京都大学 / 0048 / 新制・課程博士 / 博士(地域研究) / 甲第19105号 / 地博第179号 / 新制||地||61(附属図書館) / 32056 / 京都大学大学院アジア・アフリカ地域研究研究科アフリカ地域研究専攻 / (主査)教授 梶 茂樹, 教授 重田 眞義, 准教授 高田 明, 准教授 山名 淳 / 学位規則第4条第1項該当 / Doctor of Area Studies / Kyoto University / DFAM

Following the invasion of Ukraine on the 24th of February 2022, the EU imposed new heavy sanctions on Russia as a response to their act of aggression. The first EU sanctions on Russia were imposed following their annexation of Crimea in 2014, and sanctions have been employed ever since. However, the EU response in 2022 differs significantly from 2014 in both scope and impact, and the EU’s capability to reach an agreement was a surprise for scholars and experts. Drawing from a deliberative perspective, the aim of this thesis is to explain the agreement on EU sanctions against Russia in 2022-23. By analysing the arguments presented by the EU member states, this paper will examine how a collective stance on sanctions was attained. The findings will conclude that rights-based norms linked to international law, in particular the principles of state sovereignty and self-determination, enabled the agreement. Yet, security concerns had an impact on the discourse on sanctions which underlines the importance of a sense of threat. However, the rights-based norms were inextricably intertwined with value-based norms that influenced and shaped the discourse on which the agreement was reached. The value-based norms were linked to a particular duty to Europe and moral obligations vis-á-vis Ukrainians. Hence, European solidarity and a sense of European identity encompassed the discourse and facilitated the EU’s collective action.

Swedish hunters sometimes appeal to an inviolate ‘right to exist’ for wolves, apparently rejecting NIMBY. Nevertheless, the conditions existence hunters impose on wolves in practice fundamentally contradict their use of right to exist language. Hunters appeal to this language hoping to gain uptake in a conservation and management discourse demanding appropriately objective ecological language. However, their contradictory use of ‘right to exist' opens them up to the charge that they are being deceptive–indeed, right to exist is a 'disguised NIMBY!' We address this situation by distinguishing hunters’ criticisms of wolves from the procedures for reaching objective policy decisions.

Background: Public deliberation can be used in a number of decision-making processes to make the health system more responsive to public values, and to help inform and refine health system policy decisions. This study evaluates how the McMaster Health Forum implements the key elements of public deliberation and identifies both areas of strength and potential areas for improvement. Methods: An evaluative case study approach was used. Data were collected from three sources: quantitative and open-ended responses to questionnaires from 19 panels (200 respondents); panel summaries from 13 panels; and transcripts of 2 panel deliberations. Thematic analysis was used to assess four key elements of deliberation: the representativeness of participants, the information supports provided to them, the procedural criteria used, and the focus on explicit reasoning in coming to conclusions. Results: Participants felt that the McMaster Health Forum recruited a representative sample of participants based on gender and diversity of opinion. However, participants noted that the panels could be improved by striving for more age and ethnocultural diversity while also including health professionals or policymakers. Participants mostly occupied the role of a ‘consumer’ of health services. They viewed the information presented in citizen briefs as credible but had questions about the brief-development process. Procedurally, the panels fostered openness without impeding consensus and facilitators fostered mutual respect among participants. Finally, the groups incorporated values, showed an ability to come to a deeper understanding of policy options and harnessed the diverse experiences of their fellow participants as they reasoned. Discussion: This case study is part of a larger evaluation process that assesses all of the McMaster Health Forum citizen panels which aim to elicit citizens’ values and preferences about health system issues in Canada. The framework used to assess the public deliberation process can be used to evaluate other processes in the future. / Thesis / Master of Science (MSc)

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

Den här uppsatsen syftar till att undersöka i vilken utsträckning Luleå kommun använt sig av deliberativa demokratiteoretiska principer vid hanteringen av kommunens förändring av skolstrukturen. Med hjälp av deliberativ demokratiteori analyseras material relaterat till utredningarna år 2016 och 2022 för att få svar på hur väl kommunens agerande och yttranden stämmer överens med teorins ideal. Det som främst analyseras är de dialoger, samtal och den kommunikation som skett med medborgare. Resultatet visar att kommunen i utredningen som presenterades år 2016 inte förhöll sig till principer i linje med deliberativ demokratiteori och inte heller visade på någon sådan intention. Mötena som hölls med medborgare vid den utredningen speglades inte i beslutsunderlaget. Efter folkomröstningen år 2020 och hanteringen av det resultatet började kommunen agera närmare deliberativa modeller. Dialoger med medborgare hålls numera redan innan ett beslutsunderlag finns och mycket tyder på att dialogerna kommer speglas i det beslutsunderlag som senare skall presenteras.

Engaging in productive political discussion has long been a valued aspect of American democratic life. Due to ease of access and the potential for exposure to diverse views, the Internet and social media may support mediated political talk. Literature on the concept of face and politeness theory provides a framework for understanding interpersonal interactions, both online and offline. To understand if social media has the potential to host political discussion among millennials, a survey (N = 352) of undergraduate students examined social media use and political interaction experiences. Facebook was the most popular platform for exposure to others' political opinions and political self-expression. Facebook users with more diverse networks engaged in more political expression. Across numerous platforms, participants reported frequently being exposed to others' political opinions but infrequently sharing their own views. Negative and positive political interactions on Facebook and Twitter were explored for their threat to and support of negative face (need for autonomy) and positive face (need for validation). Findings indicate that engaging in negative interactions leads to more face threat while observing negative interactions solicits more face support. Engaging in positive interactions results in more face support and observing positive interactions leads to more face threat. Across interaction type and platform, participants who actively engaged in political interactions as opposed to merely observing them reported significantly more subsequent online political engagement. Future research on political interactions across various social media platforms and the application of interpersonal communication theory to the study of mediated political talk is warranted. / Master of Arts