This study examines the role nonstate actors played in the American intervention in the Russian Revolution from 1918 to 1920. Using two commissions of private Americans which traveled to Russia in 1917 and an associated network who held significant stakes in Russian stability and military viability, I fill a hole in diplomatic and military historiography by arguing that nonstate actors played an integral part in advocating for and facilitating the American invasion of revolutionary Russia. / History

<p dir="ltr">This dissertation examines how partnerships between leading environmental non-governmental organizations (IENGOs) and corporations shape the agency of nonstate actors in global politics. It contributes to the growing scholarship on non-substantialist approaches to the concept of agency in International Relations (IR) by analyzing how interactions between nonstate actors can influence their ability to act and exert influence in global politics. The central concept of <i>agency reconfiguration</i> is introduced. This concept argues that IENGO-corporate partnerships can create opportunities for nonstate actors to gain new capacities and influence in global politics. However, it also acknowledges potential trade-offs associated with such partnerships. To explore this concept, the dissertation first maps the landscape of IENGO-corporate partnerships. This includes a comprehensive list of corporate partners for four leading IENGOs (Greenpeace, EDF, FoE, and WWF), how these partnerships have evolved over time, and a typology of partnership structures. Finally, a process tracing approach is used to examine a specific case: the partnership between Greenpeace and Foron, a former German appliance manufacturer. Within-case evidence is used to link the events from the formation of the partnership to Greenpeace's agency reconfiguration, which ultimately positioned Greenpeace as a central actor in ozone governance, particularly the implementation of the Montreal Protocol.</p>

In the 21st Century, violent non-state actors continue to pose an asymmetric threat to state actors. Given the increasing proliferation of lethal technologies, growing global social connectivity, and continued occurrences of failed or failing states, the quantity of violent non-state actors posing threats in global hotspots is likely to increase. The United States, already facing strategic overreach due to conflicts in Southeast Asia, the Middle East, and Africa, will face enormous difficulties in engaging militarily against a multitude of violent non-state actors. Smart power, a selective employment of hard and soft power applications, presents an opportunity to limit and deter violent non-state actors in a resource-constrained environment. Smart power, previously viewed through a largely state-on-state lens must be looked at through the paradigm of containing and engaging violent non-state actors. / Master of Arts / Modern nation-states must contend with an asymmetric threat from violent nonstate actors. In this thesis, an asymmetric threat is viewed as a threat in which the conventionally weaker opponent gains an undue advantage given their commensurate strength. Violent non-state actors are defined in this thesis as non-state armed groups that resort to organized violence as a tool to achieve their goals. Given the increasing proliferation of lethal technologies, growing global social connectivity, and continued occurrences of failed or failing states, the quantity of violent non-state actors posing threats in global hotspots is likely to increase. The United States, already facing strategic overreach due to conflicts in Southeast Asia, the Middle East, and Africa, will face enormous difficulties in engaging militarily against a multitude of violent non-state actors. Smart power, the employment of a variety of power applications [i.e. air strikes, coalition building, diplomacy, foreign aid, etc.], presents an opportunity to limit and deter violent non-state actors in a resource-constrained environment. Smart power, previously viewed through a largely state-on-state lens must be looked at through the paradigm of containing and engaging violent non-state actors.