No description available.

This thesis examined the influence of Western paternalism on the adoption of gay rights by Nigeria and the Republic of Niger. It seeks to provide an answer to the research question: How has Western paternalism determined Nigeria and the Republic of Niger's positions on the adoption of gay rights? The opposition of gay rights is widespread among African countries, and existing research is yet to provide an encompassing explanation for the trend. This study used the Linkage and leverage theory of Levitsky and Way (2010) to expand on research gaps found in previous literature. This thesis argues that the position of African nations on gay rights depended on their Western Linkage and Leverage from Western and non-Western external powers. A comparative, qualitative analysis of Nigeria and the Republic of Niger showed that both countries have strong Western Linkage and Leverage from Western countries. However, Nigeria has been able to resist the pressure to adopt gay rights because of its alternative leverage with non-Western countries like China and its vast oil reserve. The findings also provide further theoretical insights into the linkage and leverage concept, and it makes recommendations for further studies.

Recently, many authors from various theoretical backgrounds have written books or articles trying to clarify what the role of the sovereign state is within the wider political context of “global politics.” This thesis seeks to critically engage with the way in which this debate has been framed by the vast majority of these authors. Indeed, while most authors frame this debate as an essentially empirical disagreement concerning the objective composition of global politics, we will be arguing that it is really a debate that concerns the problem of political foundation and the possibly changing nature of the dominant ways of answering this problem in contemporary “global politics.” From this perspective, the vast majority of those involved in this debate simply pass over - as somehow analytically uninteresting - most of the questions that would really need to be explained and understood. This thesis seeks to address this crucial oversight

Recently, many authors from various theoretical backgrounds have written books or articles trying to clarify what the role of the sovereign state is within the wider political context of “global politics.” This thesis seeks to critically engage with the way in which this debate has been framed by the vast majority of these authors. Indeed, while most authors frame this debate as an essentially empirical disagreement concerning the objective composition of global politics, we will be arguing that it is really a debate that concerns the problem of political foundation and the possibly changing nature of the dominant ways of answering this problem in contemporary “global politics.” From this perspective, the vast majority of those involved in this debate simply pass over - as somehow analytically uninteresting - most of the questions that would really need to be explained and understood. This thesis seeks to address this crucial oversight

Recently, many authors from various theoretical backgrounds have written books or articles trying to clarify what the role of the sovereign state is within the wider political context of “global politics.” This thesis seeks to critically engage with the way in which this debate has been framed by the vast majority of these authors. Indeed, while most authors frame this debate as an essentially empirical disagreement concerning the objective composition of global politics, we will be arguing that it is really a debate that concerns the problem of political foundation and the possibly changing nature of the dominant ways of answering this problem in contemporary “global politics.” From this perspective, the vast majority of those involved in this debate simply pass over - as somehow analytically uninteresting - most of the questions that would really need to be explained and understood. This thesis seeks to address this crucial oversight

No / UN peacekeeping is once again undergoing a period of intense critical scrutiny. Having passed through three major phases of development, from first (classical or traditional) to second (multidimensional) generation configurations, to a third phase in the mid- and late 1990s when peace support operations emerged, it currently faces another period of transition. This article speculates about the possible configuration of peacekeeping and its role in global politics. Debates about the role of peacekeeping in the international system should bring to the forefront a conception and practice of cosmopolitan peacekeeping, involving a capacity to protect civilians from violent conflict (the negative peace dimension) and a the capacity to address the human security agenda adopted by the UN in recent years.

Many people agree that we live in a changing world. It is a world transformed by globalization. I propose that changes in state policies have led to a change from an international economy to a global economy, thereby contributing to the emergence of contemporary globalization. Changes in state power/authority and policies have affected the overall economy. These changes have caused the economy to transform from a national economy to a global economy. I test the hypothesis through a case study of Guatemala's Economy. The time period for this study is from 1982 to 2002. The economy of Guatemala is comprised of three key sectors. These sectors include Agriculture, Industry, and Services. I study the relationship the state has with these key sectors and also the relationship these three sectors have on the state. I review the current status of national economies to determine if they have changed and thereby been absorbed by a global economy. What have been the characteristics of national economies? Do these characteristics still exist? If national economies continue to have the same characteristics they have developed since the 18th century then, what is meant by a global economy? Does it exist? What is the difference between an international economy and a global economy? How do political economists and economists view national economies and the global economy? Are the traditional variables (such as GNP, GDP, savings rate and others) used to measure changes in national economies still applicable? Has the relationship between the economy and the state changed or remained unchanged since the development of that relationship since the 18th century? Among these questions, the central question I plan to address is: have national economies changed and become subsumed under a global economy?

No description available.

This study investigates the historical development and implementation of global governance theory, recognizing its collaborative framework as a critical tool in global politics. While the theory, alongside its epistemic foundations, offers productive and useful guidance for approaching transnational affairs, the question remains whether or not the application of this theory to reality has been successful and advantageous. In order to evaluate this translation, three key structures for transnational relations are examined: the Entente Cordiale, the League of Nations, and the European Union. By consulting key global governance theorists, academic assessments, as well as news reports, this paper analyzes and evaluates Europe’s use of a global governance framework. Although the reality of implementing this theory has exposed significant flaws, this study points to global governance theory as a valuable framework, suggesting the need to return to this theory, particularly for navigating through uncertainty and instability in global politics.

This thesis analysis the problems facing the negotiators during their international efforts to create global climate change regimes. Without understanding why such negotiations failed in the past, it is difficult to learn how to negotiate them successfully in the future. The US and China are responsible for emitting almost half of the greenhouse emissions to the atmosphere. However, they are still laggards in the efforts to create an effective global climate change regime and are running away from their global responsibility by blaming each other for the failure to reach a global climate change deal. The EU has been taking the leadership in efforts to negotiate global climate change regimes. However, they can not influence and force the main two hegemonic powers to follow their leadership. This is because the EU is not hegemony in the global political arena. The EU persistence to find compromises during negotiations for future global climate change regimes is a source of hope to humankind. Flexibility during negotiations, openness to consider the views of other global actors to find optimum solutions, and the understanding that no one is secure from the threats of climate change are essential to bring the world leaders into a compromise global climate change regime.