No description available.

On January 3, 2020, Iranian major general Qasem Soleimani was killed through a targeted drone strike at the authorisation of the US President Donald Trump. This thesis examines if, and in that case how, the arguments presented by the Trump administration used to justify the killing of general Soleimani are in line with the principles of Just War theory. By conducting a case study, through a qualitative content analysis, analysing four official statements made by the Trump administration during a two months period after the killing, this thesis will examine the moral discourses in the arguments presented. Drawing on insights from studies regarding the justification of War on Terror, preemptive war, and targeted killings according to the Just War theory, lays the foundation for a deeper reasoning of the legality of the argumentation based on the principles of Just War. This thesis will show that in some aspects, the arguments presented by the Trump administration can be interpreted to be in accordance with one of the principles, but none of the statements satisfy the criteria in all of the principles. Therefore, the overall conclusion of this analysis is that the Trump administration has the intention of justifying the attack, but the arguments used are not rooted in Just War theory. Further, this thesis will also show an inconsistency over time in the arguments presented. The contribution from this study lays in the analysis of the arguments on the basis of the principles of Just War theory, not from the perspective of international law. The intention from this thesis is not to analyse if the attack itself can be seen as just according to Just War theory but looking at the argumentation presented by the Trump administration.

In 2012, President Barack Obama used prosecutorial discretion to initiate the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program that deferred deportation and provided employment authorization for a two-year renewable period to undocumented immigrant persons that came to the U.S. as children. Under former President Donald Trump’s administration, DACA was rescinded in 2017. A review of the literature suggests this is the only study to explore the perceived impact of a policy shift in DACA status, given the critical time of interviews conducted from April 2016 to October 2018. Thus, substantially advancing the literature, qualitative data on a diverse group (N=10) of young adult DACA beneficiaries revealed positive and negative impacts. The sample included 60% currently gainfully employed, 40% attending college—while 80% had experienced emotional distress by having an unauthorized legal status and facing obstacles to pursuing higher education. Of note, 40% rated themselves as currently relatively healthy, while 60% indicated having experienced a decline in their physical or mental health since entering the United States. As significant sources of stress, 90% had experienced anxiety centered around having to wait to renew their DACA status and having to pay for their status renewals. Given the rescinding of the DACA program in 2017, many were ill-prepared, as 90% had never experienced being undocumented without a DACA status as an adult in the United States. The main body of qualitative data generated six categories that encompassed 51 emergent themes: 1-Participants’ health trajectory across their lifespan; 2-Participants’ experiences of barriers to seeking care and having their health and mental health needs addressed; 3-Participants Living at the Intersection of Contemporary Immigration; 4-The impact of other family members’ immigration status; 5-From enjoying benefits of the DACA program, to having a false sense of normalcy, to feeling ambivalence, and experiencing detriments; and, 6-Potential DACA policy shifts and anticipated impacts ranging from negative (fear, loss, suffering) to positive (relief). These six broad categories suggest how, despite the benefits of their DACA status, substantial barriers and sources of anxiety and stress still impacted the lives of the young adults and their families. Implications of the findings are discussed.

Russian-American Relations and the Mass Media Securitization of Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump in the American Press by Valeriia Alikina This thesis is focused on two issues relevant to Security Studies and Political Science: relations between the Russian Federation and the United States of America, which are currently experiencing yet another decline, and problematics of political journalism. It reviews the process of securitization of Russia through speech acts in the mass media of its historical opponent, the United States. First, the thesis provides a theoretical framework, securitization theory, introducing its main principles. To prove that the process of securitization indeed occurs, the method of discourse analysis is employed. The third chapter provides background information on the relations between the Soviet Union/Russia and the United States since the end of the World War II; this information is completed by the role mass media had in their affairs. The next chapter frames the issue of propaganda, elaborating on the meaning behind this concept, the "fake news" narrative, and the idealistic idea of media objectivity. In the fifth chapter, the case study, two processes of securitization are reviewed. The first one is the American mainstream media, namely ​The New York Times​ and ​The...

Topics associated with the United States' foreign policy towards the European Union have become increasingly intense in expert discussions since the turn of the millennium. This is due to several factors, primarily including the strength of the two clusters, on two shores of the Atlantic ocean. The work on the topic of transatlantic relations is divided into four chapters, where the first chapter deals with the theory of regionalism, the historical development of relations between the United States and the European Union, and the European Community. The conclusion of the chapter then anchors foreign policy actors from the US perspective. However, the thesis aim is to compare two US presidents and their relations with the EU. The selected presidents are Barack Obama and Donald Trump, when the 2012-2018 period is a crucial time for work. The aim of the thesis is to find answers to several questions, when the main one is whether and what difference is in the approach of Barack Obama and Donald Trump towards the EU. The paper sets out several criteria by its research, which will then be compared from the perspective of two presidents in order to show whether and how the policies of two consecutive presidents differ in EU relations.

This thesis examines how the American economy is affected by the market sentiment that arises from the news about actions and decisions of the American President Donald Trump. The news articles are obtained from Reuters for the period between the 1st of May and the 30th of November 2018, based on which a sentiment variable is created using natural language processing methods. Firstly, the impact of Trump sentiment on the returns on the S&P 500 Index is examined. The results show a positive and statistically significant impact of sentiment from the previous day on today's S&P 500 Index return. A statisti­ cally significant effect of the sentiment from a week ago is also found, however, this effect is negative. This result indicates that there is an initial overreaction to the new information, followed by subsequent market correction to the mean. Such result is consistent with the findings of the field of behavioural finance, which incorporates the idea that investor psychology is involved in investment decision making. Secondly, the impact of the news sentiment on the performance of individual sectors of the American economy, as measured by the returns on S&P 500 sector indices, is analysed. A statistically significant effect of sentiment on sector index return is found in the case of Consumer...

It is common knowledge that LGBTQ (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer) communities experience disparate rates of mental health concerns, including greater levels of self-reported depression, anxiety, substance abuse, and suicidal behavior (Bränström, Hatzenbuehler, & Pachankis, 2016). As an example, gay and bisexual men are four times as likely and lesbian and bisexual women are 2 times as likely, to attempt suicide compared to heterosexual counterparts (King et al., 2008). Between 25-43% of transgender persons have a lifetime history of suicide attempts, compared to 5% of the general US population (Nock & Kessler, 2006). Such poor mental health outcomes may be due, in part, to a lack of acceptance by society in the form of discrimination and unequal rights, and to rejection by family, friends and the self, including internalized homophobia, concealment and shame (Skerrett, Kõlves, & De Leo, 2016). LGBTQ persons are also more likely to have experienced trauma, including physical and sexual abuse, as well as interpersonal violence by intimate partners, family and strangers (LangenderferMagruder, Whitfeld, Walls, Kattari, & Ramos, 2016). LGBTQ communities, therefore, constitute a vulnerable and marginalized population, who are already at risk for rejection and abuse with consequent deleterious effects on physical and mental health, including risk for suicide.

No description available.

This thesis, entitled "Analysis of the special relationship between the US and the UK from the Clinton administration to the Trump administration", aims to provide a comprehensive overview of this Anglo-American alliance, in the mentioned period. The work is anchored on the concept of the concept of "special relationship", which has established itself in political practice to describe the political, diplomatic, cultural, economic, military and historical relations between the United Kingdom and the United States. The first opportunity for this concept to become popular was after it was used in a speech in 1946 by the British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, who tried to ensure Anglo-American cooperation in the post-war period. From that moment on, this unofficial term serves to describe transatlantic cooperation between the two nations, across all regions. This transatlantic cooperation did not end during the Cold War, but on the contrary, the two states were able to cooperate very closely in averting the communist threat. The thesis focuses primarily on the analysis of relations in the period after President Clinton took office as President of the United States, looking at how the Anglo-American alliance developed in the period after the end of the Cold War. In the next part of the work, it is...

Donald Trump's rhetoric of winners and losers has prompted dangerous division in the United States. It is well understood that Trump's divisive discourse appealed to white, blue-collar Americans who had become disillusioned with the political establishment. This study explores how Trump persuaded this audience by transitioning business communication principles, highlighted by his signature 'winners and losers' theme, into politics. Trump's use of the reality television show, The Apprentice, as a branding platform had the rhetorical effect that catapulted Trump's unique 'winning' brand back into the public's consciousness. While the principles of business rhetoric Trump used in The Apprentice were clearly transitioned to Twitter during Trump's 2016 presidential campaign, his tweets were unique in how they foregrounded the 'losers' he faced during the campaign. To illuminate Trump's branding strategy as both TV personality and political candidate, this analysis of Trump draws on Kenneth Burke's concept of consubstantiation and contemporary theories of business rhetoric, namely the idea of narrative-processing and its influence on consumers' connection with a brand. Because Trump constructs his brand with language that aims at restructuring America's social hierarchy, this study also uses critical discourse analysis (CDA) to understand the implications of power for both his audience and his opponents. This study concludes that while Trump's winning brand identity contributed to him winning the presidency, it also promotes male dominance and exacerbates political division in the United States.