No description available.

The use of unilateral force under George W. Bush is not a new phenomenon in US foreign policy. As the author argues, it is merely a continuation of Bill Clinton’s foreign policy and is deeply rooted in both the foreign policy traditions of Jacksonianism and Wilsonianism. The analysis concludes that Clinton used unilateralist foreign policy with a 'smile' whereas the Bush administration uses it with an attitude. / Die unilaterale Außenpolitik unter George W. Bush ist kein neues Phänomen der US-Diplomatie. Dem Autor zufolge ist sie vielmehr eine Fortführung der Politik der Clinton-Regierung und hat ihre Wurzeln in den Traditionen eines Andrew Jackson und Woodrow Wilson. Clinton vermochte jedoch seine unilaterale Politik mit einem "Lächeln" zu verkaufen, wohingegen die Art und Weise der Bush-Administration stets Irritationen hervorrief.

This dissertation is an argumentation analysis of UNESCO’s use of argumentation theory to encourage a U.S. return to membership in 2003. The U.S. left UNESCO in 1985 under complaint that it had become politicized and was fraught with budgetary mismanagement. It is an attempt to bridge international communication scholarship and international relations scholarship on an organization that is positioned to have great influence in the international community.

Though often overlooked, unilateralism as a foreign policy approach deserves to be studied, even in the case of Canada, a country that has developed a reputation as a staunch defender of its opposite, multilateralism. This thesis studies does precisely that, and is prompted, by a proposition recently put forward by Allan Gotlieb, the former Canadian Ambassador to the United States, that, when other methods have proven ineffective, unilateralism has been a very real option for Canada. The thesis explores the validity of Gotliebs claim by examining three cases cited by Gotlieb as examples of a unilateral approach taken by Canada: the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act in 1970, its declaration of straight baselines around the Arctic Archipelago in 1985, and the so-called Turbot War launched by enforcement of amendments to the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act in 1995. Were these in fact cases of determined unilateralism, prompted as Gotlieb argues, by a basic need to defend the most basic of Canadas core interests, its territorial sovereignty? <p>Further investigation of the cases cited by Gotlieb reveals that he is correct in one sense but not in another. In all of the cases Canada undeniably acted unilaterally. But Gotliebs analysis misses the larger reality that the three initiatives were pursued within a framework of multilateralism. Canada acted unilaterally not simply for the purpose of protecting Canadas territorial integrity, but in the hopes of reinvigorating a multilateral process.

Though often overlooked, unilateralism as a foreign policy approach deserves to be studied, even in the case of Canada, a country that has developed a reputation as a staunch defender of its opposite, multilateralism. This thesis studies does precisely that, and is prompted, by a proposition recently put forward by Allan Gotlieb, the former Canadian Ambassador to the United States, that, when other methods have proven ineffective, unilateralism has been a very real option for Canada. The thesis explores the validity of Gotliebs claim by examining three cases cited by Gotlieb as examples of a unilateral approach taken by Canada: the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act in 1970, its declaration of straight baselines around the Arctic Archipelago in 1985, and the so-called Turbot War launched by enforcement of amendments to the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act in 1995. Were these in fact cases of determined unilateralism, prompted as Gotlieb argues, by a basic need to defend the most basic of Canadas core interests, its territorial sovereignty? <p>Further investigation of the cases cited by Gotlieb reveals that he is correct in one sense but not in another. In all of the cases Canada undeniably acted unilaterally. But Gotliebs analysis misses the larger reality that the three initiatives were pursued within a framework of multilateralism. Canada acted unilaterally not simply for the purpose of protecting Canadas territorial integrity, but in the hopes of reinvigorating a multilateral process.

This research explores the role of the Christian Zionist Lobby in shaping U.S. policy towards Israel. It is posited that the Christian Zionist Lobby, due to their eschatological goals, diverge from the interests of the larger Israel Lobby described by Mearsheimer and Walt. To test this hypothesis an exploratory case study is implemented to explain why the U.S. shifted its policy from supporting the Road Map to backing Israeli unilateralism. As the results of this study show, the Christian Zionists did actively oppose the Road Map and may have influenced American policy making. However, it would be a mistake to characterize the Gaza pullout as the most desirable policy alternative for the Christian Zionist Lobby. This study concludes that when comparing the lobbying efforts against the Road Map and Israeli unilateralism, the Christian Zionists actively opposed the former policy while the evidence in support of the latter policy remained inconclusive.

This paper evaluates the differences between U.S. multilateralism within ad hoc coalitions and U.S. multilateralism within permanent institutions – specifically NATO, the only standing defense alliance with which the U.S. is involved – within the context of the war in Afghanistan's COIN operations. Specifically, this work contrasts the strategies of Operation Enduring Freedom (OEF), the portion of the war that was undertaken by U.S. forces and a coalition of allies, and the operations of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), which were defined by U.S. cooperation with NATO. Along with contrasting the overarching strategies of OEF and ISAF, this thesis evaluates the tactical differences between the two operations as they presented themselves within two pairs of tactical maneuvers: OEF Operation Red Wings vs. ISAF Operation Siege of Sangin and OEF Operation Eastern Resolve II vs. ISAF Operation Panther’s Claw.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.