none

This thesis makes clear British women’s experiences of the international between 1945 and 1975. It analyses how international development came to feature at the centre of British women’s organisations’ international programme by the late 1950s. The origins of this process date back to the immediate post-war years. Inspired by a new sense of duty and internationalism, British women embraced the new international institutions that formed after the War with a newfound sense of purpose. In the late 1940s, world peace was taken up by a broad spectrum of British women’s organisations as a potentially powerful means of bringing women together from diverse political, social and cultural backgrounds to co-operate on both national and international levels. The failure of peace to unite women across social and political lines in the face of the ‘red scare’ in the early 1950s forced British women to look for an ‘apolitical’ means of promoting human relations. The UN technocratic approach positioned international development as the convenient space for British women to act out these new post-war international commitments. However, the results of this new international priority were informed directly by histories of imperial power, leaving assumptions about priorities and Western superiority uncontested until the 1980s.

Many scholarly and policy evaluations of governance in Uganda have blamed limited commitment to democracy in the country squarely on the shoulders of state leaders. This dissertation considers a broader range of explanations and raises questions about the limited understanding of democracy expressed in the prevailing literature. It does so by considering historical contexts, international and global structures, and the relationship between local political cultures and the contested concept of democracy. Claims about democracy and good governance, it suggests, are used to justify very narrow procedural prescriptions for the domestic state on the basis of a systematic neglect of Uganda’s specific political history and the structural contexts in which the Ugandan state can act. More specifically, this dissertation engages with one of the key controversies in the literature on the politics of development, that concerning the degree to which accounts of democracy favoured by the most powerful states should guide attempts to create democratic institutions elsewhere. It argues that at least some of the factors that are often used to explain the failure of democracy in Uganda can be better explained in terms of two dynamics that have been downplayed in the relevant literature: competition between different understandings of how democracy should be understood in principle; and the international conditions under which attempts to impose one specific account of democracy - multiparty representation – have marginalized other possibilities. These dynamics have undermined processes that arguably attempt to construct forms of democracy that respond to very specific socio-cultural conditions. Fundamental disputes about how democracy should be understood are already familiar from the history of democracy in Western societies, where struggles to impose some forms of democracy over others have defined much of the character of modern politics. The importance of the international or global dimension of democratic politics has received less attention, even in relation to Western societies, but is especially significant in relation to Africa’s political history and its position in the world. After reviewing the history of struggles over forms of governance in Uganda, this dissertation explores a series of unique open-ended interviews carried out in 2009 with important political actors in Uganda. On this basis, it argues for the ongoing centrality both of the always contested character of democracy and of attempts to impose particular accounts of democracy through internationalised and globalised structures. An appreciation of both dynamics, especially in the historical context that has been downplayed in much of the literature, offers a better scholarly ground on which to evaluate contemporary politics in Uganda than the choice between multiparty systems and dictatorship that remains influential in discussions of the Ugandan case. Such an appreciation is in keeping with important recent attempts to think about the possibilities of democracy in Uganda in postcolonial terms and to resist the forms of neocolonial politics that are examined here as a ‘politics of dispensation.’ / Graduate / 0615 / 0616 / sabina@uvic.ca

Many scholarly and policy evaluations of governance in Uganda have blamed limited commitment to democracy in the country squarely on the shoulders of state leaders. This dissertation considers a broader range of explanations and raises questions about the limited understanding of democracy expressed in the prevailing literature. It does so by considering historical contexts, international and global structures, and the relationship between local political cultures and the contested concept of democracy. Claims about democracy and good governance, it suggests, are used to justify very narrow procedural prescriptions for the domestic state on the basis of a systematic neglect of Uganda’s specific political history and the structural contexts in which the Ugandan state can act. More specifically, this dissertation engages with one of the key controversies in the literature on the politics of development, that concerning the degree to which accounts of democracy favoured by the most powerful states should guide attempts to create democratic institutions elsewhere. It argues that at least some of the factors that are often used to explain the failure of democracy in Uganda can be better explained in terms of two dynamics that have been downplayed in the relevant literature: competition between different understandings of how democracy should be understood in principle; and the international conditions under which attempts to impose one specific account of democracy - multiparty representation – have marginalized other possibilities. These dynamics have undermined processes that arguably attempt to construct forms of democracy that respond to very specific socio-cultural conditions. Fundamental disputes about how democracy should be understood are already familiar from the history of democracy in Western societies, where struggles to impose some forms of democracy over others have defined much of the character of modern politics. The importance of the international or global dimension of democratic politics has received less attention, even in relation to Western societies, but is especially significant in relation to Africa’s political history and its position in the world. After reviewing the history of struggles over forms of governance in Uganda, this dissertation explores a series of unique open-ended interviews carried out in 2009 with important political actors in Uganda. On this basis, it argues for the ongoing centrality both of the always contested character of democracy and of attempts to impose particular accounts of democracy through internationalised and globalised structures. An appreciation of both dynamics, especially in the historical context that has been downplayed in much of the literature, offers a better scholarly ground on which to evaluate contemporary politics in Uganda than the choice between multiparty systems and dictatorship that remains influential in discussions of the Ugandan case. Such an appreciation is in keeping with important recent attempts to think about the possibilities of democracy in Uganda in postcolonial terms and to resist the forms of neocolonial politics that are examined here as a ‘politics of dispensation.’ / Graduate / 0615 / 0616 / sabina@uvic.ca

Orientador: Héctor Luís Saint-Pierre / Banca: Rafael Duarte Villa / Banca: Samuel Alves Soares / O Programa de Pós-Graduação em Relações Internacionais é instituído em parceria com a Unesp/Unicamp/PUC-SP, em projeto subsidiado pela CAPES, intitulado "Programa San Tiago Dantas". / Resumo: A incorporação do conceito da estratégia preemptiva ao documento de Estratégia de Segurança Nacional dos EUA em 2002, e a suposta aplicação dessa estratégia na Guerra do Iraque em 2003, fez com que os debates teóricos sobre guerras preventivas e preemptivas fossem reabertos. Em termos gerais, as guerras preventivas podem ser entendidas como o "início de uma ação militar em antecipação a ações danosas que não ocorrem no presente nem são iminentes". A análise da definição de guerras preventivas mereceu enfoque especial para embasar o estudo das três correntes teóricas principais sobre o tema nas Relações Internacionais, quais sejam: a proibição geral das guerras justas (bellum justum); o status quo legal (direito internacional) e o realismo político. Esta proposta de sistematização do debate nos parece a mais apropriada, por abranger as principais linhas argumentativas teóricas sobre o tema objeto da pesquisa. As abordagens sobre a proibição geral das guerras justas; sobre o status quo legal e realismo político, equivalem às denominadas abordagens moralistas, legalistas e realistas, respectivamente. Cada uma dessas três correntes prioriza uma dimensão de análise dentro da qual se levanta uma problemática sobre as guerras preventivas. De igual forma, constituem foco desta pesquisa as questões levantadas; para os adeptos do bellum justum a questão se coloca nos seguintes termos: as guerras preventivas são justas, isto é, são legítimas? Para os adeptos do status quo legal será: as guerras preventivas podem ser legais? E as levantadas pelos adeptos do realismo: as guerras preventivas são úteis? Com essas questões em mente apresentaremos os argumentos que cada corrente seleciona para respondê-las, esperando que joguem luz sobre as guerras preventivas. / Abstract: This research, on the theme of theories of preventive wars in international relations, focuses on the questions described next. For the followers of bellum justum: are preventive wars just, that is, legitimate? For the followers of the legal status quo: can preventive wars be legal? For the followers of political realism: are preventive wars utile? With these inquiries as its center, it aims to present the arguments that each of these lines of thought select to answer them. The incorporation of the concept of preemptive strategy in the USA's National Security Strategy document, in 2002, and the presumed application of this strategy in the Iraq War in 2003 caused the reopening of the debates about preventive and preemptive wars. In general terms, preventive wars can be understood as "the start of a military action in anticipation to harmful actions that do not occur in the present and are not imminent". Here, the definition's analyses of preventive wars received special attention, in order to create the foundation for the study of the three main lines of thought in the theme of International Relations: the blanket prohibition of just wars (bellum justum), the status quo (international law) and political realism. This debate's systematization proposal seems more appropriate because it embraces the main theoretical argumentative lines regarding the research's subject. The approaches referring to the just wars' general prohibition, the legal status quo and political realism are equivalent to what is called respectively moralist, legalist and realist approaches. Each one of these three lines of thought give priority to a determined analysis' scope, in which a determined problem about preventive wars is raised. The likely outcome of this specific research is to help clarify specific topics regarding preventive wars. / Mestre

Made available in DSpace on 2014-06-11T19:27:59Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0 Previous issue date: 2009-06-15Bitstream added on 2014-06-13T19:36:25Z : No. of bitstreams: 1 palaciosjunior_amc_me_mar.pdf: 813863 bytes, checksum: d22bc93dce433e95371358f0a482dcf0 (MD5) / A incorporação do conceito da estratégia preemptiva ao documento de Estratégia de Segurança Nacional dos EUA em 2002, e a suposta aplicação dessa estratégia na Guerra do Iraque em 2003, fez com que os debates teóricos sobre guerras preventivas e preemptivas fossem reabertos. Em termos gerais, as guerras preventivas podem ser entendidas como o “início de uma ação militar em antecipação a ações danosas que não ocorrem no presente nem são iminentes”. A análise da definição de guerras preventivas mereceu enfoque especial para embasar o estudo das três correntes teóricas principais sobre o tema nas Relações Internacionais, quais sejam: a proibição geral das guerras justas (bellum justum); o status quo legal (direito internacional) e o realismo político. Esta proposta de sistematização do debate nos parece a mais apropriada, por abranger as principais linhas argumentativas teóricas sobre o tema objeto da pesquisa. As abordagens sobre a proibição geral das guerras justas; sobre o status quo legal e realismo político, equivalem às denominadas abordagens moralistas, legalistas e realistas, respectivamente. Cada uma dessas três correntes prioriza uma dimensão de análise dentro da qual se levanta uma problemática sobre as guerras preventivas. De igual forma, constituem foco desta pesquisa as questões levantadas; para os adeptos do bellum justum a questão se coloca nos seguintes termos: as guerras preventivas são justas, isto é, são legítimas? Para os adeptos do status quo legal será: as guerras preventivas podem ser legais? E as levantadas pelos adeptos do realismo: as guerras preventivas são úteis? Com essas questões em mente apresentaremos os argumentos que cada corrente seleciona para respondê-las, esperando que joguem luz sobre as guerras preventivas. / This research, on the theme of theories of preventive wars in international relations, focuses on the questions described next. For the followers of bellum justum: are preventive wars just, that is, legitimate? For the followers of the legal status quo: can preventive wars be legal? For the followers of political realism: are preventive wars utile? With these inquiries as its center, it aims to present the arguments that each of these lines of thought select to answer them. The incorporation of the concept of preemptive strategy in the USA`s National Security Strategy document, in 2002, and the presumed application of this strategy in the Iraq War in 2003 caused the reopening of the debates about preventive and preemptive wars. In general terms, preventive wars can be understood as “the start of a military action in anticipation to harmful actions that do not occur in the present and are not imminent”. Here, the definition’s analyses of preventive wars received special attention, in order to create the foundation for the study of the three main lines of thought in the theme of International Relations: the blanket prohibition of just wars (bellum justum), the status quo (international law) and political realism. This debate`s systematization proposal seems more appropriate because it embraces the main theoretical argumentative lines regarding the research’s subject. The approaches referring to the just wars` general prohibition, the legal status quo and political realism are equivalent to what is called respectively moralist, legalist and realist approaches. Each one of these three lines of thought give priority to a determined analysis` scope, in which a determined problem about preventive wars is raised. The likely outcome of this specific research is to help clarify specific topics regarding preventive wars.

Transformation of the US Foreign Policy Diploma thesis "Transformation of the US Foreign Policy" consists changes and tranformations in the US foreign policy connected with alternations of president's administratives. Especially with the alternation in 2001, when Goerge W. Bush supplied Bill Clinton and than with 2009 when Barack Obama became president of the USA. My essential resource were special books about US foreign policy. Thereafter books from the field of theory of international relations and finally I used internet resources as special articles or manifests records. Diploma thesis is focused on foreign and security policy. Arise and progress of the USA shaped American identity. Hypothesis of work is connected with issue that even conducts and acts of administratives could be different, policy always following this American self-identity.

The thesis attempts to address Orthodox Church concerns about the Protestant nature and ethos of the ecumenical movement, as it is encountered in the World Council of Churches, by examining Orthodox theological contributions to ecclesiology. This preliminary work is undertaken, as a first step, to establish points of dialogue with the theology of liberation and wider critical theories, in the search for a liberating ecumenism. At the same time, and in a second step (to follow the epistemology of the theology of liberation), this Orthodox theology is placed in a critical dialogue with the theology of liberation in the search for liberating ecclesiological perspectives that can contribute to the movement in ecumenism. This uneasy dialogue helps to recover absent epistemologies from ongoing ecumenical dialogues by re-reading orthodoxies, both ecumenical and ecclesiological, from a liberationist paradigm, and sets ecclesiology within the wider framework of contributions from critical theory. This dialogue between Orthodox theology and the theology of liberation helps to construct an ecclesiology that liberates ecumenism by setting ecclesiology and the ecumenical movement in the wider context of social movements. This thesis calls the ecumenical movement to ‘another possible world’ influenced by people-centred ecclesiologies, which transgresses the canonical boundaries in the ecumenical movement. To be ecumenical implies an Orthodox content to ecclesiology, otherwise the ecumenical movement is open to charges of pan-Protestantism. It is by embracing Orthodoxy that the ecumenical movement can move beyond hegemonic colonial projects and find a liberating praxis. This thesis proposes a dialogue that reflects the structure of the Final Report of the Special Commission on Orthodox Participation in the World Council of Churches. However, it engages with Orthodox ecclesiology and ecumenical histories from the perspective of the theology of liberation in the search for a liberating ecumenism and proposes a praxis that develops movement in the ecumenical and the ecclesiological through developing an ecclesiology from different peripheries of the Church.

La politique étrangère de l’émirat du Qatar a suscité beaucoup d’interrogations depuis la prise de pouvoir du cheikh Hamad ben Khalifa Al Thani le 27 juin 1995. Omniprésentes depuis quelques années dans le débat public français notamment, les approches peinent cependant à formuler un cadre théorique général sous lequel appréhender la diplomatie de cet émirat. De ce constat naît une question simple : de quoi la politique étrangère du Qatar est-elle le nom ? Loin des clichés réducteurs où elle demeure le rêve d’un émir orgueilleux du Golfe, la diplomatie qatarie s’inscrit dans le contexte d’une politique étrangère d’un micro-État, d’inspiration réaliste, qui tente de conjurer un rapport de force défavorable en usant des caractéristiques du micro-étatisme et des transformations de l’environnement global afin d’optimiser ses ressources et surtout, d’instaurer un autre rapport de force. / Ever since the sheik Hamad ben Khalifa Al Thani seized power on June 27th, 1995, Qatar's foreign policy has sparked a lot of questionning. Although Qatar's policies have been commented extensively, especially in the french public debate, the various approaches on this matter have failed to formulate a general theoretical framework through which Qatar's diplomacy could be apprehended. A simple question arises from this observation : what truly lies behind Qatar's foreign policy ? Far from the carricatures depicting it as the grand dream of a vainglorious emir from the Gulf, we intend to show that Qatar's diplomacy can only be understood in the larger context of a realistic micro-state foreign policy that aims at warding off an unfavorable balance of power by using both the characteristics of micro-statism and changes in the global environment, in order to optimize its resources and ultimately, establish a different balance of power.

The main goal od critical theories of international relations is to help to achieve more universal freedom and equality in the world. Critical theorists use different kinds of strategies to achieve this goal. Persuasive popularization by critical videogames is one those strategies. Author analyzes different strategies of such persuasion. He also designs own concept of critical game. The goal of this game is to present main ideas of critical theories to the general public in the most precise but still understandable way. Autor wants to show the potential of videogames for popularization of critical theories.