This thesis examines the relationship between political movements and people during the civil war between Angola’s MPLA government and the UNITA rebels in the Central Highlands region. It shows how conflicting ideas about political legitimacy originating in anticolonial struggle informed leaders’ decisions and formed the basis of their efforts to politicise people. Much existing literature sees civil conflict in terms of rebellion against a state, motivated by grievance or by the desire for loot. I argue against such an approach in the Angolan case, since the MPLA and UNITA originated from different strands of nationalism, and neither achieved complete control over Angola’s territory and people. Instead, I draw on constructivist approaches to statehood in analysing the war as a contest in which both sides invoked ideas of the state in asserting their legitimacy. The MPLA state controlled the cities while UNITA established rural bases and a bush capital, Jamba. Violence, often involving the capture of people, occurred at the margins of the areas of influence. Within each zone, each movement controlled public discourse to make its control hegemonic. Each presented itself as the authentic representative of the Angolan nation and condemned the other movement as the agent of foreign interests. These nationalist claims were given substance by processes of state building, more fully realised by the MPLA than by UNITA. Each movement’s claim to statehood served to legitimise its own violence while criminalising the violence of the other side. Public dissent was prohibited in either zone, but people’s responses to politicisation ranged from genuine support, to co-operating only as necessary to avoid punishment, depending largely on their degree of involvement in the state building process. War itself was central to constituting perceptions of common interest, and political actors’ capacity to manipulate perceptions depended largely on military control.

Abstract During the past few decades in Finland, the growth of wolf (Canis lupus) and wild forest reindeer (Rangifer tarandus fennicus lönnb.) populations has created modern human-wildlife conflicts, of which the wolf conflict has expanded from a local to the EU level. The conflicts have emerged between local people and species but also between different stakeholders concerning methods of management and especially concerning the role of hunting in wolf management. The aim of this thesis is to make such conflicts more transparent and understandable. This thesis also provides suggestions regarding the governance of the conflicts. Wolf conflict data is based on a semi-structured questionnaire distributed among interest groups and open hearings among local people throughout Finland during 2004. The data of the wild forest reindeer conflict is based on a questionnaire answered by farmers in the Suomenselkä area. Methodologically, qualitative as well as quantitative tools are used. The scientific approach of this thesis is animal geography. The conflict in wild forest reindeer management is predicted by biology of species, by damages occurring in farming though also social predictors can be found. However, the conflict is solvable in nature. The wolf conflict is an example of one of the multifaceted human-wildlife conflicts where complex socioeconomical challenges are connected to each other at a local level. The specific biological abilities, the negative image of wolves and fear among people are of concern in this matter. In the society the conflict appears mostly trough stakeholders’ contradictory goals. However, the predictors of conflict between stakeholders became better understood through spatial and cultural contexts. Especially hunting developed by local elements and conservation having a non-local background, have clashed with the wolf being the major bone of contention. The wolf conflict can be defined as insolvable by nature, where the understanding of this is the key of management and mitigation processes. Because no final solution is in sight, despite constant management efforts, adaptive and learning processes are needed. / Tiivistelmä Susi on palannut Suomen eri maakuntiin 1990-luvun aikana ja muodostanut kehittyvän populaation. Sen kannan hoito on muuttunut ristiriitaiseksi kannan kasvun myötä. Konflikti siirtyi 2000-luvun alussa erilaisten intressiryhmien ja myös hallinnollisten tasojen väliseksi kamppailuksi ulottuen Suomen valtion ja EU:n väliseksi. Myös metsäpeura on palannut Suomen luontoon viime vuosikymmenien aikana. Sen kannan hoidossa koettiin ristiriitoja 1990-luvulla lähinnä sen viljelylle aiheuttamien vahinkojen vuoksi. Molemmille lajeille laadittiin 2000-luvun puolivälissä hoitosuunnitelmat, joiden tarkoituksena oli linjata näiden kannan hoitoa ja suojelua. Tämä tutkimus perustuu hoitosuunnitelmien valmistelua varten kerättyyn aineistoon, jossa pääpaino on susikonfliktissa. Metsäpeurakonfliktin roolina on tarjota vertailupohja. Tutkimusotteen voidaan määritellä kuuluvaksi eläinmaantieteen alaan, jossa tarkastellaan ihmisen ja eläinlajin välistä vuorovaikutusta pääasiassa paikallisesta ja sosioekonomisesta kontekstista. Työssä myös verrataan suomalaista susikonfliktia Yellowstonen kansallispuiston suden palautusohjelman toteutuksesta seuranneeseen kamppailuun. Siitä johdetussa teoriassa konflikti kytketään luonnonsuojelun ja sen käytön aate- ja arvopohjaan. Tutkimuksessa käytetyssä aineistossa on sekä laadullisia että määrällisiä osioita, jotka esitellään neljässä erillisessä artikkelissa. Susikonflikti on esimerkki moniulotteisesta luonnonsuojelun ja -hoidon konfliktista, johon kytkeytyy niin historia, lajin biologia, ihmisen paikallisesti kehittyneet traditiot ja kulttuuriset piirteet kuin institutionaaliset rakenteet mukaan lukien EU-jäsenyys. Tästä kokonaisuudesta on rakentunut paikallisten tahojen ja sen ulkopuolisen kokemusmaailman välinen kamppailu, jossa erilaisista intressiryhmistä ovat aktiivisimpina näkyneet metsästäjä- ja luonnonsuojelutahot. Sekä metsästykseen että lajien suojeluun liittyy useita paradoksaalisia piirteitä, jotka tekevät lajien ja suojelun kentän jännitteelliseksi. Metsäpeurakannan hoidossa esiintyneet konfliktit ovat hallittavissa, koska metsäpeuraan liittyy merkittävästi hyödyn tunne, sen ja ihmisen välille ei muodostu paikallisesti ekologista kilpailutilannetta ja myös sen aiheuttamat vahingot ovat hallittavissa. Susi kantaa mukanaan historiallista ja emotionaalista painolastia, eikä siihen liity paikallisesta näkökulmasta hyödyn tunnetta vaan lähinnä haastava asetelma. Nykyisellä suomalaisen maaseudun elinkeinorakenteella ja luonnon käytön kulttuurilla susikonfliktin hoidossa joudutaan sietämään jatkossakin ratkaisemattomia kysymyksiä. Susikonfliktin hallinnassa onkin keskeistä jatkuvasti avoin, sopeutuva ja oppiva toimintapolitiikka.

This thesis is an institutional ethnography of the Nigeria Police Force. It concentrates on evidence from 18 months of fieldwork in one particular police station, in the pseudonymised town of Dutsin Bature in central Nigeria, and draws comparative evidence from examples and locations elsewhere in Nigeria. The fieldwork evidence is also supported by analyses of public discourse, literature reviews, some formal interviews and historical research. The thesis aims to fill a gap in empirical scholarship by looking at policing in Nigeria primarily from the level of everyday practice, and deriving understandings of the ways the overall system works, rather than by taking normative structural approaches and basing suppositions of actual behaviour upon these. It also aims to document emic perspectives on policing in Nigeria, in contrast to most existing scholarship and public discourse which takes an external perspective, from which the voices and worldviews of police themselves are absent. The thesis situates this ethnography within three theoretical terrains. First, developing understandings of policing and public security in Africa, which have often neglected in-depth studies of formal police forces. Secondly, enlarging the ethnographic study of formal institutions in African states, to develop a closer understanding of what state systems are and how they function, beyond the overtly dysfunctionalist perspectives which have dominated recent scholarship. Thirdly, informing ongoing debates over state and society in Africa, problematising understandings which see these as separate entities instead of mutually constitutive, and drawing attention to the ways in which the two interpenetrate and together mould the public sphere. The thesis begins with a historical overview of the trajectory of formal policing in Nigeria, then examines public understandings and representations of policing, before moving inside the institutional boundaries, considering in turn the human composition of the police, training and character formation, the way police officers do their work in Dutsin Bature, Nigerian police officers’ preoccupation with risk and the systemic effects of their efforts to mitigate it, and finally officers’ subjective perspectives on their work, their lived realities, and on Nigeria in an era of transition. These build together to suggest some conclusions pertinent to the theoretical perspectives.

This thesis examines the policies, positions, and perspectives of developing countries on the emerging norm of humanitarian intervention after the Cold War, focusing on the period between 1991 and 2001. In doing so, it questions the role of opposition that conventional wisdom has allotted to them as parochial defenders of sovereignty. Instead, the thesis reveals variation and complexity, which militates against defining the South, or the issues that humanitarian intervention raises, in simplistic either-or terms. Part I draws on insights about ‘sovereignty as what states make of it’ to break the classic pluralism-solidarism impasse that has otherwise stymied the conversation on humanitarian intervention and confined the South as a whole to a ‘black box’ labelled rejectionism. It reconstructs the empirical record of developing countries at large on six cases of military intervention (northern Iraq, Somalia, Haiti, Sierra Leone, Kosovo, and East Timor), revealing variation that defies easy categorization. It also charts a cumulative and dynamic trend within the South towards a grey area between pluralism and solidarism that shows how these were not diametrically opposed positions. Following from that, Part II looks in-depth at India and Argentina. Whereas Argentina accepted the idea of humanitarian intervention, India remained reluctant to countenance it and persistently objected to the development of a new rule in its favour. Part II argues that the level of congruence between the emerging norm and the two countries’ prevailing values, aspirations, and historically constructed ways of thinking played a key role in determining the different levels of acceptance that the idea found with them. Part III delves deeper into the substance of their views. It shows how neither country constructed mutually exclusive choices between pluralism and solidarism, sovereignty and human rights, and intervention and non-intervention. Rather, both exhibited an acute awareness of the dilemmas of protecting human rights in a society of states, and a wariness of yes-no answers. Cumulatively, this thesis thus points away from thinking about the South itself as a given category with clear, shared or pre-determined ideas, and towards a more nuanced and inclusive conversation on humanitarian intervention.