Due to climate change and rising temperatures, the world is more often facing extreme weather conditions like drought. Such conditions of water scarcity especially cause problems in countries...Show moreDue to climate change and rising temperatures, the world is more often facing extreme weather conditions like drought. Such conditions of water scarcity especially cause problems in countries dependent on agriculture, where failed harvests can cause negative income shocks and grievance development, influencing conflict. Focusing on the relationship between conflict intensity and water scarcity, this research explores the case of the Syrian civil war from 2011-2017, finding that over-time differences in temperatures can explain monthly variations in number of deaths. This research thereby confirms the fact that rising temperatures can lead to more intense conflict and concludes with brief discussion of policy recommendations to tackle drought-related conflict.Show less
The year 2010 inaugurated a tumultuous period for a range of countries in the Middle East and Northern Africa. Protests compelling for democratization culminated in violent clashes between rebels...Show moreThe year 2010 inaugurated a tumultuous period for a range of countries in the Middle East and Northern Africa. Protests compelling for democratization culminated in violent clashes between rebels and authoritarian regimes across the region. In response to the escalation of violence in Libya, an alliance of countries established a no-fly zone for halting the exorbitant regime violence against the rebels and the population. Shortly after, NATO took over command. A similar intervention in Syria did not occur, in spite of the widespread human rights violations and grave human suffering. A comparison between the cases of Libya and Syria sheds light on the factors that shaped the different international community responses to the conflicts and also contributes to the greater puzzle of why states intervene in some atrocities but not in others. This study found that a prime factor impacting humanitarian intervention occurrence in Libya and Syria is the UN Security Council’s task to provide authorization within a context of disputed legality of humanitarian interventions. In addition, it is concluded that UNSC member’s positions with respect to intervening were guided by their political interests and to a lesser extent by their economic interests. Finally, the anticipated outcomes of the two humanitarian intervention scenarios influenced intervention behavior, which explains why only one intervention was conducted. All these factors are indispensable components of an inclusive explanation for the different responses to the civil wars in Libya and Syria.Show less
Humanitarian ideals are increasingly driving the rhetoric of intervention in the post-Cold War period. Is this indicative of conscientious international environment, or are more cynical...Show moreHumanitarian ideals are increasingly driving the rhetoric of intervention in the post-Cold War period. Is this indicative of conscientious international environment, or are more cynical machinations responsible? Through the analysis of the political rhetoric of prominent case studies, this paper seeks to determine the nature of humanitarian intervention in relation to contemporary understandings of international politics.Show less
This thesis is inspired by the will to understand why the international community stands by while mass atrocities are committed by the Syrian government. My research question ‘Why does the...Show moreThis thesis is inspired by the will to understand why the international community stands by while mass atrocities are committed by the Syrian government. My research question ‘Why does the international community not intervene in the humanitarian crisis in Syria?’ forms the premise for this thesis. My main argument is that because of the non-consensus within the international community about R2P as a norm, there is a lack of political will to intervene in the situation in Syria. Furthermore, I argue that this lack of consensus is caused by the protection of the national interests of the states involved, especially the security of their sovereignty. These arguments are substantiated by the acceptance of my hypotheses which are based on the core assumptions of realism, liberalism, and constructivism. These hypotheses show that the protection of sovereignty, the lack of a common interest, and the non-consensus about R2P are crucial aspects in the decision not to intervene in the humanitarian crisis in Syria.Show less
In the past, the threat of nuclear arms and the states and actors that might gain access to such technology has resulted in the pre-emptive use of military force against states. Israel attacked...Show moreIn the past, the threat of nuclear arms and the states and actors that might gain access to such technology has resulted in the pre-emptive use of military force against states. Israel attacked Iraq (Operation Opera in 1981) and Syria (Operation Orchard in 2007) in order to prevent or forcefully disrupt their nuclear proliferation efforts. Currently, concern about Iran’s nuclear program has raised debate about the possibility of an Israeli pre-emptive attack. This thesis employs hypotheses from realist, constructivist and liberal theory to explain the use of force in counter-proliferation, using a strategy of within-case and across-case analysis of both prior attacks. I locate determining conditions that led Israel to use force in counter proliferation. The hypotheses explore conditions such as uncertainty about state identity, the perception of threat, the risk of shift in regional power balance, prior military hostility, hostile public statements made by state leaders, undeterrability and the domestic support of state leaders. Most of these conditions are present in the current case of Iran, when considering the possibility of a pre-emptive Israeli attack. If Iran’s military support to Hezbollah is interpreted as indirect military hostility, all the conditions for an Israeli pre-emptive attack would be present, when considering the conditions leading to the previous two Israeli attacks in counter proliferation. The analysis suggests there is a high chance that this will cause Israel to use pre-emptive force in order to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities, as the “Begin Doctrine”, on which Israel’s security policy is based, will not accept such high security risks.Show less
