Matching Items (25)
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
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
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
The creation of a wide array of international institutions has resulted in a diverse set of theories dedicated to explaining their development. Two theories in particular —neoliberal institutionalism and world culture theory — provide contrasting explanations for the emergence of these institutions. Neoliberal institutionalism is actor-centered, stressing the need for coordination and control to achieve a material interest-based social optimum. World culture theory takes into account a larger world culture that assigns agency to a wider variety of actors and a norm of institutional creation. This essay seeks to navigate the applicability of these two theories by examining the institutional category of international courts. The purpose of this essay is not to prove one theory’s applicability over the other, but rather to argue for the need for inclusion of a culture-centered approach in the analysis of newer and future international courts.
To illustrate this point, this essay identifies two distinct trends in the creation of international courts: trends in functionality and jurisdiction. The original function of courts has changed from strictly resolving disputes between states to include the enforcement of different types of international law. The jurisdiction of international courts has shifted in three areas: personal, subject matter, and membership jurisdiction. International courts now issue binding judgments that apply to actors other than states, interpret a more expansive selection of international law treaties and custom, and include more compulsory aspects for state membership in their founding documents. These trends are then used as a platform for application and analysis of both neoliberal institutionalism and world culture theory. The establishment of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in 2002 represents the latest forms of expanded functions and jurisdiction and is used as an in-depth case study. Specific aspects of the ICC’s negotiation process, such as the prominent use of moral discourse on the part of all actors and the significant and effective role played by non-state actors, holds unique implications for theoretical analysis. These two factors, in particular, illustrate a need to consider culture-based explanations for the ICC’s establishment in addition to traditional actor-centered theories.
To illustrate this point, this essay identifies two distinct trends in the creation of international courts: trends in functionality and jurisdiction. The original function of courts has changed from strictly resolving disputes between states to include the enforcement of different types of international law. The jurisdiction of international courts has shifted in three areas: personal, subject matter, and membership jurisdiction. International courts now issue binding judgments that apply to actors other than states, interpret a more expansive selection of international law treaties and custom, and include more compulsory aspects for state membership in their founding documents. These trends are then used as a platform for application and analysis of both neoliberal institutionalism and world culture theory. The establishment of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in 2002 represents the latest forms of expanded functions and jurisdiction and is used as an in-depth case study. Specific aspects of the ICC’s negotiation process, such as the prominent use of moral discourse on the part of all actors and the significant and effective role played by non-state actors, holds unique implications for theoretical analysis. These two factors, in particular, illustrate a need to consider culture-based explanations for the ICC’s establishment in addition to traditional actor-centered theories.
ContributorsMagee, Alexa Erin (Author) / Thomas, George (Thesis director) / Peskin, Victor (Committee member) / School of Politics and Global Studies (Contributor) / School of Social Transformation (Contributor) / School of Historical, Philosophical and Religious Studies (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2016-05
Description
Abstract Upon review of complex ethnic conflict over the past century in the Great Lakes region, the 2005 Opinion of the Case Concerning Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo does not properly acknowledge the conflict's complexity, and thus fails in applying customary international law to the allegations under dispute. Both concepts of self-defense and the violation of the duty of vigilance are found particularly restrictive, and their application by the ICJ does not recognize realities. The thesis is laid out to provide context for the dispute, followed by consideration of the historical circumstances that shaped the ethnic, political, and economic reality of the Second Congo War. Finally the paper will begin an inquiry into self-defense and the duty of vigilance as unequipped legal concepts to consider the atypical conflict. I. Introduction II. The Dispute: The Second Congo War III. Overview of Case Concerning Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo IV. Lack of Recognition for Historical Background V. Contentious Handlings of Concepts of International Law a. Self-Defense: Questionable Criteria b. Breaches of International Obligations: Duty of Vigilance in Armed Activities VI. Conclusion
ContributorsSandground, Lauren Amanda (Author) / Fellmeth, Aaron (Thesis director) / Rothenberg, Daniel (Committee member) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor) / School of Humanities, Arts, and Cultural Studies (Contributor) / School of International Letters and Cultures (Contributor) / School of Social Transformation (Contributor) / School of Politics and Global Studies (Contributor) / School of Historical, Philosophical and Religious Studies (Contributor)
Created2014-05
Description
In this paper, I wish to reassess the role of the International Criminal Court regarding victims and affected communities as we approach the tenth anniversary of the Court's establishment. I argue that the Court's intentions may be sound, the structure itself causes many difficulties and provisions for victims' participation are often difficult to implement or even dilatory to the administration of justice. The judicial ideals of the Court, including the maintenance of prosecutorial independence and the protection of due process rights of defendants, can actually come in conflict with victim participation provisions of the Rome Statute. In the course of my summer internship at the ICC, I came to believe that it is time to reconsider the Court's designation as an innovative organization and look for structural and institutional reform.
ContributorsMalvika, Sinha (Author) / Peskin, Victor (Thesis director) / Lynch, John (Committee member) / Hunter, Joel (Committee member) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2011-12
Description
Unfortunately, rape has always been a part of war, but recently, media attention has focused on how rape has become a weapon of war on a massive scale. Though wartime rape and sexual assault has come to the forefront of our attention, the theories explaining wartime rape are still not adequate enough to explicate its presence in both the Rwandan and Bosnian Wars. These conflicts were chosen for two reasons. Firstly, they are two of the major conflicts in which rape ahs played a significant part. Secondly, these conflicts played an important role in the transistion in international law from focusing on murders and death to rape and sexual violence. For example, the Jean-Paul Akayesu trial was the first time in which rape was considered a crime against humanity. However, if the ultimate goal is to prevent wartime rape, it is not enough to simply prosecute those who commit it; rather, we must understand the reasons that it occurs. All of the existing theories are partially valid, but none presents a truly holistic explanation for wartime rape. In this paper, I will seek to composite a holistic approach, with the hope that such an approach will prevent the institution of policies that may be either ineffective or counter-productive for the safety of women.
ContributorsBarchilon, Michael (Author) / Durfee, Alesha (Thesis director) / Peskin, Victor (Committee member) / Borg, Stephan (Committee member) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2009-05
Description
This paper examines the development of United States drone policy outside of traditional battle zones. It poses the question of why do states use drones as a projection of force? In particular, the paper examines the expansion of the drone program within a system of democratic checks and balances. It looks at the effect that political and legal influences have had on the expansion of the drone program and hypothesizes that the presence of these constraints should increase drone use outside of traditional battle zones. In order to investigate this hypothesis, the paper looks at data on drone strikes from Yemen and Somalia. The data partially supports the hypothesis as there has not been a clear linear increase in the number of drone strikes in each of these countries. Nevertheless, an examination of the surrounding literature regarding political and legal influences within these countries seems to favorably point to the increase of drone operations. Future research, however, needs to be cognizant of the limitations in gathering specific statistics on drone operations as these operations are covert. It's also important to understand how the covert nature of the drone operations impacts issues regarding political oversight and legality. Lastly, it's important to constantly examine the broader implications drone policy has for US policy.
ContributorsRajan, Rohit Subramaniam (Author) / Wright, Thorin (Thesis director) / Rothenberg, Daniel (Committee member) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor) / Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry (Contributor) / School of Politics and Global Studies (Contributor)
Created2015-05
Description
This paper examines five different human rights treaties in order to test the role of reservations in international law. Through the creation of a typology of reservations, which include Domestic Framework, Minor Objection, Oversight, Cultural, Political, and Negation Reservations, this paper tests the typology against three hypotheses: 1) reservations weaken international law, 2) reservations are neutral to international law, and 3) reservations strengthen international law. By classifying reservations on this spectrum of hypotheses, it became possible to determine whether reservations help or hinder the international human rights regime. The most utilized types of reservations were Domestic Framework Reservations, which demonstrates treaty reservations allow for states to engage with the treaties, thus strengthening international law. However, because the reservations also demonstrate a lack of willingness to be bound by an external oversight body, reservations also highlight a flaw of international law. CEDAW proved to be a general outlier because it had 2-6 times the amount of negation and cultural reservations, which could potentially be attributed to the more societal, as opposed to legal, adjustments required of States Parties.
ContributorsRhoades, Marissa Danielle (Author) / Rothenberg, Daniel (Thesis director) / Peskin, Victor (Committee member) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor) / School of Social Transformation (Contributor) / School of International Letters and Cultures (Contributor) / Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law (Contributor) / School of Politics and Global Studies (Contributor)
Created2014-05