No description available.

<p><strong>Abstract</strong></p><p><strong> </strong></p><p><strong>Title: </strong><em>Krig och fred - 080808. Freds-, krigsjournalistik och propaganda i mediernas rapportering om Georgienkriget: en komparativ studie av Sveriges, Rysslands och USA:s press. </em>(War and peace – 080808. Peace Journalism, War Journalism and Propaganda in the Media´s Reporting on the Georgia War: a Comparative Study of the Swedish, Russian and American Press.) <strong></strong></p><p><strong> </strong></p><p><strong>Authors:</strong> Daniel Lövgren & Tatiana Makarova</p><p> </p><p><strong>Tutor:</strong> Anna Roosvall</p><p> </p><p><strong>Course: </strong>Bachelor Thesis: Media and Communication, PR</p><p> </p><p><strong>Purpose:</strong> The purpose of this essay is to compare how the press in Sweden, Russia and the USA reported on the war in Georgia 2008. Focus is put on identifying the extent to which the reporting is governed by <em>war</em> <em>journalism</em> or <em>peace</em> <em>journalism</em> and, to which degree <em>propaganda</em>, that is one of the aspects of <em>war</em> <em>journalism</em>, is present in the different countries press.</p><p><strong> </strong></p><p><strong>Methodology:</strong> Quantitative content analysis and critical discourse analysis<strong> </strong></p><p><strong> </strong></p><p><strong>Theoretical perspectives: </strong>The essay leans on the theoretical foundation of <em>peace</em> <em>journalism</em> and <em>war</em> <em>journalism </em>proposed by the Norwegian peace researcher Johan Galtung, further elaborated by the journalists Jake Lynch and Annabel McGoldrick. This essay also uses a theoretical framework on propaganda, among other the “Propaganda model” by Herman and Chomsky, the research of Kempf and Loustarinen and journalistic observations of Lynch and McGoldrick.</p><p><strong> </strong></p><p><strong>Conclusions:</strong> The study reveals both similarities and differences between the reporting on the Georgia war in the analyzed countries. The quantitative content analysis of 600 articles in nine different newspapers (three in each country) shows that it is the war journalistic framework that is dominating in all the three countries. The results also show that there is a difference between the support given to the parties involved in the war. In the USA and Sweden the majority of the articles are pro-Georgian and in Russia the majority of the articles take pro-South Ossetian/Russian stance. The critical discourse analysis of eight articles have shown similarities and differences in scale, design, content and the presence of propaganda. Indicators of propaganda in the analyzed material include a breakdown of the actors in the war to two opposing parties, a polarization between “us” and “them” where the first is humanized and the later demonized, a wide use of elite sources.  </p><p> </p><p><strong>Keywords:</strong> Peace journalism, war journalism, propaganda, Georgia war, South Ossetia, Swedish press, Russian press, American press</p> / The Caucasus Project

I detta arbete har jag försökt utröna vilken bild av Ryssland som kommer till uttryck i de fyra största svenska dagstidningarnas (Aftonbladet, Expressen, Svenska Dagbladet och Dagens Nyheter) rapportering av konflikten i Georgien sommaren 2008. Med utgångspunkt i Sture Nilssons Rysskräcken i Sverige – Fördomar och verklighet  har jag konstruerat en idealtyp, bestående av begreppen fientlighet, rädsla och misstro . Med detta som analysverktyg har jag studerat den rapportering som skedde mellan 2008-08-08 – 2008-08-12, dvs. under den väpnade delen av konflikten. I denna rapportering har idealtypens begrepp med stor tydlighet varit representerade i både ledare och allmän rapportering, dock inte med alla aspekter som ingick i definitionen för fientlighet. Begreppet rädsla  har endast yttrats otvetydigt under den sista dagens rapportering. Rapporteringen har varit liknande i alla fyra tidningar till innehållet, dock med något starkare tendenser i lösnummerpressen (Aftonbladet och Expressen) och med större volym i Dagens Nyheter och Svenska Dagbladet. / In this essay I have attempted to determine what image of Russia was expressed in the largest newspapers in Sweden (Aftonbladet, Expressen, Svenska Dagbladet och Dagens Nyheter), during the conflict in Georgia in the summer of 2008. Starting with the image presented by Sture Nilsson in Rysskräcken i Sverige – Fördomar och verklighet, I have constructed an ideal consisting of the terms hostility, fear, and mistrust. These factors have then been used to analyse the reports between 2008-08-08 – 2008-08-12, which was the armed part of the conflict. I have found that the factors composing the ideal have been expressed clearly, in editorials as well as in news articles, with the exception of some of the factors that define hostility. The term fear  has only been expressed unequivocally in the last day’s reports. Reports have shown little variation between the different newspapers, although the tabloid press (Aftonbladet and Expressen) have expressed these tendencies slightly stronger, and the volume of reports have been noticeably larger in Svenska Dagbladet and Dagens Nyheter.

Abstract   Title: Krig och fred - 080808. Freds-, krigsjournalistik och propaganda i mediernas rapportering om Georgienkriget: en komparativ studie av Sveriges, Rysslands och USA:s press. (War and peace – 080808. Peace Journalism, War Journalism and Propaganda in the Media´s Reporting on the Georgia War: a Comparative Study of the Swedish, Russian and American Press.)   Authors: Daniel Lövgren &amp; Tatiana Makarova   Tutor: Anna Roosvall   Course: Bachelor Thesis: Media and Communication, PR   Purpose: The purpose of this essay is to compare how the press in Sweden, Russia and the USA reported on the war in Georgia 2008. Focus is put on identifying the extent to which the reporting is governed by war journalism or peace journalism and, to which degree propaganda, that is one of the aspects of war journalism, is present in the different countries press.   Methodology: Quantitative content analysis and critical discourse analysis   Theoretical perspectives: The essay leans on the theoretical foundation of peace journalism and war journalism proposed by the Norwegian peace researcher Johan Galtung, further elaborated by the journalists Jake Lynch and Annabel McGoldrick. This essay also uses a theoretical framework on propaganda, among other the “Propaganda model” by Herman and Chomsky, the research of Kempf and Loustarinen and journalistic observations of Lynch and McGoldrick.   Conclusions: The study reveals both similarities and differences between the reporting on the Georgia war in the analyzed countries. The quantitative content analysis of 600 articles in nine different newspapers (three in each country) shows that it is the war journalistic framework that is dominating in all the three countries. The results also show that there is a difference between the support given to the parties involved in the war. In the USA and Sweden the majority of the articles are pro-Georgian and in Russia the majority of the articles take pro-South Ossetian/Russian stance. The critical discourse analysis of eight articles have shown similarities and differences in scale, design, content and the presence of propaganda. Indicators of propaganda in the analyzed material include a breakdown of the actors in the war to two opposing parties, a polarization between “us” and “them” where the first is humanized and the later demonized, a wide use of elite sources.     Keywords: Peace journalism, war journalism, propaganda, Georgia war, South Ossetia, Swedish press, Russian press, American press / The Caucasus Project

Over the course of history, the organisation of human societies has gone through several evolutionary stages. Their peak, primarily in Europe, took the form of states as polities structured around an ethnical basis-nation states. In many cases, their rise and downfall could be rather violent which led to growing social instability. Therefore, international communities began looking for mechanisms to regulate these processes. From the perspective of international law, it was necessary mainly to define the term state and codify the requirements an entity had to meet in order to be considered one. The Montevideo Convention established an elementary quartet, necessitating the presence of a population, territory, executive power and the ability to fully participate in international relationships, i.e. possess external sovereignty. These four aspects, however, still did not entirely suffice which is why secondary requirements kept being inconsistently added, addressing primarily the entity's inner character and its attitude to, for example, upholding universal human rights or minority rights. Nonetheless, simply meeting the above-mentioned criteria is not enough to establish a fully functioning state. In the modern world, it is essentially impossible for a new state to be created without infringing on...

This study aims to answer two interlinked questions with respect to ethnic conflict in Georgia: Why and how two ethnic groups (Abkhazians and Ossetians) in Georgia sought secession in 1990s rather than accepting unity under a common Georgian roof, and what explains the occurrence of ethnic conflicts between the Abkhazians and Georgians and between the South Ossetians and Georgians? The central argument of this thesis is that Soviet nationality policy was a foremost driving force in shaping consciousness of being ethnic groups in Georgia and set the stage for the inter-ethnic conflicts of the post-Soviet era. A number of factors explain the particular inter-ethnic conflicts in Georgia among ethnic groups, including a long historical relationship between the Georgian people and the Abkhaz and Ossetian minorities, but I argue that the foremost factor was the role of Soviet nationality policy that evolved from Lenin to Gorbachev, a policy that granted ethnic groups some level of privileges and fostered a wave of national self-assertion, Soviet nationality policy and the Soviet federal structure created numerous ethnic- and territorial-based autonomous units during the Soviet era; these units shaped their own political institutions, national intelligentsias, and bureaucratic elites, forming the basis for later nationalistic movements and developing a wish for self-determination and full independence. These institutions and beliefs made ethnic conflict in a post-Soviet Georgia inevitable.

This master thesis deals with the mapping and analysis of Russian-Georgian relations in the period between 2004-2011. It focuses primarily on the development of relations after the onset of the new Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili and after his transformation of Georgian Policy. The work is divided into chronological historical axis of events, from the history of Georgia and Georgian people, the author gets to the problems of August war in 2008. The main objective of this work is to find the causes of the war between Russia and Georgia, to map out its long-standing hostile relations and try to find its solutions. Starting point of this work is the assumption that Georgia and Russia have always been nations culturally very similar and therefore its friendly relations are essential for the regulation of conflicts on Georgia's borders. Russia as a powerful neighbor, has always had a superiority over Georgia. Therefore, in subsequent chapters is enhanced the need for intervention by international organizations such as NATO, OSCE, EU, etc. issues in Russian-Georgian conflict, in order to offset the forces of power on both sides. In the last chapters the thesis deals with the intervention of the international community, whether their pressure on Russia will be still intense and if in the future...

No description available.

20世紀因民族主義的興起，間接地促成了世界上許多地區性的民族開始爭取獨立，其中包括科索沃、阿布哈茲與南奧塞提亞。然而，在90年代共產勢力瓦解時期，此三區域因為歷史地位的關係並未獨立成功，而開始與各自的宗主國持續發生衝突。爾後，世界強權與國際組織介入處理此三區域的問題，卻因為國際法缺乏一致性規範的情況下，使得問題一直無法有效解決，反而淪為世界強權勢力擴張的棋子。因此，儘管科索沃、阿布哈茲與南奧塞提亞的獨立條件相似，最後卻因為不同的支持勢力而產生不同的獨立結果。獨立後，此三區域也將面臨一些難題。 關鍵字：科索沃、阿布哈茲、南奧塞提亞、國際法、獨立議題 / The emergence of Nationalism in the 20th century indirectly promoted the fight for independence of many regional races around the world, including Kosovo, Abkhazia and South Oss- etia. However, during the collapse of communist forces in the 1990s, these three regions failed in becoming independ- ent due to their historical status, and conflicts with their Metropolitan State persisted. The world powers and international organizations hence intervened in an attempt to solve the problems. Nevertheless, without consistency in the norms of international law, the issues could not be unr- aveled effectively, but rather became a tool abused by the world powers for territory expansion. Consequently,although Kosovo, Abkhazia and South Ossetia's had similar conditions for independence, the outcomes were different as they each had different supporting powers. Eventually, these three regions will also face challenges afterg aining independen- ce. Key words: Kosovo, Abkhazia, South Ossetia, international law, independence issue

俄羅斯與西方在南奧塞梯及科索沃宣布獨立問題上採取截然不同的立場，科索沃宣布獨立後，俄羅斯表示堅決反對科宣布獨立，此舉破壞國際法準則及地區穩定，國際社會不應奉行雙重標準，也不能出於政治考慮有選擇地利用國際法。 俄羅斯在協助南奧塞梯的獨立運動支持喬治亞分離主義的同時，卻強硬鎮壓其境內的車臣與印古什獨立運動，前者可以幫助俄羅斯擴大在前蘇聯境內的影響力，後者可以確保俄羅斯境內不會產生分離主義的骨牌效應，支持前者、鎮壓後者都確保俄國在歐亞政治板塊中的地緣政治優勢。 俄羅斯在對南奧塞梯及科索沃獨立態度上，可就下列面向比較討論：(1)當南宣布獨立時，俄國立即宣布承認，並認為其有權決定自己命運；當科宣布獨立時，俄則認為其獨立破壞國際法準則及地區穩定，負面影響如車臣(2)國際法方面：對南的態度是根據局勢發展做出的決定符合有關國際文件；對科則要求安理會遵守1244號決議，並認定其單方面宣布獨立無效(3)考量因素：對南則是捍衛在喬治亞戰略、政治利益、經濟與生態維護利益；對科則是俄與塞同為斯拉夫民族，科在沙皇時期為俄傳統勢力範圍，另以經濟角度來看，巴爾幹是俄對歐出口能源通道。 南奧塞梯和阿布哈玆問題反應國家主權與民族自決權的獨立。維護國家主權和領土完整是國際關係的一個普遍原則，然而現在美國歐盟與俄羅斯卻都出現雙重標準，在科索沃獨立問題上，西方國家強調民族自決權，俄羅斯則譴責美歐破壞塞爾維亞主權將帶來嚴重後果。而在俄喬衝突中，俄羅斯支持南、阿獨立。在此兩事件中，在國家主權及民族自決權雙重標準下，造成國際關係的動盪。在科索沃和南奧塞梯的問題上，美國、俄羅斯和歐盟正是依民族自決權原則為依據，先塞爾維亞後喬治亞，通過對別國的干涉而維護自己的利益。 / Russia and the West take different positions on the issue in declaration of independence on South Ossetia and Kosovo. After Kosovo's declaration of independence, Russia is firmly opposed Kosovo's declaration of independence, and this action effect destabilize regional and norms of international law. The international community should not take double standard, and use international law selective out of political considerations. Russia helped to support Georgia secessionist movement and South Ossetia's independence, but it had tough crackdown in Chechnya and Ingushetia independence movement. The former can help Russia to expand the territory of the former Soviet Union's influence, which can ensure that Russia will not produce a domino effect separatism. This will ensure that the Russian preserve geopolitical advantage in the Eurasian areas. Russia's attitude towards the independence of South Ossetia and Kosovo, we can compare in the following aspects: (1) When the South Ossetia declared independence, Russia announced to recognize immediately, while Kosovo declared independence this action effect destabilize regional and norms of international law such as Chechnya (2) in the international law: Russia made a decision according with the situation toward South Ossetia; and Russia required to comply with UN Security Council resolution 1244, and concluded its unilateral declaration of independence is invalid (3) consideration factors: to protect the political, economic and ecological interests of the South Ossetia, while in Kosovo, with the economic perspective, the Balkan is a Russian exports to the EU energy channels. South Ossetia and Abkhazia issues react the national sovereignty and national self-determination of independence. Maintaining national sovereignty and territorial integrity is a general principle of international relations, however, the EU, Russia, and the United States had double standards on the issue of Kosovo's independence. In Western countries they stressed national self-determination, but Russia condemned the United States and Europe undermine the sovereignty of Serbia and it will bring serious consequences. Russia supported the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia in this incident. With the double standard in national sovereignty and national self-determination, it will cause turbulence in international relations. On the issue of Kosovo and South Ossetia, the United States, Russia and the EU are on the base of according to the principle of national self-determination, to protect their own interests by the interference of other countries.