STASINKOVÁ, Sandra. (2016). Cyprus Dispute Settlement after the EU accession: Renewed Negotiations and Future Development. Master thesis, Prague: Charles University, Faculty of Social Sciences, Institute of Political Studies. 65 p. Supervisor: JUDr. PhDr. Tomáš Karásek, Ph.D. The aim of this diploma thesis is to analyse the ongoing conflict in Cyprus, which became internal for the European Union in 2004, and consequently asses the role of the European Union in the conflict resolution, which is being evaluated according to the principles of mediation. The thesis is divided into four parts. Firtsly, we outline the escalation and the background of the conflict in Cyprus, which have led to the Turkish intervention and consequent division of the island. Secondly, we analyse the period of the European Union accession as a milestone in the development of the conflict. Following the EU accession, we deal with the overall role of the European Union in the conflict resolution and the Union's credibility in conflict managment in general in the third part of this thesis. Lastly, the fourth chapter focuses on the development of the conflict and character of the negotiations after Cyprus became the full member of the European Union. It also provides possible results from current negotiations and possible ways...

Approved for public release; distribution in unlimited. / The dynamics in U.S.-Turkey relations in both 1964 and 2003 continued to be between a large global power and a medium regional power in the framework of a global threat that required regional cooperation. In both cases the priority of the global power was the fight against the global threat and this created expectations from the medium power ally in the region, who -in both cases- had its own reservations about the issue, considering its own national interests. The analysis of the 1964 Crisis shows that both U.S. and Turkey would have five main sources of influence over their foreign policy decisions leading to disagreement in 1964: the dynamics in the U.S. Turkish relations as one between a global power and a regional partner; domestic concerns of both countries; unaligned goals of the two parties; the international circumstances; and the influence of signaling failures and previous interactions. When we analyze the 2003 Crisis in light of these findings we see that all the main issues seem to be consistently relevant, though their effects might have changed slightly. Overall, both cases reveal that the above-mentioned five factors determine the outcome of interactions between large global powers and medium powers in the region. / 1st Lieutenant, Turkish Army