In 2012, The New York Times reported that the Obama Administration excluded all Military-Age Males from the collateral damage count in areas where the U.S engaged in drone warfare/ Though the Military-Age Male (MAM) category references the draft, the term is applied to all boys and men, including civilians, who are aged sixteen years and older. The Military-Aged Male category is not synonymous with 'combatant,' but marks boys and men for differentiated treatment in conflict zones, to the point where male bodies are used as a shorthand for 'combatant' when assessing the collateral damage count. This dissertation seeks to answer an empirical puzzle. The U.S Army/Marine Corps Counter-Insurgency Field Manual (2006), a document which emerged from the American intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan, emphasizes that militants vie for the civilian population's support as a way to win the war against a stronger and better-resourced military force. These documents state that the United States cannot rely on military prowess alone and that, in fact, “non-military means are the most effective” way to win an irregular war against militant groups. Both the Bush Jr. and Obama Administrations used the Military-Age Male category to structure military strategy, meaning that civilian protection was applied asymmetrically and that military violence was legitimized when directed against male civilians. These security practices would seemingly cause resentment from a large segment of the population and undermine the success of U.S foreign policy. This dissertation documents the political ecosystem that legitimized violent military action against the 'Military-Age Male.' Specifically, I examine Military-Age Males under the Bush and Obama Administrations and illustrate how counterinsurgency and drone warfare became practices that were sustained by an elaborate bureaucracy that interpreted the battlespace—and combatant from civilian—by using assumptions about gender. / Thesis / Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)

In the study of international relations, it has been all the time that ¡§security¡¨ means national security and military security. The topic of ¡§security¡¨ in early days was focused on how to avoid suffering from the external military attack. Under this concept structure, economy, culture, or ideology is considered to be the accessories under the military strategy, or a kind of tools to strengthen the military threat. Such practices and thinking are not only helpless to the settlement of the problem, but it is apt to face the security dilemma instead, and the development of education, culture, social welfare, economic construction, and environmental public security, etc. will be oppressed and restricted. Long time of the hostile state for the two sides of Mainland China and Taiwan, makes both sides all the time to construct stronger military force for national defense. However, how much security is really bought by spending huge number of money on national defense? And is it really safe by buying the military equipments? Is it really the security what we want? Is there no other ways to get security without military force to threaten? This thesis attempts to adopt critical study, and analyzes the four concepts of national security from David Baldwin: ¡§Security for whom?¡¨, ¡§Security for which values?¡¨, ¡§From what threat?¡¨, and ¡§By what means?¡¨ It also researches on the thinking of national security concept and different national defense policies in different periods after the government moving to Taiwan in 1949. It is hoped to find out the blind spot of the national security concept in Taiwan, and construct the security view that relies mainly on people.

This dissertation studies public attitudes toward nuclear weapons. When do people become more willing to endorse a preemptive nuclear strike against a foreign country? Utilizing theoretical insights from international relations, comparative politics, and social psychology and original experimental survey data from Israel and the U.S., this dissertation aims to answer these questions. Influential strands of scholarship argue that both the public and political elites have internalized anti-nuclear norms. The critics, however, assert that the moral nuclear taboo lacks robustness. The dissertation joins this debate by offering a novel theoretical framework informed by terror management theory (TMT) and suggests that people are more likely to support extreme forms of warfare (e.g., nuclear strikes) when reminded of their own mortality. Thus, consequentialist factors, such as perceived utility, and psychological factors, such as moral foundations theory and TMT can be causal mechanism in the support for nuclear weapons. The findings support this argument as respondents who are treated with increased salience of their own mortality are more likely to support the use of nuclear weapons. Further, the results show that political ideology, threat perception, and religion are all significant factors in shaping individuals' attitudes towards the use of nuclear weapons. Lastly, the work suggests that Israelis in particular tend to support hawkish national security options at the aggregate level. There is a positive effect of conflict events on Israelis' support for hawkish policies. Overall, this dissertation makes a substantial contribution to our current understanding of public opinion on the use of nuclear weapons in a first strike and why nuclear weapons disarmament, elimination, and non-proliferation is deeply challenging.

This dissertation explores how partisan polarization among the political elites (the President and key Members of Congress) impacts national security decision-making. The research examines the relationship over time beginning at the start of the Cold War through 2014. In doing so, the research tests several hypotheses to determine the nature of the relationship and what the implications might be for future U.S. national security policy-making. There are three different approaches used in the research centered on the same theory of partisan polarization. The first approach examines changes in the level of polarization and defense budgets each year. The second explores the impact of partisan polarization on the outcome of key roll-call votes on national security legislation. Lastly, the third approach studies the changes in polarization relative to the Presidents' decision to use force. Poole and Rosenthal (1984) argue that political polarization has increased among the political elite since the 1960s and the Republicans and Democrats continue to move further apart ideologically (Gray et al. 2015). I argue that the combined effect of polarization and a growing ideological divide between the two major political parties puts our collective national security at risk. Using analytical regression time series models and a qualitative analysis, the findings suggests that rising partisan polarization presents a clear and present threat to our national security.

Disasters are responsible for main disruptions in individuals and communities' lives, affecting their prosperity. The research on this topic is motivated by the increasing number of natural hazards deteriorating into catastrophic events as a result of antropogenic factors. By focusing on how institutions, their decision-making processes, and procedural arrangements, affect multi-actor coordination in international and national disasters, with a three-paper structure, this work represents a systematic investigation of the role of institutions in disaster operations. The second chapter investigates the decision-making process of the United Nations (UN) Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) about the strategy of coordination to adopt when civilians and militaries are involved in humanitarian operations in disaster-affected countries. The results of the archival research, content, analysis, and interviews, show that in insecure settings, such as where the disaster affected-country has low state capacity, civilians and militaries are more likely to merely coexist in the field rather than cooperating. The third and fourth chapters explore the role of political representation and electoral competition in the United States (US) and how differences in the political status between States and Territories can affect their emergency management capabilities in the preparedness, response, and recovery phases. Chapter three investigates political representation via content analysis and interviews, showing how the limited representation and no voting rights at the Congress can prevent Territories in advocating for emergency management legislation and budgeting. Chapter four investigates electoral competion via statistical and spatial analysis, showing how being a State or a Territory, does not matter when it comes to the federal public assistance, and what it does is the electoral competitiveness of the county/municipality and whether it hosts government's offices.

Yes / International Relations (IR) has increasingly paid attention to critical pedagogy. Feminist, post-colonial and poststructuralist IR scholarship, in particular, have long been advancing the discus-sions about how to create a pluralist and democratic classroom where ‘the others’ of politics can be heard by the students, who can critically reflect upon complex power relations in global politics. Despite its normative position, Critical Security Studies (CSS) has so far refrained from join-ing this pedagogical conversation. Deriving from the literatures of postcolonial and feminist pedagogical practices, it is argued that an IR scholar in the area of CSS can contribute to the pro-duction of a critical political subject in the 'uncomfortable classroom', who reflects on violent practices of security. Three pedagogical methods will be introduced: engaging with the students’ lifeworlds, revealing the positionality of security knowledge claims, and opening up the class-room to the choices about how the youth’s agency can be performed beyond the classroom. The argument is illustrated through the case of forced migration with specific reference to IR and Pol-itics students’ perceptions of Syrian refugees in Turkey. The article advances the discussions in critical IR pedagogy and encourages CSS scholarship to focus on teaching in accordance with its normative position. / The research was partly supported by HM Government funding to MK Dhami.

This thesis is situated at the intersection of Feminist International Relations, Critical Security Studies and Gender Studies. It takes as its starting point – and offers a challenge to – the feminist contention that soldiers cannot be peacekeepers due to hegemonic constructions of military masculinity associated with the skills and practices of combat. It problematises this assumption by investigating whether involvement in the practices of conflict resolution on Peace Support Operations (PSOs) influences the construction of military masculinities. The thesis also questions the rather monolithic accounts of masculinity which are found in feminist arguments that peacekeeping soldiers reinforce neo-imperial oppression, and argues that such critiques neglect the potentially more progressive aspects of employing soldiers as peacekeepers. Using the British Army as a case study to explore these conceptual issues, the thesis utilises a novel methodological approach derived from R W Connell’s framework of gender relations and social constructivist discourse theory. It analyses both official and unofficial sources of British Army discourse on PSOs, including military doctrine, recruitment material and autobiography, and finds evidence to suggest that ‘peacekeeper masculinity’ offers a challenge, albeit incomplete, to the hegemonic masculinity associated with combat. The thesis argues that, despite the limited nature of this challenge, peacekeeper masculinity represents an important development because the privileging of conflict resolution practices it embodies involves disruptions to traditional gendered dichotomies and the construction of ‘regendered soldiers,’ with important implications for both international peace and security and gender relations. Finding conflict resolution practices such as negotiating and building consent, moderating the use of force and humanitarian activities manly rather than emasculating is crucial if soldiers are to take PSOs as seriously as they do war. Moreover, associating masculinity with practices that require building relations of sensitivity, mutual respect and empathy has implications beyond the success of PSOs. Such associations not only challenge current models of hegemonic masculinity in the military, but – through replacing relations of dominance with more democratic relations – challenge the entire hierarchical structure of gender relations in western culture and language. As such, in exploring the concept of regendered soldiers, this thesis contributes significantly to theories of change in gender relations as well as to feminist International Relations scholarship on military masculinities, peacekeeping and security.

The debate concerning face veiling has been brought in to view by several governments in Europe. Luca Mavelli studies the debate regarding the burqa using the concept of securitization and from that the objective of this study is to analyze the medial- and the political discourse in Sweden regarding the burqa. The formulated questions drawn from this is; who are the securitizing actors? According to the securitization actors, who can de defined as a referent object? Wherein is the threat according to the securitizing actors? Is it possible to recognize a difference between the medial and the political discourse? Furthermore the paper adopts the theoretical framework that is the concept of securitization, formulated by the Copenhagen School of security. The methodological foundation is based on a social constructivist approach and consequently uses Norman Faircloughs critical discourse analyzes as an analytical tool. Conclusions show that the two discourses often express similar results but a difference is apparent in how the debate is presented. Representatives of the political parties are defined as securitizing actors and to a certain degree so is the media. Furthermore, according to the securitizing actors the referent objects are Swedish traditions and culture, the threat lies in the values that are attached to the burqa.

China has become an increasingly important economic, and more recently, political force in the Middle East. Coupled with the perceived reduction in American power, this has caused Middle East states closely tied to the US to hedge in response to increased strategic ambiguity. Their strategies are characterized by simultaneous attempts to capture the economic and political gains of cooperation with China, while minimizing the risk of a continued dependence for their security on a US perceived to be disengaging from the region. This has resulted in a self-reinforcing regional dynamic of ambiguity that has incentivized these states to draw closer to China and thereby increase Chinese influence in the region. To test this theory, this paper examines the case of Saudi Arabia before discussing the effects of this strategy on the region’s dynamics. Hedging can create a self- fulfilling prophecy that reduces the power of the established hegemon, increases the power of a rising state, and increases the probability of a new systemic structure emerging.

This is a study of regional security in the Middle East from a Critical Security Studies perspective. The main aim of the thesis is to provide an account of the pasts, presents and futures of regional security in the Middle East cognisant of the relationships between the three in one's thinking as well as practices. This is achieved through the threefold structure of the thesis, which looks at Cold War pasts (Part I), post-Cold War presents (Part II) and possible futures (Part III). The thesis also has a set of more specific aims. First, it aims to present a critique of prevailing security discourses in theory and practice with reference to regional security in the Middle East and point to unfulfilled potential immanent in regional politics. Second, the thesis aims to explore the mutually constitutive relationship between (inventing) regions and theories and practices of security. And finally, it aims to show how Critical Security Studies might allow one to think differently about the futures of regional security in the Middle East. The overall thesis is that the Critical Security Studies perspective presents a fuller account of regional security in the Middle East; it offers a comprehensive framework recognising the dynamic relationships between various dimensions and levels of security, as voiced by multiple referents.