the Middle East Quartet’s Envoy (2007 until nowadays). In general terms, we intend to undertake insight into Tony Blair’s conceptual understanding of the causes of the conflict, his perception about the intentions and capabilities of the parties, as well his strategic beliefs about the most optimal approaches to the peaceful settlement. We assume that the choice of Tony Blair as the unit of analysis both in the role of the British Prime Minister and now the Quartet Representative is quite relevant to the argumentative position of constructivists. First of all, based on Cederman’s above-mentioned point that social structures and agent characteristics are mutually constitutive, changes and stability of the belief system and policy position of the British Prime Minister will produce effects on the governmental behaviour. Second, it would be analytically interesting to trace whether and how international interactions affect the former leader and currently peace envoy’s perceptions of the issue and policy prescriptions. Drawing on the above-mentioned rationale for our analytic study we formulate our research question in the following way: How is Tony Blair’s strategic conception of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process evolving with the change of his institutional context? As was explicitly noted, in our research we observe Tony Blair’s cognitive processes in two institutional contexts. For this purpose, we divide our work into two constitutive parts, or two case studies. In the first case study we elaborate on Tony Blair’s strategic approach to thepeace process between Israel and the Palestinians as British Prime Minister. In the second, we will explore his strategic conceptions as Quartet Representative. The first case-study is in its turn divided into two chapters. Chapter I deals with Prime Minister Tony Blair’s thinking process from September 11, 2001 to January 2006. Chapter II is concerned with his cognitive dynamics from January 2006 until his departure from Downing Street in June 2007. This specific division of Case-study I into two chronologically unequal chapters is justified by our analytic interest to trace cognitive processes under those events that are much likely to cause changes. Precisely, in January 2006 a Palestinian group – Hamas – gainedvictory at national elections. An official in the Blair government recalled: “No one had expected the result. The election had been intended as a way of neutralising Hamas and for it to suddenly turn around and bite us in that way was stonishing”16.From the analytic point of view the basic question is how Prime Minister Tony Blair has coped with this situation. The new situation may either induce changes in the content of his beliefs about optimal strategic approaches to the conflict. Or it may be interpreted in such a manner that his basic assumptions and cognition will be conserved unchanged. Since thisevent is likely to induce either change or stability in his conceptual approaches to the peace process, we decided to treat it in a separate chapter, even though this period is chronologically shorter than the previous chapter.

Since the end of the Cold War, Japan’s defense policy and politics has gone through significant changes. Throughout the post cold war period, US-Japan alliance managers, politicians with differing visions and preferences, scholars, think tanks, and the actions of foreign governments have all played significant roles in influencing these changes. Along with these actors, the Japanese prime minister has played an important, if sometimes subtle, role in the realm of defense policy and politics. Japanese prime ministers, though significantly weaker than many heads of state, nevertheless play an important role in policy by empowering different actors (bureaucratic actors, independent commissions, or civil actors), through personal diplomacy, through agenda-setting, and through symbolic acts of state. The power of the prime minister to influence policy processes, however, has frequently varied by prime minister. My dissertation investigates how different political strategies and entrepreneurial insights by the prime minister have influenced defense policy and politics since the end of the Cold War. In addition, it seeks to explain how the quality of political strategy and entrepreneurial insight employed by different prime ministers was important in the success of different approaches to defense. My dissertation employs a comparative case study approach to examine how different prime ministerial strategies have mattered in the realm of Japanese defense policy and politics. Three prime ministers have been chosen: Prime Minister Hashimoto Ryutaro (1996-1998); Prime Minister Koizumi Junichiro (2001-2006); and Prime Minister Hatoyama Yukio (2009-2010). These prime ministers have been chosen to provide maximum contrast on issues of policy preference, cabinet management, choice of partners, and overall strategy. As my dissertation finds, the quality of political strategy has been an important aspect of Japan’s defense transformation. Successful strategies have frequently used the knowledge and accumulated personal networks of bureaucrats, supplemented bureaucratic initiatives with top-down personal diplomacy, and used a revitalized US-Japan strategic relationship as a political resource for a stronger prime ministership. Though alternative approaches, such as those that have looked to displace the influence of bureaucrats and the US in defense policy, have been less successful, this dissertation also finds theoretical evidence that alternatives may exist.

1 ABSTRACT This diploma thesis, grounded in the theoretical framework of Critical Discourse Analysis, aims to analyse the textual representations of social actors in the New Year speeches of British Prime Ministers. The corpus consists of New Year speeches from the New Year of 2012 to the New Year of 2020. These textual encodings do not need to point directly to the social actors that actually exist in the social world. Instead, they tend to reveal certain ideas that the text-producers have about the social actors. Therefore, the way in which the text-producer portrays a social actor serves as a means of reproducing his or her ideology. In the theoretical part, the purpose of the thesis is considered from the position of Critical Discourse Analysis. Then, the ways of representing social actors in texts are explored together with their impact on ideology and its reproduction. Also, the characteristics of pronouns that can affect the portrayal of these actors are described. The practical part seeks to analyse the New Year speeches with respect to textual means of representing social actors. In doing so, it provides an explanatory critique which aims to reveal what ideas are encoded in textual representations, how they are communicated and how the portrayal of the social actors can affect the recipients. A...

This thesis deals with the development of the media image of Miloš Zeman in the two terms in which he held the most significant political functions, namely the prime minister and the president. The aim is to find out whether the media image of Miloš Zeman at a time when he served as prime minister differs from the current media image that he now has as president. The theoretical part is defined by the role of the media in society and politics. Furthermore, the approaches of objectivity in media are described and finally the basic theories that are applied in the construction of the media image are presented. The methodological part of the research covers the method of quantitative content analysis and how this research was conducted. The necessary data was obtained through the Anopress database, selecting relevant articles of the two national newspapers (Mladá fronta Dnes, Právo) and the two most-watched national television networks (Nova, Česká televize). The conclusion of this thesis is analytical and presents the results.

This study analyses Magdalena Andersson´s speech "Tal till nationen" wich was broadcasted on March 1st, 2022, 8.01pm on SVT due to the Russian armed attack on Ukraine and the detoriorating political security situation in Sweden. The purpose of this study is to investigate how a Swedish prime minister communicates with the nation in a time of crisis, with focus on the linguistic elements of rhetoric.  The study will be carried out with the help of rhetorical text analysis, which means that the speech is transcribed to be analyzed as a text. The rhetorical text analysis has been carried out in four steps. The analysis begins with ensuring the context and rhetorical situation of the speech, followed by an analysis of the disposition of the speech. The analyze continues by individual analyzes of the Prime minister´s use of ethos, pathos, and logos. Finally, the analysis concludes by examining the style of the speech.  The result of the study shows that Magdalena Andersson, in her speech, communicates with the nation through her position as a prime minister to calm the nation. To achieve this, she has created a simple communication with clear messages as well as a diligent use of ethos, pathos, and logos.