American presidents have maintained an equilibrium between the role of church and state in government affairs via the nation’s civil religion and a “rhetorical contract” between those secular and sacred interests. While other presidents have incorporated religion in their rhetorical execution of office, George W. Bush has done so in a manner different from his predecessors, emphasizing the role of faith in his administration’s beliefs, actions, and policies. Such rhetoric upsets the tenuous relationship between sectarian and secular affairs. Bush’s breach of the rhetorical contract can be explained by Foucault’s notion of pastoral power. Using practices once associated with the church, the savvy government leader may better control his public. I argue that President Bush has shifted the balance of power between organized religion and government, specifically by means of the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, thereby corrupting traditional notions of civil religion in the process of implementing his unique form of new pastoral power.

Before the United States Constitution was ratified there was much debate about what war powers the executive and legislative branches should hold. After much deliberation it was decided that the power to declare war would fall under the control of Congress. But as time passed, control over initiating military action began to shift from Congress to the President. This thesis examines the shift of power from the legislature to the President. The thesis explains the difference between a declaration of war, an authorization of force, as well as using the military as a police force. It examines the precedents set by Presidents Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt, and Harry Truman, as well as the more recent methods used by Presidents Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama. It also analyzes some of the major court cases that have dealt with the War Powers Clause and several War Powers Resolution. The information collected in this thesis comes from biographies, journal articles, and newspaper articles regarding the subject. This thesis shows that the executive has taken more power in initiating and continuing armed conflict and that the declaration of war, as defined in the Constitution, is obsolete.

The thesis aims to chart the relations of the EU and NATO through the case of Afghanistan. It examines the role of ISAF in conjunction with PRTs and EUPOL to evaluate the relations between the EU and NATO. The involvement of the ISAF and EUPOL missions from their establishment to evolution and the limitations of both missions in accordance with the management of the US in the &ldquo / War on Terror&rdquo / are examined. The implications of American policies on the missions of both parties are explored, from the first term of Bush to the Obama administration. The thesis argues that while there has been cooperation between the EU and NATO without structural cooperation, thus being ad hoc cooperation, the US has been benefiting from this cooperation from the second term of the Bush administration to the Obama administration, thereby rehabilitating the tense relations between the EU and the US. In the final analysis, it may be said that this cooperation did not result in a success story in the case of Afghanistan.

<p>The purpose of this thesis is to examine whether the individual political leader is important for the analysis of international relations. Traditionally the focus of investigation in international relations has been on the nation-state, or the systems level, and as a result the individual level has been somewhat neglected. Using the theory of political psychology there is a possibility of finding nuances that might not be found if the focus of the investigation is on the nation-state. With the help of key concepts such as personality, emotion, cognition, and social identity decision making that has affected world politics have been examined. An empirical examination of the political psychology has been made by applying the theory to a case study, George W Bush. By applying the theory of political psychology to the decision making process used by George W Bush and his Administration it will be shown that the individual can impact world politics, especially in the case of the invasion of Iraq. Furthermore, one of the flaws of the theory of political psychology, its problem in handling the concept of global terrorism, is briefly discussed. The conclusion that has been drawn in this thesis is that the individual level of analysis is just as important as the systems level or the domestic level of analysis.</p>

<p>This is a study of how the United States has used different diplomatic strategies towards Iran and North Korea. The concept of coercive diplomacy is defined and explained, in or-der to see if it has been used by the United States, and if so, to what extent. After giving a brief historical background between the U.S and the two countries, the study will put a fo-cus on what and why the Bush administration has acted the way they have in their diplo-matic relation with Iran and North Korea. The study presents cases where you can see par-allels between strategies used, but also some significant differences. The latter part of the study will examine the reasoning behind the different strategies used. Conclusion drawn from this study was that, in the case of Iran, the United States has been forced to act in a certain way due to the other conflicts they are involved with in the region, i.e. the war in Iraq and the situation in Afghanistan. Due to the fear for North Koreas al-ready existing nuclear arsenal, the U.S. has shown a more restricted diplomatic policy to-wards the country, not wanting to push them towards starting a nuclear war.</p>

Im Rahmen der Neugestaltung des Innenhofes an der Fachschule für Gartenbau in Dresden-Pillnitz wurde eine Freianlage mit unterschiedlichen Bepflanzungstypen hergestellt und drei Jahre gesichtet. Der Pflegeaufwand ging in diesen drei Jahren deutlich zurück. Ein Großteil der Bepflanzungen ist für anspruchsvollere, halböffentliche und öffentliche Außenanlagen attraktiv.

<p>In 1989 the United States choose, after years of conflict, to carry out a military intervention in Panama, to remove Manuel Noriega, convicted for drug dealing and for threatening the lives of the Americans living in Panama. The aim of this study is to examine whether George H. W Bush’s arguments for the military intervention comply with the principles of the just war.</p><p>The method chosen for this study is a qualitative literature study, based primarily on secondary data. It is a case study with two complementing theories, the theory of the just war and the world system theory.</p><p>The result showed that the American intervention both can be justified and unjustified following the principles of the Just War Theory. The World system Theory shows typical signs for a relationship between USA and Panama, built on economic, political and military control.</p>

<p>The purpose of this study is twofold: First, to inquire how the George W. Bush administration plans to keep America safe from external threats and second – based on the assumption that neoconservatives have influenced the Bush administration – examine how neoconservative ideas have influenced this strategy to protect America. The research questions are as follows:</p><p>What is the content of the Bush administration’s security strategy?</p><p>How are neoconservative ideas reflected in this security strategy?</p><p>To answer the first question, the main points of two studied documents were summarized. The summarized documents were the two versions of the National Security Strategy of the United States of America that the George W Bush administration has released during its tenure. These documents state the official security strategy of the United States and give a general view over the threats against America and how the administration plans to deal with these threats. To answer the second question the author studied literature about neoconservatism and gained valuable knowledge about the neoconservatives, which resulted in the creation of an analyzing instrument. This analyzing instrument was later applied on the empirical material that was gathered by answering the first question and in turn answered the second question.</p><p>The result of the study is that the Bush administration believes that by spreading freedom and fighting tyranny around the world, America will become safer. To accomplish this, the administration will employ the full array of political, economic, diplomatic and other tools at their disposal. Neoconservative influences on the strategy were found repeatedly – one of the most obvious influences being the administration’s adoption of the principle of preemptive strikes against enemies.</p>

<p>Abstract</p><p>University of Växjö, School of Social Sciences</p><p>Course: POC 536, Political Science 41-60</p><p>Title: The U.S. military intervention in Iraq – A study of how the intervention corresponds with the UN Charter</p><p>Authors: Andreas Malmgren & Johan Schneider</p><p>Supervisor: Lennart Bergfeldt</p><p>Date: 2006-09-26</p><p>The aim of this essay is through a qualitative literature study examine the main arguments of the Bush administration to justify a military intervention in Iraq. The theories used to explain the actions of the U.S. are system level analysis, hegemonism and realism while the UN Charter will be applied as a normative theory. The research questions are:</p><p>■ What were the main arguments of the Bush administration for a military intervention in Iraq?</p><p>■ How do these arguments correspond to the UN Charter?</p><p>U.S. claimed that Iraq was manufacturing nuclear weapons and this was threatening the security of the U.S. The administration also wanted to liberate the Iraqi people from the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein. When the U.S. could not get support through the UN they decided to act independently.</p><p>According to the UN Charter, UN or its member states are not allowed to intervene in matters within the domestic jurisdiction of any state neither is it allowed to act with a pre-emptive purpose. An exceptional clausal exists if the Security Council decides it is a threat to peace or peace crimes. If a state act without the UN mandate this could undermine the UN authority.</p><p>Keywords: Weapon of mass destruction, intervention, Iraq, UN Charter, Bush administration</p>

Thesis (Ph. D.)--School of Biological Sciences, Faculty of Science, University of Sydney, 1999. / Bibliography: leaves 235-260. Also available in print form.