Matching Items (8)
Description
This paper seeks to explore connections between the industries and sociopolitical environment in Costa Rica and human capital. Human capital for the purpose of this paper is an individual or a population’s ability to produce goods and services concerning human factors of productivity namely their health, education, or technical skillset. This question is interesting because improving human capital, in general, allows for more goods and services to be produced, and therefore higher welfare. This means recognizing conditions that improve human capital may provide a guide to enhanced prosperity. The paper identifies the characteristic industries in Costa Rica as tropical agriculture and small electronics manufacturing, provides insight as to how on the job training and externalities of these industries might affect human capital, and compares other similar nations’ data to world data provided by the world bank. The other central aim is to draw insight on how a nation having a standing military might impact human capital, which is relevant because Costa Rica abolished its military over fifty years ago.
ContributorsOttenheimer, William (Author) / Datta, Manjira (Thesis director) / Hanson, Margaret (Committee member) / Department of Economics (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2020-05
Description
"The rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened".
- John F Kennedy
For over a century now, the United States has publicly professed a commitment to upholding human rights around the world, yet to this day economically supports numerous dictatorships and undemocratic regimes that flout human rights on a daily basis. The rhetoric of American politicians would imply that human rights and democracy are a priority in America's foreign policy, yet given US support for autocracies, both of these principles seem forgotten. If not respect for democracy and human rights, what is truly influencing America's relationship with these countries? I hypothesize that a country's resource availability will be the best predictive factor for its economic relationship with the US, followed by its military involvement with the US, and finally, human rights records will be the least predictive factor. The study found that a country's military cooperation with the US is the best predictive factor regarding our economic relationship, resource availability comes with a weak correlation, and human rights abuses very rarely substantively impact our economic relationships.
- John F Kennedy
For over a century now, the United States has publicly professed a commitment to upholding human rights around the world, yet to this day economically supports numerous dictatorships and undemocratic regimes that flout human rights on a daily basis. The rhetoric of American politicians would imply that human rights and democracy are a priority in America's foreign policy, yet given US support for autocracies, both of these principles seem forgotten. If not respect for democracy and human rights, what is truly influencing America's relationship with these countries? I hypothesize that a country's resource availability will be the best predictive factor for its economic relationship with the US, followed by its military involvement with the US, and finally, human rights records will be the least predictive factor. The study found that a country's military cooperation with the US is the best predictive factor regarding our economic relationship, resource availability comes with a weak correlation, and human rights abuses very rarely substantively impact our economic relationships.
ContributorsPlummer, Gage (Author) / Hanson, Margaret (Thesis director) / Ripley, Charles (Committee member) / School of Politics and Global Studies (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2020-05
Description
Third-party diplomatic support for protest movements has become an increasingly important tool for international actors in order to inform and influence foreign publics, especially, discontented citizens. Expressing official support for protest campaigns -through condemning government repression, encouraging political reform, praising protesters, and sympathizing with them- or imposing economic sanctions because of the host government's repressive behavior is now a significant component of diplomacy. Despite the growing importance of third-party diplomatic support for protest movements, little systematic research has been conducted on its causes and consequence. This study includes three interrelated papers to address this gap in the literature. The first paper addresses the question of why countries provide diplomatic support for protest movements. Focusing on Western diplomacy in the post-Cold War era, I argue that there are two reasons why Western democracies take diplomatic actions in support of protest campaigns. First, when the host government uses extreme violence against protesters; and second when the host government has an oppositional stance toward the U.S.-led liberal international order. I use original data of 523 diplomatic actions from 1990 to 2019 to test these theoretical expectations. The second paper asks whether and under what conditions diplomatic support is effective. I argue that diplomatic support is likely to reduce popular support or protest movements when it occurs alongside protesters' call for international help because it makes governments' common claim on the alleged coordination between opposition figures and foreign countries credible. I conduct a survey experiment among Iranian intelligentsia to test this argument. The results support the theoretical model. The third chapter asks whether the identity of supporter could make a difference in the public's attitudes toward protest movements. The central argument is that support from strategic allies is likely to weaken public support for protest campaigns. However, when diplomatic support comes from allies, it is likely to increase support for protesters. I test this theory by conducting a survey experiment of 1800 American citizens on the Black Lives Matter Movement. The findings show that the identity of supporters plays a crucial role in shaping public attitudes toward protest movements.
ContributorsAsadzadehmamaghani, Peyman (Author) / Thies, Cameron (Thesis advisor) / Peterson, Timothy (Thesis advisor) / Siroky, David (Committee member) / Hanson, Margaret (Committee member) / Wood, Reed (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2022
Description
Why do states repress sexual minorities? The logic of coercive responsiveness demonstrates that states repress people when they feel threatened. From this perspective and because repression leaves states with international condemnations and sanctions, it is puzzling why states target sexual minorities. First, I explore this puzzle in all states and argue that political regimes repress sexual minorities when their legitimacy is undermined. Repression of sexual minorities becomes a legitimation strategy for political regimes in homophobic societies especially when regimes lack rational-procedural legitimacy. Second, I examine state repression of LGBTQ+ people in conservative countries and argue that political regimes in homophobic societies tend to repress sexual minorities to divert public attention from domestic economic problems. Corruption, government ineffectiveness, and uneven economic development sprout public resentment and discontent. Political regimes act to repress sexual minorities, implementing homophobic policies to divert public attention from poor economic conditions and discourage citizens from demanding redistributive policies. Instilling homophobic elements into nationalist diversionary tactics makes these tactics more appealing to a broader society where traditional family values and normative homosexuality is blended with national identity. Third, I study the repression of sexual minorities in authoritarian countries and argue that regimes which oppose the US-led international liberal order are more likely to repress sexual minorities. Political leaders in these regimes commit egregious human rights abuses against sexual minorities to draw attention from Western media and gay rights organizations, which press Western governments to make condemnations and sometimes impose sanctions. Leaders in these anti-Western then frame these condemnations and sanctions as threats to sovereignty and cultural imperialism, which become appealing to the homophobic public. Testing these conjectures against new country-year data, survey experiments, and five public surveys, I find results consistent with these arguments. The results suggest that state repression has both domestic and external dimensions. Homosexuality is highly politicized in repressive countries. Leaders resort to violence against sexual minorities for various political gains when the public is hostile to homosexuality. I conclude that public acceptance of LGBTQ+ people is paramount to the improvement of gay rights.
ContributorsAbbasov, Namig (Author) / Siroky, David S (Thesis advisor) / Bustikova, Lenka (Committee member) / Hanson, Margaret (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2022
Description
An exploration of Uyghur political identity in the diaspora with a focus on indigenous identity, the complexities involved in indigenous self-identification, and obstacles to research. The paper also covers how scholars might learn more about the Uyghur diaspora.
ContributorsKinney, Isabelle (Author) / Hanson, Margaret (Thesis director) / Haines, Chad (Committee member) / Schluessel, Eric (Committee member) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor) / Historical, Philosophical & Religious Studies, Sch (Contributor) / School of International Letters and Cultures (Contributor) / School of Politics and Global Studies (Contributor)
Created2023-05
Description
What factors influence an authoritarian state to emphasize lower-utility repressive methods to neutralize dissidents? Previous studies have addressed covert methods of repression in the form of intelligence gathering to support the state's overt repressive actions. Such constructs, however, fail to fully articulate clandestine repressive methods that not only conceal the identity of the responsible actor from the target, but also the activity itself. To fill this gap, in this study I explore the construct of disintegration as a means for states to clandestinely neutralize dissent. While effective, these methods are also resource intensive, which makes them lower utility for the state from a cost perspective relative to overt repression and in turn begs the questions of why a state would emphasize such methods in their repressive strategy. To answer this question, I forward a structuralist argument that seeks to challenge assumptions in the literature that over-rely on existing theories of state repression. By incorporating literature from multiple disciplines, I outline a causal process that identifies the linkage between a state’s legitimation strategy and its guarantees for civil-political human rights norms to create a mechanism that could cause the state to emphasize disintegration measures. I examine three periods in the history of the German Democratic Republic and find that it emphasized disintegration in its repressive strategy during the mid-seventies due to its financial and economic agreements with the West being dependent on (appeared) compliance with the human rights stipulations of the Helsinki Accords of 1975. Stemming from this case a mid-range theory of disintegration that has implications for contemporary autocracies as well as democracies. The primary contribution of this theory lies in its ability to explain this outcome in authoritarian states that are typically less restricted in their implementation of overt repression.
ContributorsRector, William (Author) / Thomson, Henry (Thesis advisor) / Hanson, Margaret (Committee member) / Bustikova, Lenka (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2023
Description
The term "Latinx" has emerged as a gender-neutral alternative to the gendered "Latino/Latina" label, sparking debates within the Latino community. However, the implications of creating a new label extend far beyond the minority group it aims to represent. This study investigates the differing perspectives of individuals within and outside of the Latino community regarding the term and its meaning. It provides additional literature that explores how people's identification with labels affects their support for political candidates and advocacy groups. Specifically, the survey experiment examines how candidates’ use of these labels influences their political support.
ContributorsRojo, Sophia (Author) / Soares, Rebecca (Thesis director) / Hanson, Margaret (Committee member) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor) / School of International Letters and Cultures (Contributor) / School of Sustainability (Contributor) / School of Politics and Global Studies (Contributor)
Created2024-05
Description
Despite popular belief, war is a highly regulated endeavor. Military operations cannot be permitted to take place in a regulatory vacuum. According to the Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law, there are currently 110 armed conflicts, most of which are non-international. (Today’s Armed Conflicts, 2024) The law of war exists to protect those who are involved and those who are not involved in the conflict. The first step in the regulatory process is understanding what situations trigger different types of law. Understanding conflict characterization and the law's applicability is necessary for prosecution and operations planning. Two primary documents regulate armed conflicts: the Hague Convention and the Geneva Conventions. The Hague Conventions set out rules for conducting war, and the Geneva Conventions protect the victims of war. In this paper, the Geneva Conventions (GC) will be the primary research focus as I am specifically interested in protecting victims. We apply different Geneva Convention rules based on the characterization of a given conflict.
Geneva Conventions give vague regulations applicable to conflicts. The main reason for such vagueness was to make this document universal enough for many states to ratify it. However, such vagueness has political ramifications, as state leaders utilize the gray areas of international law in their interests. (International Committee of the Red Cross, 2023)
One such gray area is the fact that the current international documents do not provide a precise characterization of war. The problem of this uncertainty is that there has been the need to address the legal issues on a case-by-case basis. While I acknowledge that every case should have special attention, it is also essential to bring as much universality to them as possible to make the prosecution process more accessible and make international law more just and predictable. Therefore, this paper answers the following question: How can the text of the Geneva Conventions be strengthened to prevent political biases and increase humanitarian protections?
This topic has a well-developed research foundation. I am relying on some previous works in the area, including the ones written by Corn and Gal. Corn’s “Legal Classifications of Military Operations” focuses on the issue of characterizing non-international armed conflicts and their application to the conflict between the U.S. and al-Queda. Gal’s “Unexplored Outcomes of Tadić” introduces the conflict between the ICC and ICJ in dealing with Tadić precedent. I utilize these scholars’ work as the foundation of the issue I am researching, and I propose solutions to the problems presented by the scholars.
This paper addresses some of the major problems in defining armed conflict in international law, particularly defining non-international armed conflict and defining conflicts between a state and a non-state actor. My two main issues discuss concern (1) establishing the existence of an armed conflict for legal purposes and (2) differentiating between two types of conflict. I look into two sides of a coin: international armed conflict (IAC) and non-international armed conflict (NIAC). The primary debate in characterizing NIAC arises from a disagreement over what constitutes mere violence and what constitutes NIAC. The discussion on IAC arises from arguments aiming at expanding the definition of IAC to the conflicts traditionally classified as NIACs. This second question is essential as the rules governing IAC provide more protection to civilians and POWs compared to the ones governing NIACs.
I started by exploring how international law is applied to conflicts and discussing how different characterizations trigger other parts of the law. I later delved into defining a non-international armed conflict (NIAC), as there is no numeric threshold for what makes mere violence a NIAC. There is a need for a more specific threshold, and some challenges are associated with implementing it.
I later discuss a second major issue: international conflicts that involve a state and a non-state actor. International tribunals should treat such cases as an international armed conflict rather than NIAC and present challenges to applying the law to non-state actors.
ContributorsDzon, Alona (Author) / Hanson, Margaret (Thesis director) / Peskin, Victor (Committee member) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor) / Dean, W.P. Carey School of Business (Contributor)
Created2024-05