Made available in DSpace on 2016-04-29T13:48:37Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Fabio Arroyo Favero.pdf: 1018837 bytes, checksum: e2c703d670621b1dfd076ae8a9766694 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2014-04-24 / Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior / The objective of this dissertation is to make an investigation about the impact and influence that diplomacy in its multilateral expression may have in the option of using military forces abroad by members of the government of the United States. The analysis is developed for the specific case of the Iraq war, which started in March 2003. First we present one conceptual understanding of unilateralism and multilateralism as categories of classification of the degree of openness and influence of others actors in the foreign affairs of one State. After this we make one bibliographical review of the history of United States foreign affairs, identifying the meanings and the possible sources of unilateralism and multilateralism in its development, and which are their specificities. Then, we develop the proposed analysis, through the details about the context of the Iraqi crisis and north American involvement in it, and afterwards we identify in the United States action the degree in which its diplomatic action involved others actors and interests, for the purpose of having a scale of its multilateralism or unilateralism. Then we evaluate if these categories are useful for the better understanding of the role diplomacy may have in the United States foreign policy, specifically in the case of the war. Our conclusions points out a complex balance, since our sources indicate a strong unilateral tendency in the choice about the military option to disarm Iraq. However, at the same time we could see an wide and systematic effort to convince allies and specially the UN Security Council of the legitimacy and the need of the military action against Iraq. This effort appears to not have been more insistent on the account of the favorable domestic conditions for the war, with the support of US Congress, and the threat of a veto openly made by others member of the UN, fact which would potentially neutralize any chance of approval of one second resolution with an explicit authorization about the use of military force. This diplomatic effort confirm the limits of classifying the Iraq War as strictly unilateral, and the importance that such a diplomatic legitimation may have upon members of the United States government as to the use of military force abroad / O objetivo desta dissertação é fazer uma investigação a respeito do impacto e influência que a diplomacia, em sua vertente multilateral, pode ter sobre a opção dos membros do governo dos EUA em fazer uso de suas forças armadas no exterior. A análise é desenvolvida com base no estudo de caso específico da Guerra contra o Iraque, que teve início em março de 2003. Primeiramente desenvolvemos uma delimitação conceitual do que entendemos por unilateralismo e multilateralismo como sendo categorias de classificação do grau de abertura e influência de outros atores na política externa de um determinado Estado. Em seguida, fazemos uma revisão bibliográfica da história da política externa norte-americana, identificando os sentidos e possíveis fontes respectivas do unilateralismo e multilateralismo neste panorama, e quais as suas especificidades. Finalmente, desenvolvemos a análise proposta, através da contextualização da questão iraquiana e do envolvimento norte-americano nela, para em seguida identificarmos na ação dos EUA o grau em que sua atuação diplomática envolveu outros atores e interesses, com vistas a realizarmos uma gradação do seu multilateralismo ou unilateralismo e se esta categorização serve para o melhor entendimento do papel que a diplomacia teria na política externa dos EUA especificamente no caso da guerra resultante deste processo. Nossas conclusões apontam para um balanço complexo, pois as fontes trabalhadas indicam uma forte vocação unilateral na escolha da opção militar para desarmar o Iraque. Porém, ao mesmo tempo é possível notar que houve um amplo e sistemático esforço de convencer aliados e especialmente o Conselho de Segurança da ONU da legitimidade e da necessidade da ação militar contra o Iraque. E este esforço parece não ter sido mais insistente por conta de condições domésticas favoráveis a guerra, como o apoio do Congresso dos EUA, e a ameaça de um veto feito abertamente por parte de outros membros da ONU, sendo que este último fator neutralizaria qualquer chance de aprovação de uma resolução explícita quanto ao uso da força militar contra o Iraque. Este esforço diplomático confirma os limites da qualificação da Guerra contra o Iraque como sendo estritamente unilateral, e a importância que tal legitimação diplomática parece ter para os membros do governo dos EUA quanto ao uso da força militar no exterior

Le droit potestatif permet à son titulaire de créer, modifier ou éteindre la situation juridique d’autrui. La relation de travail, quant à elle, est empreinte d’une logique de pouvoir(s). Comment intégrer dans ces conditions le concept de droit potestatif au contrat de travail ? Comment ce dernier réceptionne-t-il la potestativité ? À quel prix la figure du droit potestatif s’adapte-t-elle ? Si les droits potestatifs sont acceptés dans le contrat de travail, ce n’est que de manière encadrée, dirigée, limitée. Les droits potestatifs sont alors contrôlés et sanctionnés par une jurisprudence qui entend en faire respecter l’esprit et les limites. Mais, parce que le droit potestatif s’exerce au moyen d’un acte unilatéral, parce qu’il s’agit de la faculté d’imposer sa volonté à autrui, les intérêts du destinataire ne doivent-ils pas a minima être préservés ? L’objet du contrat de travail, la subordination du salarié, pose ainsi notamment la question de la place à accorder aux droits et libertés fondamentaux du salarié. / A potestative right allows his holder to create, modify or extinguish another’s legal situation. The employment relation, as for it, is marked by a logic of power(s). How, in these conditions, does the concept of potestative right enter the employment contract? How does the latter receive the potestative right ? What sacrifices should be made by the potestative rights ?If potestative rights are accepted in the employment contract, it is only in a framed, supervised and limited way. Potestative rights are then controlled and sanctioned by judges willing to enforce both its spirit and limits.However, since the potestative right is applied through a unilateral act, because it concerns the ability to impose one’s will upon others, shouldn’t the interests of the recipient be preserved, at the very least? The object of the employment contract, the subordination of the employee, therefore leads towards the question of the place to begiven to the employee’s fundamental rights and freedoms.

<p>Essay in Political Science, Advanced Course, by Christoffer Hagström</p><p>“The Bush Administration´s view on international cooperation and international</p><p>law and political-theoretical traditions influence on the administration´s foreign</p><p>policy”</p><p>Supervisor: Jan Olsson</p><p>The purpose of this paper is to analyze the American foreign policy, particularly with regard to</p><p>international cooperation and international law. The two following research-questions are used in</p><p>order to fulfil the purpose: (1) what is the Bush-administrations´s view of of the place for</p><p>international cooperation and international law in American foreign policy?, and (2) how does the</p><p>administration´s foreign policy correspond to dominant political-theoretical thought-traditions? The</p><p>traditions used are: liberalism, realism and neoconservatism. The sources of the study mostly</p><p>include literature and policy-documents. The author conducts qualitative and quantitative content</p><p>analysis of the Bush-administration´s policy document National Security Strategy of the United</p><p>States from March 2006. First the document is summarized based on different criteria followed by</p><p>categorizations of ideas connected with realism, liberalism and neoconservatism in the document. In</p><p>the quantative analysis value-words that are appropriate for the various traditions is chosen. The</p><p>frequency of those words can be seen as indications of the influence of the traditions in the thoughts</p><p>of the Bush-administration, but is mostly seen as a complement to the qualtative analysis. The main</p><p>conclusions of the paper are that the Bush-administration most often wish to act according to</p><p>international law and to cooperate with other actors internationally in the long run, it may even be</p><p>necessary. In the short run however, it may act outside the parameters of international organizations</p><p>and international law in order to accomplish foreign policy-goals. Matters related to the security of</p><p>the American state and people is considered much more important than international cooperation</p><p>and law. Liberalism seems to be the tradition that has most affected the Bush-administration´s</p><p>foreign policy. It is followed shortly thereafter by realism and neoconservatism seems to have had</p><p>the least influence on the the thought-traditions. All of the them has been active in the making of the</p><p>foreign policy.</p>

L’évolution contemporaine du droit privé des contrats est marquée par la multiplication des hypothèses dans lesquelles l’une ou l’autre des parties dispose de la possibilité d’agir seule sur le contenu ou le sort d’un contrat définitivement formé. Par exemple, depuis 1995, il est admis que l’une des parties à un contrat-cadre puisse seule fixer le prix. De même, en cas de manquement grave de l’une des parties, l’autre peut, à ses risques et périls, procéder à la résolution du contrat. Ces deux types de prérogatives contractuelles appartiennent à une catégorie plus large que la doctrine désigne couramment sous le nom de « pouvoirs contractuels ». Or, les pouvoirs contractuels viennent perturber les règles traditionnelles du droit privé des contrats à deux égards. D’une part, les pouvoirs contractuels introduisent une logique unilatéraliste, synonyme d’inégalité, dans le contrat qui répond traditionnellement à une logique consensualiste synonyme d’égalité. D’autre part, le mécanisme des pouvoirs contractuels implique une redéfinition de la place du juge dans le contentieux contractuel puisque ce dernier ne devra plus nécessairement être saisi pour trancher les litiges entre les parties relatifs à l’exécution du contrat. Celui-ci sera saisi postérieurement à la modification des effets du contrat décidée unilatéralement, et ce, par la partie qui entend en contester la régularité. Consacrer une étude aux pouvoirs contractuels suppose donc de chercher à identifier plus précisément ce mécanisme qui vient introduire dans le contrat une logique de pouvoir qui n’est pas la sienne, puis, de tenter de définir les contours de l’intervention du juge. / The contemporary evolution of the private law of contracts is marked by the multiplication of the hypotheses in which one or other of the parties has the possibility of acting alone on the content or fate of a definitively formed contract. For example, since 1995, it has been accepted that one of the parties to a framework contract can only fix the price. Similarly, in the event of a serious breach by one of the parties, the other party may, at his own risk, proceed to the termination of the contract. These two types of contractual prerogatives belong to a broader category that the doctrine commonly refers to as "contractual powers". However, contractual powers disrupt the traditional rules of private contract law in two respects. On one hand, contractual powers introduce a unilateralist logic, synonymous with inequality, in the contract that traditionally responds to a consensualist logic synonymous with equality. On the other hand, the mechanism of contractual powers implies a redefinition of the judge's place in contractual disputes since the latter will no longer necessarily be seized to settle disputes between the parties relating to the performance of the contract. It will be seized after the modification of the effects of the contract decided unilaterally, and this, by the party who intends to contest the regularity. To devote a study to the contractual powers therefore presupposes seeking to identify more precisely this mechanism that introduces into the contract a logic of power that is not its own, and then attempts to define the contours of the judge's intervention.

中東地處歐亞非交界，是地緣戰略不可忽略的地方，亦是全球的能源生產重地，世界強權皆欲在此佔有一席之地，其中伊拉克含括兩河流域，為中東地區中心位置，石油儲量全球第二，戰略地點更顯重要，但宗教派系紛爭及強權覬覦的影響，伊拉克經常呈現紛亂狀態。 911事件後，美國將伊拉克列為邪惡軸心國家之一，認定其與恐怖組織掛勾，危害國際社會，決定再次出兵撻伐，並計劃以「美式民主」將伊拉克改造成中東的民主表率，期能在該地區推動民主風潮，但事實與結果卻是美國深陷伊拉克戰爭泥沼，為此付出極大代價，並被國際社會批判。 美國對伊拉克發動戰爭共經歷小布希總統及歐巴馬總統共3個任期，兩人政黨背景不同，執政理念存在差異，執政期間亦經歷各種國內外不同事件之影響，繼而產生不同的伊拉克政策；分析比較兩位總統在對伊拉克戰爭期間的做法，有助探討美國在不同政黨及總統外交政策的延續情況。 經過探討小布希總統與歐巴馬總統採取的伊拉克政策、對極端分子的態度及國內外重大事件等對美國伊拉克政策的影響，顯示美國不會因政黨及總統改變而轉變其外交政策，其政策是延續性的，政策的最高原則仍是將國家利益與安全放在第一位。 / The Middle East which is located at the junction of the three continents of Europe, Asia and Africa, is important for both geography and energy. That is the reason why all powerful countries wanted to occupy it. Iraq which includes Mesopotamia is in the central location of Middle East and takes the second leading in the world’s oil output. However, Iraq is usually in a unstable situation because of religious tribal disputes and keen competition of many powerful countries. After the 911attacks, the United States identified Iraq as the key of the evil countries and also a terrorist organization. The U.S. sent troops to attack Iraq and planned to transform Iraq into a democratic example of the Middle East with "American democracy". However, the U.S. paid a great price, and faced lots of criticism from the international community. The United States launched a war against Iraq across the term of office from President George W. Bush to President Barack Obama. Because the two presidents of different political parties and leading styles were influenced with various internal and external events, they also held different policies to Iraq. To analyze and compare the measures took by these two presidents in the Iraq war will help us to explore the situation of the U. S. foreign policies during the two political parties. After analyzing the foreign policies of President George W. Bush and President Obama towards Iraq and terrorist, we can know that the U.S. did not change its foreign policy through the two presidents of different political parties. The policy practiced by U.S. is continuous and consistent. The U.S. always put the nation’s interests and safety in the first place.

This paper offers a thorough examination of the United States 2002 National Security Strategy. The document is explored in its broader context, which allows us to understand it in its uniqueness and therefore offer sufficient interpretation. Special attention is devoted to the decision making process of the U.S. National Security Council due to primary responsibility of NSC for coordination of American security policy. Further attention is paid to three particular problem- related parts that are often considered to be the most revolutionary issues of this document. Preemption, unilateralism and U.S. support for the spread of democracy are examined in the broader context of the U.S. foreign policy tradition, American identity and historical development. On the basis of thorough research, the paper supposes that all major parts of this particular document are rather compatible with the development of U.S. security policy and they represent rather the outcome of developments than a fundamental change or reformulation of the strategy. The role of strategic documents is implicitly examined as well, while the study suggests that it should be perceived as a product of bureaucratic politics as summarized in a model by Graham Allison.

L’autorisation de recourir à la force est une pratique par laquelle le Conseil de sécurité permet à des États membres des Nations Unies ou à des accords ou organismes régionaux, voire au Secrétaire général des Nations Unies de recourir à la coercition militaire. Elle est l’une des circonstances excluant l’illicéité face à l’interdiction de recourir à la force dans les relations internationales dont la règle est posée à l’article 2,§ 4 de la Charte des Nations Unies. Il est évident que cette pratique ne correspond pas clairement à la lettre de la Charte mais elle tire sa légitimité du fait qu’elle permet au Conseil de sécurité de s’acquitter de sa mission principale de maintien de la paix et de la sécurité internationales, étant donné que le système de coercition militaire prévu par la Charte s’avère inapplicable dans la pratique. Il reste que cette pratique est empreinte d’ambiguïté : elle apparaît tantôt comme une intervention des Nations Unies, tantôt comme une action unilatérale au profit de certaines puissances capables de mener des opérations de grande envergure. Cette ambiguïté est encore exacerbée par le problème de l’autorisation présumée que certainsÉtats pourraient déduire des actes du Conseil de sécurité, pour intervenir dans divers conflits. Dans les faits, la pratique de l’autorisation de recourir à la force semble actualiser une tendance belliciste qui caractérisait les époques antérieures. Elle peut, si l’on n’y prend garde, refondre, par pans entiers, les legs du droit contre la guerre (jus contra bellum) issu du XXème siècle, droit qui a été le fruit de longues tribulations dans l’histoire des relations internationales. Le danger le plus grave est que des acquis chèrement négociés risquent d’être jetés par-dessus bord avec trop de facilité et sans délai, pour servir des visées à court terme. / Authorization to use force is a practice whereby the Security Council allows member States of the United Nations or regional arrangements or agencies or the Secretary General of the United Nations to use military coercion. Such authorization circumvents the wrongfulness of using force in international relations as prohibited by article 2, § 4 of the UN Charter. It is obvious that this practice does not match the letter of the Charter, but it derives its legitimacy from the fact that it allows the Security Council to fulfill its primary mission of maintaining peace and security, since the system of military coercion under the Charter is inapplicable in practice. Nonetheless, this practice is marked by ambiguity: sometimes it appears as a UN intervention, and yet sometimes as a unilateral action of certain powers capable of conducting major operations. This ambiguity is exacerbated by the issue of presumed consent to intervene in various conflicts that some States attribute to the Security Council. In fact, the practice of authorization reinforces a hawkish tendency that characterized earlier periods. It can, if unchecked, undo the legacy of the law against war (jus contra bellum) of the twentieth century, which was the fruit of much effort in the history of international relations. The most serious danger is that hard-won negotiated achievements be thrown easily overboard and without delay, in order to serve short term goals.

Le différend entre la France et les Etats-Unis sur le règlement de la question irakienne a provoqué une crise diplomatique majeure entre les deux pays, jugée par certains comme la plus sérieuse dans l’histoire des relations bilatérales. Le dossier irakien a cristallisé les positions diplomatiques des deux alliés et mis en lumière deux lectures d’une grande question internationale. Pour la France, il a été l’occasion de défendre des principes, de faire entendre sa voix et de partager sa vision d’un monde multipolaire fondé sur la quête d’un règlement pacifique des différends. Pour les Etats-Unis, cette question relevait d’un enjeu de sécurité nationale, dans une Amérique profondément traumatisée par les attentats de septembre 2001. La rupture franco-américaine a résulté de facteurs structurels anciens : la concurrence entre deux modèles politiques et diplomatiques qui se veulent universels et le déséquilibre entre une puissance française, déclinante, qui aspire à préserver ses sphères d’influence sur la scène internationale, et une puissance américaine, ascendante, devenue, depuis l’effondrement du bloc soviétique, l’unique superpuissance à la tête d’un monde unipolaire. L’affrontement bilatéral du printemps 2003 a ainsi révélé les caractères intrinsèques qui opposent la diplomatie française et la diplomatie américaine et dévoilé leur conception très éloignée qu’elles se faisaient du nouvel ordre mondial et de la place qu’elles aspirent à occuper sur l’échiquier international / The disagreement between France and the US over the Iraqi issue led to a serious diplomatic crisis between the two countries, considered by many analysts as the most serious one in the history of bilateral relations. The Iraqi case crystallized the diplomatic positions of both allies and revealed two different reads of this major international issue. For France, this case was the opportunity to defend its principles, to get itself heard by the rest of the world and to share its vision of a multipolar world, where disputes would be peacefully settled through international organizations. For the US, that issue fell under a matter of national security, in a country deeply traumatized by ‘9/11’. The split between thetwo countries resulted from historical structural causes : (i) the competition between two political and diplomatic models that present themselves as universal, and (ii) the imbalance between France’s declining power aspiring to preserve its spheres of influence over the world and America’s ascending power that has become, since the end of the Cold War, the only superpower. The bilateral confrontation of 2003 revealed the distinctive patterns of both French and American foreign policies and exposed their different views and models of the new world order, as well as their ambitions on the international scene

L’autorisation de recourir à la force est une pratique par laquelle le Conseil de sécurité permet à des États membres des Nations Unies ou à des accords ou organismes régionaux, voire au Secrétaire général des Nations Unies de recourir à la coercition militaire. Elle est l’une des circonstances excluant l’illicéité face à l’interdiction de recourir à la force dans les relations internationales dont la règle est posée à l’article 2,§ 4 de la Charte des Nations Unies. Il est évident que cette pratique ne correspond pas clairement à la lettre de la Charte mais elle tire sa légitimité du fait qu’elle permet au Conseil de sécurité de s’acquitter de sa mission principale de maintien de la paix et de la sécurité internationales, étant donné que le système de coercition militaire prévu par la Charte s’avère inapplicable dans la pratique. Il reste que cette pratique est empreinte d’ambiguïté : elle apparaît tantôt comme une intervention des Nations Unies, tantôt comme une action unilatérale au profit de certaines puissances capables de mener des opérations de grande envergure. Cette ambiguïté est encore exacerbée par le problème de l’autorisation présumée que certainsÉtats pourraient déduire des actes du Conseil de sécurité, pour intervenir dans divers conflits. Dans les faits, la pratique de l’autorisation de recourir à la force semble actualiser une tendance belliciste qui caractérisait les époques antérieures. Elle peut, si l’on n’y prend garde, refondre, par pans entiers, les legs du droit contre la guerre (jus contra bellum) issu du XXème siècle, droit qui a été le fruit de longues tribulations dans l’histoire des relations internationales. Le danger le plus grave est que des acquis chèrement négociés risquent d’être jetés par-dessus bord avec trop de facilité et sans délai, pour servir des visées à court terme. / Authorization to use force is a practice whereby the Security Council allows member States of the United Nations or regional arrangements or agencies or the Secretary General of the United Nations to use military coercion. Such authorization circumvents the wrongfulness of using force in international relations as prohibited by article 2, § 4 of the UN Charter. It is obvious that this practice does not match the letter of the Charter, but it derives its legitimacy from the fact that it allows the Security Council to fulfill its primary mission of maintaining peace and security, since the system of military coercion under the Charter is inapplicable in practice. Nonetheless, this practice is marked by ambiguity: sometimes it appears as a UN intervention, and yet sometimes as a unilateral action of certain powers capable of conducting major operations. This ambiguity is exacerbated by the issue of presumed consent to intervene in various conflicts that some States attribute to the Security Council. In fact, the practice of authorization reinforces a hawkish tendency that characterized earlier periods. It can, if unchecked, undo the legacy of the law against war (jus contra bellum) of the twentieth century, which was the fruit of much effort in the history of international relations. The most serious danger is that hard-won negotiated achievements be thrown easily overboard and without delay, in order to serve short term goals.

Essay in Political Science, Advanced Course, by Christoffer Hagström “The Bush Administration´s view on international cooperation and international law and political-theoretical traditions influence on the administration´s foreign policy” Supervisor: Jan Olsson The purpose of this paper is to analyze the American foreign policy, particularly with regard to international cooperation and international law. The two following research-questions are used in order to fulfil the purpose: (1) what is the Bush-administrations´s view of of the place for international cooperation and international law in American foreign policy?, and (2) how does the administration´s foreign policy correspond to dominant political-theoretical thought-traditions? The traditions used are: liberalism, realism and neoconservatism. The sources of the study mostly include literature and policy-documents. The author conducts qualitative and quantitative content analysis of the Bush-administration´s policy document National Security Strategy of the United States from March 2006. First the document is summarized based on different criteria followed by categorizations of ideas connected with realism, liberalism and neoconservatism in the document. In the quantative analysis value-words that are appropriate for the various traditions is chosen. The frequency of those words can be seen as indications of the influence of the traditions in the thoughts of the Bush-administration, but is mostly seen as a complement to the qualtative analysis. The main conclusions of the paper are that the Bush-administration most often wish to act according to international law and to cooperate with other actors internationally in the long run, it may even be necessary. In the short run however, it may act outside the parameters of international organizations and international law in order to accomplish foreign policy-goals. Matters related to the security of the American state and people is considered much more important than international cooperation and law. Liberalism seems to be the tradition that has most affected the Bush-administration´s foreign policy. It is followed shortly thereafter by realism and neoconservatism seems to have had the least influence on the the thought-traditions. All of the them has been active in the making of the foreign policy.