In late January 1996, Greece and Turkey were literally hours from conflict after the landing of a helicopter with Turkish journalists on one of the two rocky islets in Northeastern Aegean Sea which...Show moreIn late January 1996, Greece and Turkey were literally hours from conflict after the landing of a helicopter with Turkish journalists on one of the two rocky islets in Northeastern Aegean Sea which are known in Greek as Imia and in Turkish as Kardak. Turkey’s intentions to dispute the Greek sovereignty of those islets led to the biggest crisis between the two countries after the Turkish invasion to Cyprus. The mediation of the US finally brought the deterrence of the war which was really close as Greek and Turkish troops had gathered on the islets and close to them. The fact that there was political instability in both countries at the time of the crisis creates a big question that is still to be answered: where the reasons of this crisis political? Domestic problems sometimes lead to external conflicts and the probability of the existence of a relationship between the domestic unrest mainly in Turkey and incidentally in Greece and the Imia/Kardak crisis still remains vague. This research will try to clarify the reasons of the Imia/Kardak crisis and to examine whether the diversionary theory of war has an application in it or not. Through the analysis of this theory and the description of the political situation in both countries we will try to come to a conclusion about the political dimension of this crisis.Show less
This thesis deals with the issue of the Abu Musa and Greater and Lesser Tunb Islands. These islands are disputed by the Islamic Republic of Iran, who currently occupies them, and the United Arab...Show moreThis thesis deals with the issue of the Abu Musa and Greater and Lesser Tunb Islands. These islands are disputed by the Islamic Republic of Iran, who currently occupies them, and the United Arab Emirates, who to this day claim the islands as theirs. The strategic significance of the islands is not to be underestimated, as they lay directly in the main shipping lanes through which a significant portion of the world’s oil is transported. This paper has looked at the historical events that shaped the situation today, with a focus on the period between independence of the United Arab Emirates and the mid-1990’s. This timeframe is further divided in three parts, the events surrounding independence, the period of upheaval attempted détente during the late 1970’s and 1980’s and finally the reescalation of the issue after the First Gulf War of 1991.Using the theory of offensive realism as devised by John Mearsheimer and the associated concepts of power balancing, buck passing, off shore balancing and the role of the off shore balancer the events during this period have been analysed to answer the question whether this theory can explain the absence of warfare between the U.A.E. and Iran. Even though at times the situation seemed to be heading for war, the simple discrepancy between the capabilities of the U.A.E. and Iran resulted in a carefully balanced status quo that has been maintained since 1971 thereby weakening the key offensive realist assumption that the offensive is always profitable.Show less
Foreign intervention in civil war is generally perceived as being peace generating. While interveners may seek ¨stability¨, the result of intervention is all too frequently prolonged violence and...Show moreForeign intervention in civil war is generally perceived as being peace generating. While interveners may seek ¨stability¨, the result of intervention is all too frequently prolonged violence and political chaos. While previous studies have confirmed a causal relationship between foreign intervention and the prolonged duration of civil war, they have neglected to dig into the causal mechanisms that explain how such intervention extents civil war. In the light of an increasing occurrence of the civil war phenomenon coupled with foreign intervention, it is essential to acquire a complete understanding of the relation between foreign intervention and civil war so that policy makers can create more effective responses and develop the right strategies. This study contributes to this by examining the role of US intervention in the Peruvian and Colombian civil conflict. A careful consideration of these two cases reveals that a foreign actors that supports a government in civil war, introduces separate interests to the conflict. Subsequently, diverging strategies undermine the government´s ability to deal with the insurgent independently. Foreign intervention may temporarily oppress an insurgent, but by addressing primarily the symptoms and not the cause of the conflict, foreign intervention leads to a prolonged civil war duration in the long-run.Show less
Over the last half century, North Korea has made over 2,660 military provocations against South Korea. Even during peaceful dialogue or institutional negotiations, North Korea has often engaged in ...Show moreOver the last half century, North Korea has made over 2,660 military provocations against South Korea. Even during peaceful dialogue or institutional negotiations, North Korea has often engaged in “unreasonable” actions such as provocations, violence, and terrorism when situations do not proceed according to plan, the goal being to force its counterparts to change their stance or make concessions. Various explanations have been proposed as to when and why North Korea employs brinkmanship. The key feature underlying these explanations is the precedence of factors internal to the North Korean regime such as diversion and human needs over other factors. This study attaches importance to South Korea’s foreign policy as a cause of Pyongyang’s constant provocations. The study starts with the question of under what conditions South Korean policies of coercion and engagement affect North Korea’s brinkmanship foreign policy. In order to answer the question, it examines two periods related to North Korea’s response to South Korea’s coercion and engagement policies from 1993 to 2008 by process tracing, employing tit-for-tat game theory, and tests alternative explanations. Its findings include: (1) North Korea is more cooperative and less belligerent when South Korea pursues coercion and conditional engagement; (2) North Korea is less cooperative and more conflictual when South Korea implements unconditional engagement. The findings of the study have important theoretical and policy implications. In terms of theoretical debate, the study lends support to coercion and conditional engagement as more sound strategies in dealing with renegade regimes. In terms of policy, the study recommends policy makers to (1) implement a strict reciprocity towards North Korea, (2) maintain a strong US-South Korea alliance, and (3) respond sternly against armed provocations.Show less
The purpose of this research is to analyse the forces behind how secession1 states come to be externally recognised and gain international legal sovereignty. This paper addresses the overtly one...Show moreThe purpose of this research is to analyse the forces behind how secession1 states come to be externally recognised and gain international legal sovereignty. This paper addresses the overtly one-dimensional approach of current secession theories pertaining to external recognition. I posit to fill a gap in the existing literature by creating a new theory derived from the two existing sets of secession literature; external and internal. This will be a hybrid theory that incorporates both existing theoretical lenses to give a more complete picture of the forces at work behind external recognition. I then apply this theory to the case studies of Somaliland and South Sudan. The research aims to identify and isolate factors that influence and explain the external recognition of South Sudan and the non-recognition of Somaliland. South Sudan’s external recognition is found to be explained solely by levels of external involvement while Somaliland is found to have more influential internal factors than external. This leads to the conclusion that within the hybrid theory, external factors prove the most significant in external recognition. However, only through a hybrid theory can well-rounded and comprehensive research be conducted. The paper contributes to the academic field within Political Science of secessionist movements and state creation.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
