No description available.

No description available.

United Nations (UN) peacekeeping principles affect all peacekeeping, thus it is important to under-stand their development. Many important changes in peacekeeping concern robustness and human security. This paper investigates developments in these two areas and their interrelation by means of a literature review, document analysis and case studies of two contemporary UN peacekeeping mis-sions. It identifies three generations in UN peacekeeping marked by changes in human security and robustness and relates these changes to the concept of sovereignty. Further, it identifies human secu-rity as the main motivation behind increasingly robust UN peacekeeping and finds that robust peacekeeping can, but does not necessarily, lead to greater human security.

The emergence of biopolitic during the foundation of the modern nation-state resulted, amongst other things, in a fusion between law and behavioural sciences. In law concerning human rights there is a figure who is referred to as the inhumane human, this figure is dehumanized through the laws and institutions claiming to protect the human value as such. The fact also remain that persons who were persecuted for these acts during the Nuremberg Trials have come to represent the mass-murdered that never killed, as the defendants was mainly administers. The legal paradox were the sovereign perform the crime whilst judging someone for it could be said to have its foundation in the paradox of sovereignty and the state of exception.

<p>This dissertation offers an in-depth exploration of how temporality—and the imperative to control the unfolding of time in particular—is embedded in the practices, processes, and dynamics of contemporary world politics. While most International Relations scholarship remains conspicuously uninterested in questions relating to time, this study sees such temporal blindness as inhibiting the development of adequately nuanced and critically oriented understandings of key theoretical and practical issues in the global political realm. It thus attempts to demonstrate how time can be “brought in” to the study of world politics, and to highlight the analytical utility and critical potential of doing so. In this respect, Part I considers the importance of temporality to perhaps the most fundamental global political concept—state sovereignty—and then moves on to discuss how shifts in the contemporary political imagination have (re-)inscribed temporal contingency as a pressing problem that requires a political response. Part II then attempts to critically think through what is at stake in the resulting proliferation of anticipatory governance strategies premised upon controlling the unfolding of the future through pre-emptive intervention in the present. It is argued that by prioritizing imagination and conjecture in the context of political decision-making, such temporally-inflected strategies serve to radically reconfigure the way political power is organized and exercised, such that a paradigm of political authority best described as "exceptionalism” is enacted. This line of argument is developed through a comprehensive conceptual engagement with one particularly prominent manifestation of this ongoing “temporalization” of the political—namely, the “pre-emptive security” strategies that have emerged as central to the conduct of the global War on Terror. It is concluded that the adoption of anticipatory political rationalities is particularly problematic for the liberal democratic states that have most enthusiastically done so—both in the security realm and beyond.</p> / Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)

This dissertation examines the link between sovereignty, law, community and (il)legal violence in 20th/21st century Mexican narratives associated with drug trafficking themes. The field of biopolitics provides ample pathways to explore the intersection of these concepts as they are portrayed in contemporary Mexican literature, music and film. Combining the theories of Michel Foucault, Roberto Esposito, Giorgio Agamben and Carl Schmitt, among others, this project analyzes the law and the sovereign, as well as the community and the narco within the spaces they inhabit as they enter in (violent) dialogue with each other. Furthermore, such relationship is viewed panoramically in three stages. First, I analyze the rise of a mythologized narco-sovereign and the creation of what could be conceptualized as Narcobiopolitcs, which materializes the moment the drug trafficker emerges into the Mexican collective imaginary and fights for a space for its own “community.” Second, narco-communities are allowed to thrive in the outskirts, cementing the figure of the narco-sovereign, a figure that challenges the power of the law. Lastly, the relationship between the law and the trafficker disintegrates due to an excess of violence and the communities they inhabit collapse, thus pointing to the fall of the (narco) community. The authors examined to explore these three phases are: Pablo Serrano, Yuri Herrera, Juan Pablo Villalobos, Gerardo Cornejo, Raúl Manríquez, Víctor Hugo Rascón Banda and Orfa Alarcón (literature); Gerardo Naranjo (film); Los Tucanes de Tijuana, Jenni Rivera, El Komander, Gerardo Ortiz and Los Tigres del Norte (music). The prologue provides a socio-historical context explaining the rise of drug trafficking violence in 20th century Mexico, as well as the current debate on narconarratives. It argues that such debate has yielded stagnating responses from academics and critics and specifies this project’s need to steer away from it. Chapter one offers the theoretical framework that will be utilized along the subsequent chapters in order to create a new space for dialogue surrounding these narratives. Chapter two analyses the rise of the mythologized figure of the narco-sovereign. The purpose of this entity is to create its own narco-community at the margins of the law, even though such community will always be under the Sovereign’s gaze. Chapter three showcases well-developed narco-communities who have managed to claim, through their narco-sovereigns, a space in their fight against the government institutions. Chapter four pinpoints the moment the relationship between legal and illegal violence collapses. This moment is portrayed in the narratives as the destruction of the community, with both entities (government and drug traffickers) responsible for such catastrophic downfall. Finally, the epilogue will conclude this dissertation by summarizing the main theoretical and analytical discussions, thus offering an opening to academic dialogue about narconarratives without the aim of sealing off the topic. Additionally, the epilogue will disclose research routes to undertake in the near future. / Spanish

This dissertation analyzes the problem of political violence in popular struggles for freedom and regime change. It seeks not only to explicate the different arguments for and against the use of violence in political struggle, but also the extent to which these various ways set the conditions for the political landscape after the struggle. To do that, I engage the arguments of Frantz Fanon, M. K. Gandhi, and Hannah Arendt. While these authors diverge with regard to the role of violence in popular struggles, all three conceptualize ways to achieve nonviolent politics or at least to reduce the role of violence in normal everyday politics. While Fanon and Gandhi offer viable diagnoses of the problem of violence and liberation, by stressing the structural and affective dimensions of political violence, Arendt challenges the traditional equation between political power and violence and offers an institutional alternative in her theory of a federated council system. My analysis reconstructs the link between the critique of violence (state, colonial, or mass violence) and the constructive theory of foundation and preservation of stability and effective relations of trust. These relations of trust are necessary to prevent recurring violence and escalation in the period following the struggle. By analyzing the intersections of violence, political action, and ethics in the work of Fanon, Gandhi, and Arendt, I provide a theoretical framework for understanding the role of violence in popular struggles and everyday politics, while avoiding the limitations of each theory. The aim of this study is threefold: first, to provide an alternative to the prominent positions of realism and moralism in political philosophy through an evaluation of ethical argumentation in politics regarding the problem of violence; second, to contribute to debates about political freedom, and sovereignty in democratic theory through examination of different solutions for the conservation of power and freedom in the transition from struggle to ordinary politics; and third, to develop a critical lens with which to examine situations of conflict and popular struggles, the place of violence, and the transition to ordinary politics. By way of conclusion, I demonstrate the relevance of this study through examination of a concrete case from the Middle East: the Egyptian revolution of 2011. The theoretical framework set by the multifocal debate provides a resource to analyze the promise and the ensuing crisis of the Egyptian project. / Philosophy

““Fraught with Disastrous Consequences for our Country”: Cherokee Sovereignty, Nullification and the Sectional Crisis” explores how the national debates over Indian sovereignty rights contributed to the rise of American sectionalism. Although most American citizens supported westward expansion, the Cherokee Nation demonstrated effectively that it had adopted Western civilized standards and, in accord with federal treaty law, deserved constitutional protections for its sovereignty and homelands. The Cherokees’ success divided American public opinion over that nation’s purported rights to constitutional protections. When Georgian leaders and the state militia harassed Northern white American missionaries who supported Cherokee sovereignty rights, even citizenship rights seemed in question. South Carolina’s leaders capitalized on the Cherokee debate by framing their own protest against federal tariffs as a complementary states’ rights issue. Thus, in 1832, nine months after the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Cherokee sovereignty protections against Georgia’s removal efforts in Worcester v. Georgia, South Carolina issued an Ordinance of Nullification, proclaiming its state right to nullify federal taxation. Current historiography tends to suggest that most Americans at that time ignored Cherokee sovereignty to confront South Carolina’s Nullification challenge. Alternatively, this project proposes that the debates over Cherokee sovereignty exacerbated Americans’ fear over South Carolina’s Nullification crisis, because together they representing a two-state challenge to federal authority. While current historiography also recognizes that expansion was a critical feature of American sectionalism, the debate over Indian sovereignty within already established Eastern states demonstrates that the politics of expansion was not simply a Western borderlands issue. Nullification threatened the Union because Georgia and President Andrew Jackson simultaneously ignored the U.S. Supreme Court’s authority to interpret constitutional law, while promoting the vital importance of constitutional law. To explore the sectional tensions that linked Cherokee sovereignty and Nullification, this project reviews the earlier period in American politics when these issues evolved separately to demonstrate the effect of their eventual connection. The first chapter provides an example that shows how the Cherokees protected their treaty rights successfully during this earlier period. Chapter Two considers the unique histories of South Carolina and the Cherokee Nation, and their collective challenges to the evolving American political economy. Chapter Three explores how the non-white republic of the Cherokee Nation contributed to the weakening of race-based slavery positivism, despite its own investment in slavery. Chapter Four demonstrates how a widening circle of congressional figures began connecting publicly the debates over Cherokee removal, tariffs, and slavery, made especially visible during the Webster-Hayne debates in the Senate. Chapter Five delineates the national discord over the extra-legal violence against white missionaries who protected Cherokee interests. As evident through the recently discovered prison journal of Rev. Samuel Austin Worcester—of Worcester v. Georgia—this chapter also demonstrates that despite their rhetoric otherwise, Jacksonians recognized the sectional toxicity when the American public connected Cherokee sovereignty and Nullification. / History

No description available.

Yes / This paper examines arms trade regulation in the late 19th century and contributes to the literature on norms, arms regulation, humanitarian arms control and arms control as governmentality. I begin by examining the 1890 Brussels Act as an example of the first ‘Matryoshka doll’ of arms trade governance, a specific humanitarian initiative focused on regulating a particular class of weapons in a specified area. I suggest the Act represented an attempt to graft a regulatory arms trade norm onto an established anti-slavery norm and that it was more extensively implemented than has been recognised. I then locate the Act within the second Matryoshka doll of arms trade governance, the broader approach to prohibition operating in the era. In contrast to representations of the period as one of free trade in arms I demonstrate the extensive efforts to restrict the transfer of firearms to colonial subjects. Finally, I demonstrate how mechanisms of prohibition and permission constituted the practices of arms control as governmentality – the third matryoshka doll - where the concern was to define and manage which gradations of people could legitimately own, trade and use which gradations of weapons in what contexts. Overall, the paper challenges the optimistic assumptions in much of the literature on humanitarian arms control and arms trade norms. Instead, I suggest the merger of humanitarianism and arms control can reflect the influence of both good and bad norms; is not necessarily incompatible with colonialism, racism or imperial violence and can be congruent with liberal militarism. / Research Development Fund Publication Prize Award winner.