Thesis (M.S.)--University of Wisconsin--Madison, 1962. / Typescript. eContent provider-neutral record in process. Description based on print version record. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 61-63).

Thesis (M.A.)--Ohio University, June, 2010. / Title from PDF t.p. Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (M.A. in Security Studies (Civil-Military Relations))--Naval Postgraduate School, March 2006. / Thesis Advisor(s): Donald Abenheim. "March 2006." Includes bibliographical references (p. 99-106). Also available online.

Historical Treaties entered into with Indigenous peoples are often a source of conflict. This conflict is connected to treaty implementation, which tends to be at the sole discretion of the domestic jurisdiction. Accordingly, a one-sided interpretation of a two-sided agreement is a problematic approach. This thesis will explore key concepts of Indigenous law, in relation to the historical Treaties made with the Crown. Particular emphasis will be on the Anishinaabe in Treaty No. 3 in Turtle Island, the State now known as Canada. Indigenous law will be grounded in widely accepted international law principles, which may allow for further insight by the Treaty partners. Through grounding the Indigenous perspective of the true spirit and original intent of the Treaties, explanation can be drawn out and further understanding between the parties will occur. Mutual understanding, along with respect, is part of the foundation to the reconciliation process of the relationship between Indigenous and non-Indigenous peoples. / February 2016

Doctor Legum - LLD / Currently most international investment disputes are settled through arbitration. The origin of this dispute settlement system can be associated with the recent proliferation of over 3000 Bilateral Investment Treaties. Through this system disputes are settled by autonomous and differently constituted tribunals which have powers to render final and binding awards. The dissatisfied party has very limited opportunity to challenge the rendered award as there are no higher bodies in the hierarchy where a dissatisfied party can lodge an appeal, save for limited procedural challenges which are allowed under the system. These differently constituted tribunals at times reach diametrically opposed decisions on similar facts and those decisions stand side by side and all are considered valid. These inconsistent decisions are leading to lack of consistency and uniformity which in turn affects the legitimacy of the system as a whole. The rules of these institutions do not allow the proceedings to be held in public despite the fact that at times these tribunals question the regulatory powers of the state and state measures on service provision to its citizens. Another issue under the current system is that due to lack of coordination, arbitrators play dual roles: as counsels and arbitrators. This practice compromises the cherished principle of the rule of law. In the effort to address these concerns, stakeholders have suggested a number of possible solutions. The suggested solutions include: invoking res judicata and lis pendens principles; adopting the doctrine of precedent; applying the ‘fork in the road’ principle; adopting the margin of appreciation standard in interpretation of BITs; creating an appellate structure at ICSID and creating a treaty to treaty appellate body. This research submits that, the suggested solutions singularly and cumulatively don not address the legitimacy issues adequately. The research therefore calls for the establishment of a Multilateral Agreement on Investment (MAI) in order to address the legitimacy issues cumulatively. It is submitted that establishing a Multilateral Investment Agreement (MAI) which provides for creating a standing international investment court with an appellate court is the only solution which addresses all the issues haunting the international investment dispute settlement system. In addition, the research suggests interim solutions which will help to increase the legitimacy of the current system pending the establishment of the MAI and the courts. The interim solutions include: establishment of the investor – state dispute adjudication Centre; effective utilisation of host state courts; mandatory publication of all awards; enhancing the effective use of member states interpretative statement; and forming a working commission to provide basic interpretation and the scope of the basic international investment law principles. These measures are only meant to improve the current system pending the establishment of the MAI and the courts. The research concludes that for the betterment of international investment law, the reform is inevitable and that the benefits would outweigh any demerits.

During the last four decades, precisely from the early 1970s, U.S. foreign policy has played a dominant role in the U.S. political landscape. The current political discourse is predominantly marked by divided government, polarized politics and gridlock. Such a contentious political environment has proved to be detrimental for efficient and effective policy-making in foreign policy. There are significant factors that profoundly complicate the process of decision making and congressional-presidential relations. Partisan and ideological differences under the conditions of divided government are dominant in the current political process and in turn affect the prospects of legislative-executive consensus and dissension. Other factors such as media salience, public opinion, and electoral imperatives also complicate the dynamics of legislative-executive relations. In an era in which heightened political brinkmanship has enveloped Washington politics, continuum of consensus and dissension between Congress and the president on strategic foreign policy issues has virtually become a norm. This dissertation examines the dynamics of legislative-executive relations in two high politics U.S. foreign policy issue areas of treaty process and war powers. It appears that in contemporary U.S. foreign policymaking the trajectory of a continuum of legislative-executive consensus and dissension is a new normal and potentially irreversible, as Congress and the president try ardently to preserve their respective constitutional prerogatives. Empirical investigation across these two issue areas demonstrates a new era of a resurgent Congress marked by its greater assertive role and acting as a consequential player in the foreign policy domain. The passage of the War Powers Resolution in 1973 by Congress, overriding a presidential veto, has profound implications in the modern political landscape. It was a pivotal moment that permanently transformed the future road map of congressional-presidential relations. Since then the U.S. political system has been relentlessly experiencing an institutional power struggle in the foreign policy domain. Findings suggest that when Congress determines to confront the president and exercise its constitutional responsibilities it becomes very difficult for the president to overcome such congressional resistance. Interbranch competition has virtually created a consistent trajectory of a continuum of legislative-executive consensus and dissension in the foreign policy decision-making process.

Magister Philosophiae - MPhil / The Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) was negotiated to stop the proliferation of nuclear weapons, resulting from the dangers associated with the use of these weapons well visible during 1945, in Hiroshima and Nagasaki and a nuclear arms race as seen during the Cuban Missile Crisis. During NPT Review Conferences, held every five years, the strength and integrity of this treaty is tested. Evident in NPT review conferences is the disagreement between nuclear weapon states and non-nuclear weapon states over the role and importance placed on nuclear weapons and the slow pace of nuclear disarmament. The NPT has been in force for over 40 years; however the threat of nuclear weapons still exists. It then becomes necessary to understand what role the NPT plays in the international system, which differs depending on the theoretical lens used to interpret the NPT. A realist perspective of the NPT reveals that this treaty is an instrument used by dominant states to safeguard and legitimise their hold over nuclear weapons, while denying other states access to these weapons, instead protecting their allies through extended nuclear deterrence. A liberal perspective of the NPT highlights the moral influence of this treaty as an instrument for the benefit of the greater good, to shield humanity from the dangers of a nuclear explosion by delegitimizing nuclear weapons, key to shaping the perceptions of the decision makers of states regarding state security and nuclear weapons particularly. A constructivist interpretation of the NPT argues that this treaty is a social construction by states to impose a measure of order in their relations. At particular times in history, the NPT moves between a realist and liberal interpretation based on critical events that inform its direction. Social agents (decision makers of the state) through their thinking and ideas construct and give meaning to “reality” which is constantly negotiated. With that in mind, no interpretation of the NPT is fixed and for that reason, a constructivist conclusion seems ultimately applicable, namely that the NPT is what states make of it.

Connections between South Africa and Antarctica can be traced as far back as the 1700s when European expeditions in search of the southern continent used Cape Town (and later Simonstown) as a base of operation. This link expanded considerably after formal British acquisition of the Cape of Good Hope in 1815, yet it was not until 1926 that an actual South African policy towards the Antarctic began to materialize. Once this policy was established it continued to be characterized by procrastination as well as resistance both from within and without South Africa. The history of South Africa's Antarctic policy can be divided into five periods: first, the commencement of the policy (focusing primarily on economic interests), 1926-1939; second, the pursuit of interests through the policy (focusing on political interests), 1944- 1958; third, the entrenchment of South Africa's interests in the Antarctic (by securing South Africa's position within the Antarctic Treaty System), 1958-1960; fourth, the expansion of and foreign assault on the policy (under the auspices of the Antarctic Treaty System), 1960-1988; and fifth, the defence of and future prospects for the policy (from United Nation's calls for South Africa's exclusion from the Antarctic Treaty System), since 1982. While resistance from inside and outside the government during the first two periods resulted from inadequacies in the South African Antarctic policy itself, resistance in the final two periods has centred upon non-Antarctic issues. As South Africa has faced ever-increasing exclusion from international governmental organizations over opposition to Its apartheid policies, organizations such as the Antarctic Treaty Organization have inevitably been drawn into the debate. As a result, the Consultative Parties of the Antarctic Treaty (of which South Africa is one of the original twelve) have been forced to deal with the following question: to what extent will political issues outside the scope of the management policies of the Antarctic Treaty Organization be allowed to affect the functioning of the Antarctic Treaty System? While the Consultative Parties continue to ponder this and the fact that South Africa's Consultative Status has become the most divisive factor within the Antarctic Treaty System, no final solutions to these issues appear likely before 1991.

Master's thesis is dedicated to one of the most effective international treaties, which attends to facilitating and liberalization of international handling with goods, functioning for almost 40 years. This paper mainly describes the situation, which appeared in 2013, when the barriers for its application emerged. It tells about the crisis of TIR Carnet on the Russian territory, caused by some intern factors as well as factors on the international level. Affairs and changes, arisen in the beginning of the 21st century (expanding of the EU, new goods transportation methods, Customs Union, etc.) drove to the loss of TIR treaty's significance, and to the necessity of creating new international cooperation principles. Situation then changed due to the civil war in Ukraine, sanctions against Russia and Russian response. That is why the ground, reasons and consequences of TIR Carnet crisis on the Russian territory were in detail described in the master's thesis. Main conclusion is that this crisis only predicts the beginning of serious changes in international transport of goods, which can be faced in the nearest future.

The recent investment policy shift, by the South African government, including, termination of bilateral investment treaties with some developed countries, is illustrative of the continued discontent by most developing countries with the status quo in the realm of international investments agreements (IIAs) regime. Balancing governments' sovereign right to implement domestic policies, in order to achieve socio-economic goals, for overall sustainable development, and the corresponding duty to protect foreign investments within the host state seems perpetually elusive, within the current bilateral investment treaty (BIT) regime. The parallel rising of free trade agreements (FTAs) incorporating investment chapters to BITs and the withdrawal from international investment arbitration by some countries, is symptomatic of continued disgruntlement with the current investment regime. South Africa is amongst the front runners of this discontentment and has voiced its concerns with the system, by cancelling some of its BITs and substituting same with adopting a new domestic investment regime instead, the investment Act of 2015. This study analyses the government's policy shift, with a view to find the extent to which the current BIT regime constrained the government's policy space towards economic transformation. This is achieved by analysing the substance and objective of the policy reform as against the international standards. Consequently, after probing the global investment regime and more in particularly the country's economic and political architecture, the study found that although South Africa's investment policy shift was labelled 'drastic and regressive' by critics, the latter is rational when subjected to substantive approach to the rule of law. Author however, concludes that it is the implementation thereof that is disproportional, as the same objectives underpinning the policy reform can be achieved through a less contentious approach. Finally author suggests a renegotiation of a model BIT as a less onerous and proportionate tool, to achieve the balance sought, and recommends policy options for enhancing international investment regime to address the challenges identified. / tm2017 / Centre for Human Rights / LLM / Unrestricted