This thesis explores the U.S.-Pakistani relationship in the War on Terror in an effort to better understand the U.S.-Pakistani power dynamic. In particular, this thesis analyzes the United States’ relationship with Pakistan via a Hobbesian understanding of social contract theory: a state’s right to sovereignty. It then utilizes this framework to analyze the U.S. use of drones on Pakistani soil. This paper suggests a protectionist model has been adopted by the United States, thereby making these drone strikes violations of the social contract. As a result, this paper argues that because of this, the United States will have to uphold the state’s responsibility to protect in order to maintain their social contracts with other states.

What is the relationship between environment and tribal sovereignty, and what is the value of tribally-controlled land in the twenty-first century? This dissertation turns to the Meskwaki Nation, the only resident Native American community in Iowa, to provide a long-term perspective on the benefits and pitfalls of tribal land reclamation. Rather than focusing on dispossession, it emphasizes how one tribe reacquired its land base following removal. In the process, it shows how environment and sovereignty are sources of political and economic leverage for Native communities. They are useful categories for organizing Native histories and understanding how environmental, political, and economic interactions have shaped and been shaped by Indigenous struggles for sovereignty and self-determination. This work examines how the unique status of the Meskwaki “settlement,” which is not a “reservation” because the tribe purchased it with tribal money in 1857, has expanded the tribe’s capacity for self-determination. The Meskwaki story confirms that increasing tribal land holdings—as well as tribal control over them—provides an anchor from which tribes can maintain their sovereignty, creates opportunities for self-determination, and offers tribes political and economic leverage. But land reclamation is not a silver bullet that can solve the many problems faced by Native Nations today. Rather, tribal land (and by extension, the environments on it) is a political tool that can be deployed in defense of tribal sovereignty. By recognizing the potential of tribally-controlled land to create leverage within the paradigms of state/tribal and federal/tribal politics, tribes can utilize their land bases as sovereign, political territory and pursue economic and political strategies that can empower their continuing recovery from the processes of colonization.

The persistent Pinnacle Islands controversy has been often observed from several perspectives, such as historical entitlements, territorial sovereignty prerogatives, maritime rights to exploit natural recourses, and strategic affairs. The importance of this dispute lies in the contextual necessities and interests of the governments from China, Japan, and Taiwan. Likewise, the United States implications and interests beneath the dispute have also been manifested. In this case, the Japan-U.S. strategic alliance serves as a framework for the Washington policy maintenance in East Asia. In the meantime, International Public Law as an alternative to solve the Pinnacles controversy has failed. Under those circumstances, an armed conflict among the parties is possible, yet the United States military presence can prevent them.

<p>The main aim of this study is to investigate which structural ideas that lies behind the European Union’s marine operation Atalanta that has been put into motion to counteract piracy and robbery outside the coast of Somalia. In order to do this, we have with the use of the theory of weak states, intervention as well as sovereignty, investigated EU’s document in the question with the use of the idea centered analytical method. The questions that has guided this study, lies both on an empirical and theoretical level. On the basis of a theoretical perspective we have investigatet how the principle of sovereignty and thoughts on intervention affects the international community’s handling of the potential problems in weak states. On the empirical level we investigated which conceptions and structural ideas that can explain EU’s strategy in the set up and execution of operation Atalanta.</p><p>The study sowed that the humanitarian ideal is the most prominent idea behind this operation. It also showed that there is a realistic view behind the operation. This view means that one always ought to win something on every operation one executes. Further more, we noticed that the principle of sovereignty ever since the Cold War had to stand back in favor of humanitarian interventions. This can be explained by the fact that human rights has become a stronger ideal. However, the question regarding when it is right and who has he right to intervene is still an object of discussion on both a theoretical level and from case to case.</p><p> </p><p><strong>Key words: </strong>intervention, weak states, sovereignty, Somlia, Atalanta, EU<strong> </strong></p>

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Delaware, 2006. / Principal faculty advisor: Daniel Green, Dept. Political Science & International Relations. Includes bibliographical references.

The thesis poses the question of how one can stabilize a state through external intervention without destabilizing sovereignty. The study critically examines the justifications for international and regional interventions in the cases of Liberia and Burundi through a social constructivist framework. The main objective of the thesis is to enhance the understanding of how sovereignty is interpreted during non-aggressive interventions, both from a theoretical perspective through analysis of official discourses and from a practical perspective through interviews with external and internal actors in the field. The thesis argues that it may be more fruitful for future studies to question the aim of these interventions, rather than ask how to improve them. The study finds that rather than reinforce the sovereignty, these interventions neutralize states subject to external intervention in the sense that they become dependent on external capacity to maintain their stability, thereby maintaining peace and order in the international arena. The conclusion is that these interventions remain both controversial and paradoxical and the stated aim of reinforcing the state's sovereignty is questionable at best.

Recently, many authors from various theoretical backgrounds have written books or articles trying to clarify what the role of the sovereign state is within the wider political context of “global politics.” This thesis seeks to critically engage with the way in which this debate has been framed by the vast majority of these authors. Indeed, while most authors frame this debate as an essentially empirical disagreement concerning the objective composition of global politics, we will be arguing that it is really a debate that concerns the problem of political foundation and the possibly changing nature of the dominant ways of answering this problem in contemporary “global politics.” From this perspective, the vast majority of those involved in this debate simply pass over - as somehow analytically uninteresting - most of the questions that would really need to be explained and understood. This thesis seeks to address this crucial oversight

Since the end of World War II, through the mandates of Prime Ministers Pierre Trudeau, Brian Mulroney, Jean Chrétien, Paul Martin and Stephen Harper, the Canadian government has found itself in conflict with the US Administration over the question of Arctic sovereignty. This situation is particularly difficult because of the power imbalance between the two countries. Thus, how Canada deals with the US is critical.<p> John Kirton identifies five ways in which Canada manages its differences with the US on foreign policy issues. The first is the process of ad hoc adjustment and problem-solving on individual issues. A second way is by pursuing solutions that achieve integration and cooperation. The third strategy consists of building defences and taking initiatives to reduce Canadas vulnerability to the US. The fourth strategy involves the deliberate influencing of the US domestic policy process in order to create policy that is more advantageous to Canadians.<p> In the fifth strategy, Canada aligns itself with others in the international community, building coalitions that can match the power and strength of the US; but more importantly, it establishes a place for Canada to lead the discussion and pursue its own interests. John Holmes believed that Canadian foreign policy was best served by multilateralism, as Canada often found it difficult to further its own interests within a bilateral framework. Kirton takes Holmes argument one step further by observing that by playing a leadership role in the multilateral arena on specific issues, Canada can help find global solutions that advance Canadian interests.<p> This thesis uses Kirtons analytical framework to examine the strategies that Canada has employed in dealing with conflicts with the US over the Arctic. It examines the Trudeau, Mulroney, Chrétien, Martin and Harper governments and finds a common thread in their approaches. While showing that each one adopted a number of the strategies identified by Kirton, the thesis draws particular attention to their common utilization of the fifth strategy of working with others to reshape the international or global communitys perspective on Arctic issues in the pursuit of Canadian interests.

This study examines the theories about intervention and sovereignty in relation to the world of today, with the raising question about humanitarian intervention in a globalized society.The purpose of this paper is to examine if intervention can be justified in a sovereign state and how it can be justified. The expected outcome is that conclusion can be drawn from the specific case with United Nations intervention in Bosnia and Hercegovina, and what kind of motives they putted up to justify their intervention.Because we are still living in the era of the Westphalia system with the inherited thoughts of state sovereignty, but in conflict with the new ideas of globalization and human rights, it’s of big relevance to look at this topic closer.First of all the reader is presented to the theoretical aspects of state, sovereignty and different kinds of intervention, to become more aware of the complications surrounding the relationship between these conceptions.The method used in this study is a motive analysis with the focus on the motives told by United Nation, to be the reason for the intervention in Bosnia and Hercegovina. The empirical results are based on the reports from United Nations Security Council during the years 1991 – 1995.The results are that the intervention in Bosnia and Hercegovina can be justified when looking at the theories in relation to the empirical result, with the FN – charter and the fact of violation against humanitarian law and human rights.One conclusion can easily be drawn, that individual rights are playing a big role in today’s global society and are putting some pressure on the United Nation to look over the rules about humanitarian intervention.

Since the end of World War II, through the mandates of Prime Ministers Pierre Trudeau, Brian Mulroney, Jean Chrétien, Paul Martin and Stephen Harper, the Canadian government has found itself in conflict with the US Administration over the question of Arctic sovereignty. This situation is particularly difficult because of the power imbalance between the two countries. Thus, how Canada deals with the US is critical.<p> John Kirton identifies five ways in which Canada manages its differences with the US on foreign policy issues. The first is the process of ad hoc adjustment and problem-solving on individual issues. A second way is by pursuing solutions that achieve integration and cooperation. The third strategy consists of building defences and taking initiatives to reduce Canadas vulnerability to the US. The fourth strategy involves the deliberate influencing of the US domestic policy process in order to create policy that is more advantageous to Canadians.<p> In the fifth strategy, Canada aligns itself with others in the international community, building coalitions that can match the power and strength of the US; but more importantly, it establishes a place for Canada to lead the discussion and pursue its own interests. John Holmes believed that Canadian foreign policy was best served by multilateralism, as Canada often found it difficult to further its own interests within a bilateral framework. Kirton takes Holmes argument one step further by observing that by playing a leadership role in the multilateral arena on specific issues, Canada can help find global solutions that advance Canadian interests.<p> This thesis uses Kirtons analytical framework to examine the strategies that Canada has employed in dealing with conflicts with the US over the Arctic. It examines the Trudeau, Mulroney, Chrétien, Martin and Harper governments and finds a common thread in their approaches. While showing that each one adopted a number of the strategies identified by Kirton, the thesis draws particular attention to their common utilization of the fifth strategy of working with others to reshape the international or global communitys perspective on Arctic issues in the pursuit of Canadian interests.