In recent times, the issues surrounding the "67 borders" have become part of the public debate. In recent speeches, President Obama has suggested that Israel should return to pre-1967 borders with "land-swaps" in exchange for some form of peace with the Palestinians living within current Israeli territory. The validity of Obama's suggestion has been questioned by both members of the political left and right and in the opinion of this author, with considerable merit. However, the ultimate judgment on the validity of Obama's suggestion should be based on a study encompassing the decisions, both correct and flawed, of the leaders during the 1967 war. For this, a study of collective misperceptions, decision making, and the eventual consequences such decisions brought is necessary. That is the purpose of this thesis. For a proper analysis of the misperceptions and decision making surrounding the 1967 war, its proper to review the source material. In that light, there is no shortage of material written about the 1967 war; American, Israel, and Arab authors have all contributed to the historical records. However, much of the material is focused on a historical perspective and not on the decision-making process. There are not many exceptions. Therefore, it becomes important to compare the newer analyzed material against the primary source material and discuss the discrepancies. At the end, it will be determined whether the collective governmental decisions based upon misperceptions accelerated, decelerated, or had a neutral effect on the outbreak of the war. Comparing the source material and viewing it through the filter of newly released information will constitute the methodology whenever possible. The results of this study have revealed a mixed bag of results depending on the nation in question. This was to be expected because individual nations are subject to different misperceptions.; Nations falling under the spell of different misperceptions experience different consequences and outcomes than those who do not. Additionally, even if two separate nations are exposed to the same stimulus, their response may be completely different. In terms of the 1967 war, it can be stated that Israeli misperceptions staved off the start of the 1967 War, whereas Soviet and Arab misperceptions served to accelerate it. By contrast American misperceptions seemed to have little if any affect whatsoever. The purpose of thesis is to expose and documents misperceptions and the resulting consequences that arose from them. It is not designed to make judgments about the current political situation. However, it is the sincere hope of this author that when a situation runs parallel to the events of the 1967, some of the same mistakes can be avoided. Exactly what runs parallel, and what is significant in today's world, is left to the reader's own judgment.

This research examines the establishment and expansion of Hezbollah. It uses a policy perspective in explaining the growth of this organization. Moreover, it focuses on Israel’s disproportionate use of force in Lebanon as a major cause behind the very existence of Hezbollah. The analysis of Israeli policy will be done by examining three separate conflicts as case studies. These events are: the 1982 (Peace for Galilee) invasion of Lebanon that helped to create Hezbollah, the 1996 (Operation Grapes of Wrath) Hezbollah-Israeli conflict which served to bolster Hezbollah in Lebanon, and finally the 2006 Hezbollah-Israeli war which solidified Hezbollah as a military force in the region. The first part of the study analyzes the 1982 Israeli invasion of Lebanon to dismantle PLO bases and the resulting vacuum filled by Hezbollah. In an effort to eliminate Hezbollah, Israel again invaded Lebanon in 1996 allowing Hezbollah to expand its power based in Lebanon by providing a number of services including healthcare, financial services, and construction among others. In 2006, Israel again invaded Lebanon resulting in an increase in weapons shipments and funding to Hezbollah from Syria, Iran and a number of other countries, further increasing danger to Israel. These invasions have served to bolster Hezbollah in Lebanon. The purpose of this thesis is to examine the repercussions of Israeli military invasions in Lebanon

The question of the stability of American hegemony has consumed U.S. International Relations discourse since the Post-Cold War narrative. With the rapid changes in the international realm and the countless U.S. humanitarian and military operations around the globe, it is no surprise that many well-known researchers have taken the time to look at the impact of American hegemony under strict observation. However, more analysis must be made of these operations' strategic purpose and success. This thesis strives to fill this gap by conducting in-depth case studies on various U.S. military operations from the early 2000s to the present in the Middle East, Eastern Europe, and East Asia. These case studies were selected with the research tool "Comparative Case Study" method to limit any bias in which country or historical event to include in the case study chosen section. With the aid of Structured Analytical Techniques (SATs), an analysis is made using the historical information gathered by the case studies to determine whether the success and impact of U.S. presence in these regions are secure enough to go against a rising Chinese state. Contrary to the resources and attention given to these military operations, the lack of agreement among American presidential administrations on a strategy could have deteriorated American hegemonic presence abroad.

Since the 2019 territorial defeat of the Islamic State (IS) in northeastern Syria, thousands of foreign nationals affiliated with the Islamic militant group have been detained in refugee camps and prisons in the region - the humanitarian conditions of which have come under increased scrutiny. As a result, the repatriation of these individuals has become a contentious migration-related policy issue and has led to diverse state responses. In the North American context, there is a striking contrast between Canada’s ‘passive’ approach and the United States’ ‘active’ role in these repatriation efforts. Through a comparative critical discourse analysis (CDA) using Fairclough’s methodological three-step framework and Balzacq’s sociological securitization theory, the public rationale of Canadian-American policy diversion is explored. As a result, this study contributes new knowledge to the field, providing unique insights on how and why two closely-allied countries justify their engagement with IS- affiliated citizens in fundamentally different ways.

As commonly understood, and particularly espoused by Kurdish nationalists, the Kurds are by far the largest ethnic group in the world without their own nation-state. An estimated 2 to 2.5 million ethnically Kurdish people inhabit portions of Syria. There are approximately 6.5 million ethnically Kurdish people in Iraq, 7.6 million in Iran, and 16 million in Turkey. Overall, there are about 30 million Kurds in the world. In the broader context of the Kurdish nationalist struggle, this paper suggests that there is a growing bipolar hegemony for power over the control of Kurdish land and politics. Research was predicated around the question of why not all Kurdish groups pursue full independence. Standing in contrast to each other despite relatively similar goals is the Group of Communities in Kurdistan (KCK) and the Kurdish Democratic Party (KDP). The KCK movement is the more diverse of the two, with its member organizations being the dominant forces of the Kurdish movement in Turkey, Syria, and Iran. Within Turkey, the KCK is represented politically through the HDP and PKK, along with the armed wing of the PKK (HPG). In Syria, KCK is represented politically through the PYD and its armed wing YPG. In Iran, the KCK is represented by PJAK and in Iraq it is represented by the PÇDK. In Syria and Turkey, KCK affiliated groups are the dominant political and militia force. The only Kurdish inhabited region where this is not the case is in the Kurdish Regional Government in Iraq, which is dominated politically, economically, and militarily by the KDP and its affiliates. The two camps differ in a host of ways: the KCK espouses anti-state, anarcho-socialist sentiment while the KDP opts for establishing a traditional nation-state. The KCK has poor relations with Turkey universally, while the KDP and by extension the KRG has warm relations built off of growing economic interests. Most importantly, their end goals for Kurdish society are drastically different: KCK organization call for autonomous communities and do not advocate for a state, in direct contrast to the KDP’s long iii term goal of an independent nation-state for the Kurdish people. Despite the common enemy of Islamic State, tensions between the two camps have only increased as each looks to become the voice for the Kurdish nation.

The IRGC, or the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, and Iran have utilized soft power to increase their influence within the Middle East. By using military superiority; ideological influence; and trade, both the Iran and the IRGC established dependency between themselves and patron states. Of these patron states, the research focuses on Iraq; Syria; and Yemen, and how Iran and the IRGC affect them through soft power. This research suggests that Iran and the IRGC is using the disability of the aforementioned states to increase their own influence by making them dependent on Iranian military supplies; cultural indoctrination to align with Iranian ideology; and economic dependent on Iran. As Iran's influence grows within these states, its power in the Middle East grows and becomes a security risk for Saudi Arabia; Israel; and any other regime that does not have its interests align with the Iranian regime.

The thesis purports to assess the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) in maintaining international peace and security and the International Criminal Court (ICC) in prosecuting individuals who have committed severe violations of international humanitarian law (IHL) and international law, during humanitarian and counter-terrorism operations. The thesis endeavours to highlight the failures of both institutions, firstly, the UNSC being unable to fulfil its institutional mandate, which is mainly attributed to the abuse of veto privileges granted to the five permanent members (P5). This has effectively allowed individuals from the militaries of the P5 and their allies elude criminal liability, promoting a culture of impunity. The UNSC’s failure to prevent P5 members use of unauthorised military force in pursuing counter-terrorism operations and interpose expeditiously in humanitarian crises, have also contributed to the erosion of the institutions’ legitimacy, which is further perpetuated by the USA’s continued ‘War on Terror’ doctrine after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Secondly, the ICC’s inability to prosecute individuals for crimes under the Rome Statute will also be highlighted as the principle of complementarity and the court’s inability to enforce arrest warrants are significant factors contributing to the institutions inability to administer international criminal justice. The thesis draws upon practical examples to substantiate the failures of both institutions by referring to the conflicts in: Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine, Syria and Libya. Before concluding the UNSC and the ICC have become futile, the thesis will then make recommendations for reform and propose a novel solution to restore legitimacy back to both institutions.

No description available.

This study draws on the theories of pluralism and solidarism from the English School to analyze the approaches of Security Council members towards the Responsibility to Protect (R2P) in Libya and Syria. Using Stephen Toulmin's model of argumentation analysis, the study also provides a normative critique of these arguments. The study illuminates the divergent positions taken by the permanent members of the UN Security Council in the context of R2P during the crises in Syria and Libya. The analysis uncovers two starkly different approaches. On one side, representatives from Great Britain, France, and the United States advocate for the protection of human rights, democracy, and freedom. On the other side, representatives from Russia and China prioritize state sovereignty and the maintenance of order and stability. This stark contrast underscores the complexity and challenges inherent in implementing R2P. The study also highlights the concrete arguments and approaches taken by the Security Council’s permanent members. This provides a detailed understanding of how these differences manifest in practice and how they affect decision-making in the Security Council.  Based on the normative analysis, The study found that the normative frameworks of pluralism and solidarism offer distinct perspectives on human rights and state sovereignty, influencing the strength of the permanent members' arguments. Pluralism emphasizes state sovereignty and non-intervention, showing skepticism towards R2P, while solidarism highlights the protection of human rights and supports international interventions, aligning with R2P principles. In practice, examples like Libya and Syria have demonstrated the complexity and challenges of implementing R2P. In the case of Libya, NATO's intervention led to significant loss of life and destabilization, questioning the legitimacy and effectiveness of the actions. This situation has underscored the difficulty of balancing the protection of human rights with respect for state sovereignty. The integration of Responsibility While Protecting is proposed in R2P's third pillar to ensure responsible and effective humanitarian interventions.

Aucun projet d’autodétermination kurde n’a donné lieu à un État souverain. Cependant, en 1991, une entité politique autonome kurde est née de facto au nord de l’Irak. Puis, en 2004, son statut a été élevé à celui de jure. Similairement, une entité autonome kurde existe de facto en Syrie depuis 2012. En même temps, les Kurdes de la Turquie et de l’Iran ont du mal à revendiquer leurs prétentions envers leurs États parents. Cela soulève des questions sur les facteurs qui déterminent les trajectoires de ces projets d’autodétermination. Ce mémoire de thèse propose que c’est une combinaison des effets des institutions étatiques et de la politique des Grandes Puissances qui les explique. Son cadre théorique est axé sur la supposition qu’on peut étendre la portée des théories institutionnalistes et géopolitiques issues de la bibliographie sur la sécession à l’ensemble des expressions d’autodétermination, y inclue l’autonomie. Ayant adopté un design de recherche d’étude de cas comparative, ce mémoire teste ses hypothèses à partir des données empiriques retracées à compter d’évènements clés, comme les crises d’État-nation, dans les trajectoires des projets d’autodétermination kurdes en Turquie, Syrie, Irak et Iran. Les trouvailles renforcent l’argument principal et sont spécifiquement significatives concernant l’intercession des Grandes Puissances. En somme, quand les revendications d’autodétermination s’alignent sur les intérêts des Grandes Puissances, celles-ci peuvent compenser les arrangements institutionnels non favorables sur place, ce qui permet l’apparition ou la consolidation de l’entité politique. Lorsqu’il y a un désalignement entre les deux, les Grandes Puissances soutiendront le statu quo. / Kurdish self-determination projects have not produced a sovereign state. However, later upgraded to de jure status in 2004, a Kurdish-led de facto autonomous polity emerged in 1991 in northern Iraq. Another Kurdish de facto autonomous polity exists in Syria since 2012. Meanwhile, Turkish and Iranian Kurds struggle to press their claims against their home state leaders. This raises questions about the factors that determine the trajectories of their self-determination projects. This thesis contends that it is a combination of domestic institutions and Great Power politics that inform them and builds its theoretical framework on the assumption that institutionalist and geopolitical explanations from the literature on secession can be extended to other expressions of self-determination, as autonomy. Through a comparative case study research design, this thesis tests a set of hypotheses against empirical evidence traced from several key events, such as nation-state crises, in the trajectories of Kurdish self-determination projects in Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran. The findings largely support the argument, and are specifically significant for Great Power intercession. In summary, they suggest that where self-determination claims align with the interests of Great Powers, they can offset the unfavorable institutional arrangements in place, allowing for polity emergence or consolidation. Where these claims and Great Power interests are misaligned, these uphold the status quo.