Matching Items (40)
Description
On December 27, 2008, Israel began a military campaign codenamed Operation Cast Lead with an aerial bombardment of the Gaza Strip. On January 3, 2009, Israel expanded its aerial assault with a ground invasion. Military operations continued until January 18, 2009, when Israel implemented a unilateral cease fire and withdrew its forces. When the hostilities had ended, between 1,166 and 1,440 Palestinians had been killed as a result of Israeli attacks, two-thirds of whom are estimated to be civilians. Ensuing allegations of international human rights (IHR) and international humanitarian law (IHL) violations were widespread. Amidst these claims, the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) commissioned a fact-finding team, headed by South African jurist Richard Goldstone, to investigate whether the laws of war were infringed upon. Their findings, published in a document known colloquially as the Goldstone Report, allege a number of breaches of the laws of occupation, yet give a cursory treatment to the preliminary question of the applicability of this legal regime. This paper seeks to more comprehensively assess whether Gaza could be considered occupied territory for the purposes of international humanitarian law during Operation Cast Lead. In doing so, this paper focuses on exactly what triggers and terminates the laws of occupation`s application, rather than the rights and duties derived from the laws of occupation. This paper proceeds with a brief discussion of the history of the Gaza occupation, including Israel`s unilateral evacuation of ground troops and settlements from within Gaza in 2005, a historic event that sparked renewed debate over Israel`s status as an Occupying Power vis-à-vis Gaza. The following section traces the development of the laws of occupation in instruments of IHL. The next section considers the relevant international case law on occupation. The following section synthesizes the various criteria from the IHL treaty and case law for determining the existence of a situation of occupation, and considers their application to the Gaza Strip during Operation Cast Lead. The concluding section argues that Israel maintained the status of Occupying Power during Operation Cast Lead, and discusses the legal implications of such a determination.
ContributorsNaser, Sam (Author) / Simmons, William (Thesis advisor) / Sylvester, Douglas (Committee member) / Rothenberg, Daniel (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2011
Description
This dissertation seeks to show that the fate of emerging democracies is largely dependent upon the strategic behaviors of political militaries and their coup potential. Given the known issue of democratization's temporarily destabilizing effects, it first examines if such effects makes states vulnerable to coups. It finds clear evidence on democratization's destabilizing effects on coup risk. Such evidence is used to shed new light on the literature about the armed forces and coups in emerging democracies. To explain variation in the military's responses to democratization and consolidation against coup threats, it argues that how the armed forces were organized and controlled during the authoritarian periods influences whether emerging democracies are able to consolidate against coup risk. Second, it explores the declining coup risk and the trilateral relationship between Western democracy promotion, coup risk, and election violence in recently emerging electoral regimes, the so-called "illiberal democracies." It argues that vulnerability to Western leverage, coupled with an emphasis on multiparty elections, creates a political moral hazard problem for incumbents, permitting them to commit electoral violence during the emergence of mass electoral politics.
ContributorsCho, Yong Ouk (Author) / Sheldon, Simon (Thesis advisor) / David, Siroky (Committee member) / Wood, Reed (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2015
Description
What explains why governments and militaries pursue accountability against some human rights violations committed by members of their armed forces during ongoing conflicts, but not other violations? Further, what are the consequences of such prosecutions for their military and governmental objectives? The theory put forth by this study suggests that rather than only the natural outcome of strong rule of law, domestic prosecutions within a state’s security apparatus represents a strategic choice made by political and military actors. I employ a strategic actor approach to the pursuit of accountability, suggesting that the likelihood of accountability increases when elites perceive they will gain politically or militarily from such actions. I investigate these claims using both qualitative and quantitative methods in a comparative study across the United States and the United Kingdom. This project contributes to interdisciplinary scholarly research relevant to human rights studies, human rights law, political science, democratic state-building, democratic governance, elite decision making, counter-insurgency, protests, international sanctions, and conflict resolution. Particularly, this dissertation speaks to the intersection of strategy and law, or “lawfare” a method of warfare where law is used as means of realizing a military objective (Dunlap 2001). It provides generalizable results extending well beyond the cases analyzed. Thus, the results of this project will interest those dealing with questions relating to legitimacy, human rights, and elite decision making throughout the democratic world.
ContributorsSimmons, Alan James (Author) / Wood, Reed (Thesis advisor) / Peskin, Victor (Thesis advisor) / Lake, Milli (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2018
Description
Arguing for the importance of decolonial pedagogy in human rights education, this research is located at the intersection of human rights education, pedagogy, and justice studies, and is situated in the context of a contested neoliberal university in order to learn about and understand some of the challenges in implementing pedagogical change inspired by decolonial theory. This research focuses on pedagogical approaches of human rights professors to understand how and to what extent they are aligned with and informed by, incorporate, or utilize decolonial theory. This is accomplished through a content analysis of their syllabi, including readings and pedagogical statements, and semi-structured interviews about their praxis to draw attention to the what and how of their pedagogical practices and the ways in which it aligns with a decolonial pedagogical approach. This research calls attention to the specific manner in which they include decolonial pedagogical methods in their human rights courses. The findings determined that a decolonial pedagogical approach is only just emerging, and there is a need to address the barriers that impede their further implementation. In addition, there is a need for research that will further investigate the pedagogical approaches professors are employing, particularly those in alignment with decolonial criteria; the impact of decolonial and non-decolonial approaches on students’ epistemologies, and how to overcome barriers to advance implementation of a decolonizing pedagogical approach.
ContributorsAldawood, Danielle (Author) / Gomez, Alan (Thesis advisor) / Simmons, William (Committee member) / Rothenberg, Daniel (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2018
Description
This dissertation proposes a theory of authoritarian control of the armed forces using the economic theory of the firm. To establish a “master-servant” relationship, an organization structures governance as a long-term contractual agreement to mitigate the vulnerabilities associated with uncertainty and bilateral dependency. The bargaining power for civilian and military actors entering a contractual relationship is assessed by two dimensions: the negotiated political property rights and the credible guarantee of those rights. These dimensions outline four civil-military institutional arrangements or army types (cartel, cadre, entrepreneur, and patron armies) in an authoritarian system. In the cycle of repression, the more the dictator relies on the military for repression to stay in office, the more negotiated political property rights obtained by the military; and the more rights obtained by the military the less civilian control. Thus, the dependence on coercive violence entails a paradox for the dictator—the agents empowered to manage violence are also empowered to act against the regime. To minimize this threat, the dictator may choose to default on the political bargain through coup-proofing strategies at the cost to the regime’s credibility and reputation, later impacting a military’s decision to defend, defect, or coup during times of crisis. The cycle of repression captures the various stages in the life-cycle of the political contract between the regime and the armed forces providing insights into institutional changes governing the relationship. As such, this project furthers our understanding of the complexities of authoritarian civil–military relations and contributes conceptual tools for future studies.
ContributorsZerba, Shaio Hui (Author) / Thies, Cameron (Thesis advisor) / Wood, Reed (Committee member) / Shair-Rosenfield, Sarah (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2019
Description
ABSTRACT
Although the US government has been using remotely piloted aircraft (RPA), more commonly referred to as drones, to conduct military strikes against terrorists and insurgents since at least 2001, only around 2011 did media outlets and polling organizations began assessing the attitudes of Americans towards the use of drones as a weapon of war. Initially, public support for drone strikes was robust with nearly 70 percent of Americans expressing approval. As the discussion of drone strikes intensified however, public support declined over 10 percentage points.
Only a handful of studies have examined public opinion and drone strikes, and all have focused exclusively on explaining support. This study seeks to fill this gap in the literature and explain opposition to drone strikes. The primary argument put forth in this dissertation is that people’s beliefs determine their opinions, and their morality determines their beliefs. Although independent opinion formation is often considered a cognitive process, I argue that, at least in the case of drone strikes, the opinion formation process is largely an affective one.
By examining media coverage and elite discourse surrounding drone strikes, I isolate three narratives which I believe communicate certain messages to the public regarding drone strikes. I argue that the messages produced by elite discourse and disseminated by the media to the public are only influential on opinion formation once they have been converted to beliefs. I further argue that conversion of message to belief is largely dependent on individual moral attitudes.
To test my arguments, I conduct a survey-experiment using subjects recruited from Arizona State University’s School of Politics and Global Studies student subject pool. My research findings lead to two key conclusions. First, opposition to drone strikes is largely the product of the belief(s) that drone strikes are not necessary for protecting the United States from terrorist attack, and that drone strikes kill more civilians than do strikes from conventional aircraft. Second, whether an individual expresses support or opposition to drone strikes, moral attitudes are a relatively good predictor of both beliefs and disposition.
Although the US government has been using remotely piloted aircraft (RPA), more commonly referred to as drones, to conduct military strikes against terrorists and insurgents since at least 2001, only around 2011 did media outlets and polling organizations began assessing the attitudes of Americans towards the use of drones as a weapon of war. Initially, public support for drone strikes was robust with nearly 70 percent of Americans expressing approval. As the discussion of drone strikes intensified however, public support declined over 10 percentage points.
Only a handful of studies have examined public opinion and drone strikes, and all have focused exclusively on explaining support. This study seeks to fill this gap in the literature and explain opposition to drone strikes. The primary argument put forth in this dissertation is that people’s beliefs determine their opinions, and their morality determines their beliefs. Although independent opinion formation is often considered a cognitive process, I argue that, at least in the case of drone strikes, the opinion formation process is largely an affective one.
By examining media coverage and elite discourse surrounding drone strikes, I isolate three narratives which I believe communicate certain messages to the public regarding drone strikes. I argue that the messages produced by elite discourse and disseminated by the media to the public are only influential on opinion formation once they have been converted to beliefs. I further argue that conversion of message to belief is largely dependent on individual moral attitudes.
To test my arguments, I conduct a survey-experiment using subjects recruited from Arizona State University’s School of Politics and Global Studies student subject pool. My research findings lead to two key conclusions. First, opposition to drone strikes is largely the product of the belief(s) that drone strikes are not necessary for protecting the United States from terrorist attack, and that drone strikes kill more civilians than do strikes from conventional aircraft. Second, whether an individual expresses support or opposition to drone strikes, moral attitudes are a relatively good predictor of both beliefs and disposition.
ContributorsDavis, Christopher Todd (Author) / Wood, Reed (Thesis advisor) / Fridkin, Kim (Committee member) / Kubiak, Jeffrey (Committee member) / Wright, Thorin (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2019
Description
This study asks the question: does gender-based discrimination exists within Arizona State University's Army Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC), and if so, what are the effects of such discrimination? Within this study, discrimination is defined as: the treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs, rather than on individual merit. The researcher predicted that this study would show that gender-based discrimination operates within the masculine military culture of Army ROTC at ASU, resulting from women's hyper-visibility and evidenced by their lack of positive recognition and disbelief in having a voice in the program. These expectations were based on background research claiming that the token status of women in military roles causes them to be more heavily scrutinized, and they consequentially try to attain success by adapting to the masculine military culture by which they are constantly measured. For the purposes of this study, success is defined as: the attainment of wealth, favor, or eminence . This study relies on exploratory interviews and an online survey conducted with male and female Army ROTC cadets of all grade levels at Arizona State University. The interviews and survey collected demographic information and perspectives on individual experiences to establish an understanding of privilege and marginalization within the program. These results do support the prediction that women in Army ROTC at ASU face discrimination based on their unique visibility and lack of positive recognition and voice in the program. Likewise, the survey results indicate that race also has a significant impact on one's experience in Army ROTC, which is discussed later in this study in regard to needs for future research. ASU Army ROTC includes approximately 100 cadets, and approximately 30-40 of those cadets participated in this study. Additionally, the University of Arizona and the Northern Arizona University Army ROTC programs were invited to participate in this study and declined to do so, which would have offered a greater sample population. Nonetheless, the results of this research will be useful for analysis and further discussion of gender-equality in Army ROTC at Arizona State University.
ContributorsAllemang, Lindsey Ann (Author) / Wood, Reed (Thesis director) / Switzer, Heather (Committee member) / School of Politics and Global Studies (Contributor) / School of Social Transformation (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2018-05
Description
Despite regional peace agreements, billions of dollars in aid, and the United Nations’ largest peacekeeping mission in the world, conflict in the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo persists. This paper explores criticisms made by political scientist Séverine Autesserre, who argues that three simplistic narratives revolving around conflict minerals as a cause, sexual abuse against women and girls as an outcome, and rebuilding central state control as the solution dominate how international interveners view the Congolese conflict. Autesserre further posits that conflict continues because peacebuilding efforts fail to address local dynamics. Using monitoring and evaluation reports of peacebuilding projects in the eastern Congo, primarily from the U.S. Agency for International Development, this paper examines three questions: Do aid agencies have any local peacebuilding projects? If so, do these projects reinforce the dominant narratives? And lastly, do these projects view conflict as a continuum that must be managed through process-oriented objectives, or as a binary phenomenon requiring events-oriented objectives, such as elections? The analysis is based on 10 total reports gathered online, the majority of which are from USAID. Due to a lack of publicly available data and M&E reports on Congo peacebuilding, this collection does not represent a random sample and is not being used to make statistically significant conclusions. Nevertheless, the M&E reports provide a window into how the “rubber meets the road,” so to speak, in terms of how USAID and others view the role of their peacebuilding programs and how to assess programmatic success.
These reports reveal there are certainly some local peacebuilding programs and they do appear to view conflict as a continuum requiring process-oriented goals, such as creating local community mediation organizations. In terms of Autesserre’s three dominant narratives, the results are more mixed. This assortment of seemingly contradictory findings does not mean Autesserre’s arguments are invalid. The USAID Congo Country Strategy document unlocks this apparent contradiction as it explicitly acknowledges Autesserre’s criticisms and appears to move toward finding more nuanced approaches to the conflict. However, at times it still emphasizes the same dominant narratives and state-to-state level approaches. This paper, therefore, concludes that USAID, and potentially others, are in a state of transition between entrenched and evolving narratives. The discord in these evaluations highlights the internal crisis peacebuilders in the Congo are currently facing as they reassess their narratives. In keeping with the self-improving nature of M&E, hopefully these international interveners can move through their narrative transition in an efficient manner, so that they can remain a supportive peacebuilding partner to the Congolese people.
These reports reveal there are certainly some local peacebuilding programs and they do appear to view conflict as a continuum requiring process-oriented goals, such as creating local community mediation organizations. In terms of Autesserre’s three dominant narratives, the results are more mixed. This assortment of seemingly contradictory findings does not mean Autesserre’s arguments are invalid. The USAID Congo Country Strategy document unlocks this apparent contradiction as it explicitly acknowledges Autesserre’s criticisms and appears to move toward finding more nuanced approaches to the conflict. However, at times it still emphasizes the same dominant narratives and state-to-state level approaches. This paper, therefore, concludes that USAID, and potentially others, are in a state of transition between entrenched and evolving narratives. The discord in these evaluations highlights the internal crisis peacebuilders in the Congo are currently facing as they reassess their narratives. In keeping with the self-improving nature of M&E, hopefully these international interveners can move through their narrative transition in an efficient manner, so that they can remain a supportive peacebuilding partner to the Congolese people.
ContributorsSilow, Adam (Author) / Rothenberg, Daniel (Thesis director) / Lake, Milli (Committee member) / School of Politics and Global Studies (Contributor) / Economics Program in CLAS (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2016-05
Description
Conflict minerals are those that are taken from violent, militia controlled mines in areas like the Democratic Republic of the Congo and used in technology such as laptops, cellphones, and computers. They are then sold to fund bloody wars that have been raging for years. The issue of conflict minerals continue to rise as technology advances. To combat the issue, the Dodd-Frank Act was implemented in the U.S. in 2010. The act requires companies listed on the stock exchange to report information on possible conflict mineral usage. However, there is a large discrepancy in the compliance levels between many similar technology companies subject to the Dodd-Frank Act. This paper addresses the factors driving compliance through the use of a theory testing method known as pattern matching, and attempts to answer why such similar companies have such different compliance levels. The pattern matching technique looks to test the applicability of theories based on what they theorize will happen and what actually happens in a given scenario. In this instance, the theories know as general deterrence, institutional, and stakeholder theory were put to the test in order to identify the factors driving compliance levels with conflict mineral policies. Both general deterrence and stakeholder theory were able to adequately match their theorized outcomes of conflict mineral compliance with actual observed outcomes. However, general deterrence theory more adequately explained the differences in compliance levels between similar companies. This information has implications on the policy side of the issue, as it reveals a way to more effectively drive up compliance levels by increasing disincentives and penalties in accordance with general deterrence theory.
ContributorsMeyer, Matthew Jacob (Author) / Kull, Thomas (Thesis director) / Wood, Reed (Committee member) / Department of Supply Chain Management (Contributor) / W. P. Carey School of Business (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2016-05
Description
This honors thesis proposes a hypothetical solution to the political problems facing the modern nation of Afghanistan. Using the model of the Roman Republic as presented by the political theorist Niccolò Machiavelli, I explain what institutions are necessary for the survival and success of a republic. These include a citizen militia composed entirely of equal citizens; “political class tension,” or political compromise between the elite and the common people of a republic through observance of the rule of law; and civic virtue, which stems from participation in these two institutional aspects of a republic and assists in bolstering them.
After this examination of necessary republican components, I describe the institution of constitutional dictatorship, which I devised based on the ideas of Machiavelli and the legal theorist Carl Schmitt. I then use all the institutions and ideas discussed within the framework of a thought exercise to examine possible recommendations for action by a constitutional dictatorship operating in Afghanistan, which are to bolster the Afghan National Army and neutralize the corrupting influence of Afghanistan’s “gentlemen,” or selfishly-motivated partisan leaders. Although the recommendations attempt to be as close to feasible policy as possible, they are not written with the goal of actual implementation in mind due to their lack of empirical basis.
I conclude by examining possible domestic and strategic implications of these hypothetical recommendations. This portion is also not empirically-based, merely concluding the examination of the thought exercise. An appendix uses visual aids to demonstrate the composition of the resulting Afghan government.
After this examination of necessary republican components, I describe the institution of constitutional dictatorship, which I devised based on the ideas of Machiavelli and the legal theorist Carl Schmitt. I then use all the institutions and ideas discussed within the framework of a thought exercise to examine possible recommendations for action by a constitutional dictatorship operating in Afghanistan, which are to bolster the Afghan National Army and neutralize the corrupting influence of Afghanistan’s “gentlemen,” or selfishly-motivated partisan leaders. Although the recommendations attempt to be as close to feasible policy as possible, they are not written with the goal of actual implementation in mind due to their lack of empirical basis.
I conclude by examining possible domestic and strategic implications of these hypothetical recommendations. This portion is also not empirically-based, merely concluding the examination of the thought exercise. An appendix uses visual aids to demonstrate the composition of the resulting Afghan government.
ContributorsBrunner, Jordan Alexander (Author) / Simhony, Avital (Thesis director) / Wood, Reed (Committee member) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor) / School of Politics and Global Studies (Contributor)
Created2014-12