Matching Items (4)
Filtering by
- Creators: School of Politics and Global Studies
Description
The purpose of this research is to identify the factors contributing the resiliency of Syria's President Assad amongst a backdrop of falling authoritarians during the Arab Spring. After determining the Assad's regime's strategies of authoritarian rule both before and after the 2011 uprisings, this paper theorizes what Assad's persistence is most dependent on today by analyzing his discourse throughout the conflict. Assad's framing of the war to the media has significantly legitimized his rule.
ContributorsKassab, Seema (Author) / Parmentier, Mary Jane (Thesis director) / Simon, Sheldon (Committee member) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor) / Department of Economics (Contributor) / W. P. Carey School of Business (Contributor) / School of Politics and Global Studies (Contributor) / Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law (Contributor)
Created2015-05
Description
This paper examines the Syrian Civil War using seven different civil war settlement theories in order to assess the likelihood of a negotiated settlement ending the conflict. The costs of war, balance of power, domestic political institutions, ethnic identity, divisibility of stakes, veto player, and credible commitment theories were used in a multi-perspective analysis of the Syrian Civil War and the possibility of a peace settlement. It was found that all of the theories except for costs of war and balance of power predict that a negotiated settlement is unlikely to resolve the conflict. Although the Syrian government and the Syrian National Coalition are currently engaged in diplomatic negotiations through the Geneva II conference, both sides are unwilling to compromise on the underlying grievances driving the conflict. This paper ultimately highlights some of the problems inhibiting a negotiated settlement in the Syrian Civil War. These obstacles include: rival ethno-religious identities of combatants, lack of democratic institutions in Syria, indivisibility of stakes in which combatants are fighting for, number of veto player combatant groups active in Syria, and the lack of a credible third party to monitor and enforce a peace settlement.
ContributorsRidout, Scott Jeffries (Author) / Grossman, Gary (Thesis director) / Siroky, David (Committee member) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor) / Economics Program in CLAS (Contributor) / School of Politics and Global Studies (Contributor)
Created2014-05
Description
Though information warfare has been around for centuries, the advent of the Information Age has made this type of warfare increasingly utilized by both state and non-state actors to varying effects in conflicts across the world. Technological advances have ignited increases in computing power, information computerization, the proliferation of powerful information technology, and communication speeds. This study investigates Russian information warfare doctrine- specifically, the tactics employed in information warfare campaigns and the effects of such campaigns. The Russian hybrid warfare campaigns in Ukraine and Syria will serve as the focal case studies. I argue that Russian information warfare doctrine is inelastic, in that the core tactics used do not change in different conflicts. This study will dissect Russian information warfare principles, provide an overview of the Russian political objectives in both battlespaces, analyze the effectiveness of information warfare tactics when applied in two different engagement spheres, and will explore the reasons why the same tactics had different effects. The study finds that doctrinally identical information warfare tactics were used in both Ukraine and Syria. To provide further significance, the study discusses the policy implications that static Russian information warfare doctrine has regarding the future of information warfare in conflict.
ContributorsTran, Justin Namchuong (Author) / Rothenberg, Daniel (Thesis director) / Pagel, Bruce (Committee member) / School of Politics and Global Studies (Contributor, Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2017-05
Description
Over the past decade, the United States and the European Union have adopted major changes to asylum policy and enforcement, specifically the increase of deterrence policies contrary to international asylum norms. The goal of this has been to reduce the pull factors towards the US and EU. Deterrence policies have largely been characterized by two main strategies: (1) deterrence at the border through stricter regulations and detention policies, and (2) deterrence through the creation of formal buffer zone countries between the asylum seekers’ countries of origin and the ultimate country of destination. These policies have been instituted in response to the spike in Central American asylum seekers at the US/Mexico border and Syrian asylum seekers at the Greece/Turkey border at the entrance of the EU. This paper compares these two separate geographic areas––the US and EU––due to their roles in the development of international law, their roles in the development and management of these crises, and the similar increase of asylum seekers in 2014-15. This paper also details the severity of the conditions in the asylee-sending areas––Central America and Syria––which are major “push factors” driving the crises. Finally, this paper explores the novel use of Mexico and Turkey as formal buffer zones by the United Staes and the European Union, respectively. The increase of deterrence policies culminating in the creation of formal buffer zones countries violates key principles of international asylum law, namely non-refoulement. These buffer zones must be redesigned proactively to better suit the realities of asylum in the 21st century.
ContributorsDooling, Maria Hana (Author) / Sivak, Henry (Thesis director) / Calleros, Charles (Committee member) / School of Molecular Sciences (Contributor) / School of Politics and Global Studies (Contributor, Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2019-05