Inaug.-diss.--Würzburg. / Lebenslauf. "Literaturverzeichnis": p. 6-7.

The Iranian economy has over 30-years been under several of US sanctions due to differences in their political objectives, affecting primarily their economic lifeblood, the oil business. Therefore during this period the Iranian economy has experienced setbacks in their development of national prosperity. This paper investigates the effect of the economic sanctions, during the time period 1975-2006, on Iran’s trade flows by incorporating the gravity model. Also, including geographical proximity and cultural ties further extends the model, which has been shown to strongly influence trade. The findings suggest that sanctions have negative impact on trade flows and are consistent with previous findings. Further estimation methods such as the Heckman- and PPML method are applied accounting for zero trade flows. The empirical  results indicate that sanctions have had a large negative effect on trade flows as expected. When further dividing the sanctions into five different time periods the results conclude the previous ones, however the five time periods have been influenced by sanctions in different varieties. Hence sanctions hamper trade and prevent the Iranian economy to thrive to its fullest potential.

The ethics of economic sanctions is an issue that has been curiously neglected by philosophers and political theorists. Only a handful of philosophical journal articles and book chapters have ever been published on the subject; yet economic sanctions, as I will show, are significantly morally problematic and their use stands in need of moral justification. The aim of this thesis then is to consider how economic sanctions might be morally justified. Of the few writers who have considered this issue, the majority point to the analogies between economic sanctions and war and use the just war principles (just cause, proportionality etc.) as a framework within which to assess their moral permissibility. I argue that this is a mistake. The just war principles are derived from a set of complex and detailed arguments all planted firmly within the context of war. These arguments contain premises that, whilst they may hold true in the case of war, do not always hold true in the case of economic sanctions. Nevertheless, the rich just war tradition does offer a valuable starting point for theorising about economic sanctions and in the thesis I consider how the wider just war tradition might be brought to bear on the case of economic sanctions, beginning, not with the just war principles, but with the underlying arguments for those principles. In particular, I consider whether economic sanctions can be justified on the grounds that they are a form of self- or other-defence, that they are the ‘lesser evil’ and that they are a form of punishment. I argue that certain types of economic sanctions can be justified on the grounds that they are a form of self- or other- defence and that, in extreme circumstances, certain types of economic sanctions can be justified as the ‘lesser evil’. However, I argue that economic sanctions cannot be justified on the grounds of punishment. I also develop a ‘clean hands’ argument for economic sanctions that is unavailable to the just war theorist; I argue that where the goods and services to be supplied would contribute to human rights violations or other wrongful acts, there is a duty to impose economic sanctions to avoid complicity in this wrongdoing.

In November 2013, the Islamic Republic of Iran reached an interim agreement with six world powers, including the United States. After the agreement was implemented in January 2014, Iran froze uranium enrichment in exchange for limited sanctions relief from the United States. This was the first diplomatic exchange between the United States and Iran in over thirty years. Keeping Iran from the Bomb analyzes how each country’s respective domestic politics and stereotypes of the other have, until recently, impeded diplomacy between the two nations. This study examines American-Iranian relations during the hostage crisis, the Bush administration, and the Obama administration to do the following: analyze what has prevented diplomacy in the past, explain the circumstances that made the interim agreement possible, and show what factors threaten this diplomatic progress. The primary argument of this thesis is that the leaders of both the United States and Iran are encouraged, and often rewarded, by various entities to demonize the other nation. If the leaders of the United States and Iran can convince their domestic constituents that continued cooperation with the other country will be beneficial, diplomacy can move forward.

国立情報学研究所で電子化したコンテンツを使用している。

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of North Texas, Dec., 2009. / Title from title page display. Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Michigan State University. Dept. of Political Science, 2008. / Title from PDF t.p. (viewed on Aug. 19, 2009) Includes bibliographical references (p. 263-280). Also issued in print.

Thèse--Univ. de Genève. / Bibliography: p. [245]-251.

Thesis (L.L.M. (Faculty of Law))--University of the Western Cape, 2008. / Includes bibliographical references (leaves 149-166)

Title from PDF of title page (University of Missouri--Columbia, viewed on March 2, 2010). The entire thesis text is included in the research.pdf file; the official abstract appears in the short.pdf file; a non-technical public abstract appears in the public.pdf file. Dr. A. Cooper Drury, Dissertation Chair. Vita. Includes bibliographical references.