Matching Items (8)
Filtering by
- Creators: School of Politics and Global Studies
- Creators: Rothenberg, Daniel
- Creators: Ashley, Richard
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
In 2021, Palestine will have been under official Israeli occupation for 54 years. As conflict persists between the two populations, it is becoming increasingly difficult to imagine a peaceful resolution. As international legal bodies have failed to bring an end to the occupation, the Israeli government continues to carry out extensive violations of human rights against the Palestinians. One significant consequence of the occupation has been the Palestinians’ lack of access to safe and reliable water, a problem that is continuing to worsen as a result of climate change and years of over-utilization of shared, regional water resources. Since the occupation started, international organizations have not only affirmed the general human right to water but have overseen several peace agreements between Israel and Palestine that have included stipulations on water. Despite these measures, neither water access nor quality has improved and, over time, has worsened. This paper will look at why international law has failed to improve conditions for Palestinians and will outline the implications of the water crisis on a potential solution between Israel and Palestine.
ContributorsTimpany, Grace Louise (Author) / Haglund, LaDawn (Thesis director) / Rothenberg, Daniel (Committee member) / School of Politics and Global Studies (Contributor, Contributor, Contributor) / School of Sustainability (Contributor) / School of Social Transformation (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2021-05
Description
The North Korean refugee crisis is a long-standing political issue that has persisted since the Korean War, resulting in thousands of North Koreans fleeing each year. However, despite its persistent nature, both the Chinese government and the international community have failed to alleviate systematic migratory issues resulting from Chinese policy towards the refugees. This essay aims to analyze Chinese policy towards the North Korean refugee crisis, specifically through its categorization of North Koreans as “economic migrants” rather than refugees. After reviewing both the conditions within North Korea that cause refugee flight and the pathways of escape through China, the paper shows that China is violating multiple parts of international refugee law as set up by the 1951 Refugee Convention, such as issues of non-refoulement and discrimination. Additionally, I argue that North Koreans are refugees in the traditional definition and refugees sur place. Similarly, this paper discusses the historical and political reasoning for Chinese policy towards refugees in the context of its economic and security relationship with the North Korean state, as well as the implications of the relationships for North Korean refugees. From this, the resilient nature of the crisis is established, as well as the notable security obstacles that must be navigated and incorporated in any feasible solutions. Finally, this paper proposes possible solutions to the crisis, such as moving away from “defector” terminology, linking international policy to refugee outcomes, structuring refugee law around global burden-sharing rather than regional prioritizations, and expanding the definition of refugee to more accurately reflect causes of displacement in Asia.
ContributorsDepp, Oren (Co-author, Co-author) / DeLargy, Pamela (Thesis director) / Suk, Mina (Committee member) / Historical, Philosophical & Religious Studies (Contributor) / School of Politics and Global Studies (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2020-05
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
Description
The disputes in the South China Sea involve overlapping territorial claims from multiple nations and have grown increasingly contentious over the past decade. The area is rich in natural resources and is strategically significant regarding international trade and military capabilities. Due to the significance of the area, the competing claims have global ramifications and the conflict involves actors beyond the region. This paper examines the geopolitical factors involved in the disputes and how they shape states' actions in relation to the South China Sea. Specifically, this paper will show how China's actions in the South China Sea reflect both the geography of the region, and also its political ambitions in the region and international community. The states' claims contend the territory, territoriality, and sovereignty of islands in the South China Sea, and are based on both international law and historical evidence illustrated in the case between the Philippines and China in the Scarborough Shoal. It demonstrates China's tactics for managing competing claims, its increasing military capabilities, and the uncertainty of resolutions to the conflict. The mechanisms for the resolution of the territorial disputes in the South China Sea are shown to be largely ineffective given the differing basis of claims over the South China Sea states have. International institutions, such as United Nations tribunals, and other nations without direct claims in the South China Sea, such as the United States, have interests in the conflict related to the peaceful resolution of disputes between nations, while also influencing states' actions. This paper reviews the concepts of geopolitics and how China's strategy in the South China Sea reflects both critical and classical geopolitics and its objective of regional hegemony.
ContributorsKelly, Megan Jean (Author) / Sivak, Henry (Thesis director) / Lundry, Chris (Committee member) / School of Politics and Global Studies (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2016-12
Description
The perception that homosexuality is an immoral affliction and an innovation from Western cultures is prevalent throughout Africa, specifically in six case countries: Togo, Nigeria, Senegal, Uganda, Zimbabwe, and Namibia. This thesis seeks to demonstrate that homophobia, not homosexuality, is the true Western import. Additionally, it will analyze the background and colonial histories of my six dossier countries, their current laws surrounding LGBT+ rights, the social and legal repercussions of being LGBT+, and the consequences of state-sponsored homophobia in terms of justice, international law, and the future of each country. Based on my research, all these case countries use colonial-era provisions, penal codes, and religious norms to discriminate against homosexuals, which operate under legally-mandated “morality,” a notion inherently subjective. Additionally, the most targeted groups are gay men and transgender people, while lesbians and bisexual women are rarely targeted and convicted compared to homosexual men. This is due to various social, legal, and religious factors regarding the high importance of patriarchy and masculinity. Ultimately, this thesis concludes that European colonization in Togo, Nigeria, Senegal, Uganda, Zimbabwe, and Namibia introduced new legal norms that persecuted pre-colonial practices of homosexuality under the guise of morality. Now, the repercussions are rampant and dangerous (especially for homosexual men and transgender people) and cannot be overcome without radical changes to local legal and social systems.
ContributorsZanon, Brooke (Author) / Joslin, Isaac (Thesis director) / Lennon, Tara (Committee member) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor) / School of International Letters and Cultures (Contributor) / School of Politics and Global Studies (Contributor)
Created2023-05
Description
Turkish Safe Zones, as areas to push migrants into for protection, have always been contentious but the recent push to expel Syrians into The Northern Syria Buffer Zone (also known as the Safe Zone, Peace Corridor, or Security Mechanism) has added to the concern of international human rights violations in Turkey. In addition this paper considers the arguments made for the geographical limitation, of the The 1951 Refugee Convention, for refugees in Turkey as it pertains to the welfare of Syrian migrants. As justified under the geographic limitation in Turkey, sending Syrian migrants to Safe Zones is extremely dangerous because it not only puts peoples lives at risk, but it also sets the stage to accept that international law is not truly international and can be broken to avoid the responsibility of migrants. International law quite clearly shows how the forcible return of any migrant to an area where they are put in harm’s way is a direct violation of international law regardless of geographical limitations.Because the development of Turkish Safe Zones in Northern Syria is a recent development, much of the current political science literature fails to see the problem with the Turkish StateFs deportation. Instead, current literature (Abdelaaty, 2019, p. 1) (United Nations, 2011) (Blake, 2020) (Mann, 2021) focuses on how Syrian migrants are termed guests instead of refugees. The guest status makes it so migrants with refugee level concerns do not receive refugee level benefits. This paper argues that the Turkish state deportation of Syrian migrants to Safe Zones is morally wrong, but not surprising. Based on historical events, the expulsion of Syrians to Turkish safe zones in Syria is the logical next step for the Turkish state to legally displace the responsibility of taking care of minorities and migrants.
ContributorsRosenthal, Emily (Author) / Rothenberg, Daniel (Thesis director) / Niebuhr, Robert (Committee member) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor) / Watts College of Public Service & Community Solut (Contributor) / Dean, W.P. Carey School of Business (Contributor)
Created2022-05
Description
Since 9/11 a wide range of violent practices including indefinite detention, torture, and targeted killing have been employed by the United States and the "international community" against "international terrorism." Modern laws of war are portrayed as the bright line that distinguishes the "international community" from "unlawful combatants." The threat posed by unlawful combatants has been portrayed as so exceptionally grave that the international community is justified in the transgression of those very laws of war that constitute the distinction between "us" and "them." In consequence the efficacy of modern laws of war to provide humanitarian protections has been cast into doubt and many characterize humanitarian laws of war as obsolete. Existing work on the politics of exception and the exclusion of Guantánamo Bay detainees from US federal law does not frame the problem of the exception in terms of international law. Though many consider the prerequisites for politics of exception absent in the international system, I argue that a dispersed notion of sovereignty and constructivist approaches to law resolve obstacles to considering the exception at the level of the state system. I explore system level exceptional politics through a critical reading of modern laws of war. Rejecting essentialist historical narratives, I first conduct a genealogical study of laws of war from ancient Greece through the Middle Ages. I then conduct a critical reading of three texts from the War on Terrorism; Barack Obama's 2009 Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech, John Brennan's "The Ethics and Efficacy of the President's Counterterrorism Strategy," and Medea Benjamin's interruption of John Brennan. I argue that modern narratives of war law venerate codification and textually privilege a "mystical" figure of modern law. This figure empowers a universalized "international community" as law's privileged agent. Violence employed by this archetypal community, even when outside the law, is rendered ethically pure and historically necessary. In consequence modern humanitarian law as a bright line always permits excluded archetypal identities and vast powers of violence are mobilized by the "international community" against discrete individual human bodies who are identified with this excluded archetype, or who simply find themselves in the way.
ContributorsHickman, Peter L (Author) / Doty, Roxanne (Thesis advisor) / Ashley, Richard (Committee member) / Thomas, George (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2014