No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--Indiana University, Dept. of Kinesiology, 2005. / Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 67-01, Section: B, page: 0220. Adviser: Lawrence W. Fielding. "Title from dissertation home page (viewed Feb. 9, 2007)."

Thesis (M.A.)--Lehigh University, 2009. / Adviser: John M. Gillroy.

<p> The 1990s saw a rise in the participation of NGOs answering the demands of affected populations caught in between armed conflicts, bouts of natural disasters and diseases. Though their intentions were good, it was from this point onwards NGOs have gained their notoriety, despite the work they do to address the needs of man. With a consistent rise of the number of actively participating NGOs, these humanitarian actors have since gone under scrutiny by the general population, which range from ineffective operations, scandals surrounding aid money, ethics within humanitarianism as well as many aid organizations that still remain independent from each other.</p><p> This paper will seek to answer how to improve the role of humanitarian aid in emergency situations, and address its issues and shortcomings. This will be done by analyzing the different criticisms faced by these humanitarian actors, as well as analyzing the different solutions that have since been proposed in order to answer these criticisms and find a new way for these organizations to operate and define themselves. Finally, these analyses will be evaluated and compared among one another.</p><p> Interviews have been held with aid workers and members of humanitarian organizations, in order to get a more intimate perspective of the inside workings of an NGO. Recent literature, studies and findings have also been utilized in order to get a clearer picture of the current state of humanitarian aid, notably from writers such as Thomas Weiss, Hugo Slim, David Rieff and Linda Polman.</p><p> Humanitarian aid cannot be cured with a simple solution; instead, it is an ongoing, gradual process that requires cooperation from governments and organizations in order to move forward. The non-protit sector can stand to learn a lot from the for-profit sector, especially in terms of professionalism and collaborating amongst one another. This change will not come easily, but humanitarian aid also cannot remain stagnant if they hope to reach out to populations in need with quality aid.</p>

A complete theory of interpretation for human rights law must answer two kinds of questions. First: Who should interpret international human rights law? Second: What principles should guide the interpretation of human rights law? Individual governments frequently claim the right to interpret international law as it applies to them, but this claim is contested by many United Nations subgroups and by nongovernmental organizations like Amnesty International. I argue that international institutions are more likely to give a fair hearing to people's human rights than are their own governments. Accordingly, we can conclude as a general rule that international institutions should be assigned authority to interpret international human rights law. The general rule has an exception, however. Democratic states that protect basic freedoms of speech and assembly will promote and protect their own citizens' human rights better than undemocratic states. Moreover, free democratic states, by giving a voice to all citizens, can take advantage of local knowledge about particular human rights problems and solutions, and so are more likely than international institutions to interpret human rights law with a sensitivity to the human rights of all citizens and to the locally important human rights issues. Therefore, unlike other states, liberal democratic states should have the authority to interpret international human rights law as it applies within their borders. What principles should guide the interpretation of human rights law? The answer depends on whether we take a short- or long-term perspective. Currently, the institutions of international law are relatively ineffective when compared to most domestic legal systems. While this remains the case, a principle allowing interpreters to use their judgment about moral human rights in interpreting human rights law can be justified on the basis of the contribution this would make to global deliberation about the proper understanding of moral human rights. As human rights law develops more effective, less voluntaristic institutions, this principle of interpretation should be phased out.

This study introduces a new theory, called group hegemony, that explains how a group of wealthy countries maintains the liberal economic order, and how this order helps sustain the economic disparity between the core and the periphery in the post-WWII era. The theory of group hegemony advances three propositions. First, the Group of Seven (G-7) has replaced the US as the hegemon. The evidence indicates that a hegemon exists. The concentration of power within the core has remained relatively constant since the early 1960s. The US is not responsible for this concentration of power since its economic superiority has declined, whereas the power of the G-7 has remained constant. The G-7 accounts for about three-fourths of the core's power throughout the post-war era even though it constitutes less than one-third of the core's membership. In the early post-war period, the majority of the G-7's power was attributed to the US, but by the mid-1970s, power was more evenly distributed among the G-7 countries. The evidence indicates that the G-7 is the group hegemon. The second proposition contends that the group hegemon maintains the stability of the liberal economic order. The G-7 is the only group with enough power to provide liquidity, manage exchange rates, maintain large open markets, and supply foreign investment. The G-7 countries coordinate their policies when necessary to stabilize the liberal economic order. They collectively intervened in the 1970s and 1980s to stabilize exchange-markets. They coordinated their policies to offset the stock market crash in 1987. They also helped ease the debt crisis, finance the Gulf War, and aid Russia and other economies in transition. The third proposition holds that the rules governing the liberal order help sustain the gap between the core and the periphery. The rules are biased in favor of the core. These rules include preferential treatment for core members, tariff peaks on goods of particular export interest to developing countries, and tariff escalation. The liberal economic order benefits all, but some more than others.