Filtern
Erscheinungsjahr
- 2022 (2) (entfernen)
Dokumenttyp
- Bachelorarbeit (1)
- Dissertation (1)
Sprache
- Englisch (2) (entfernen)
Institut
- Fakultät Kulturwissenschaften (2) (entfernen)
Increased international compliance with human rights and democracy standards is a core issue for both human rights and democratizing actors as well as for victims of human rights abuse. International human rights organizations (IHROs) are expected to make positive contributions to this end, even though they possess low levels of authority. This authority has been renegotiated multiple times in various reform processes. An oversimplified expectation would have us assume that democracies would want to strengthen IHROs, and that autocracies would seek to weaken them. As the United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC) was reformed in 2006, 2007, 2010, and 2011, some autocracies strived to abolish parts of the UNHRC. Other autocracies aimed "merely" to weaken them. Democracies displayed an even larger variance. The question that drives this research work is how we can explain the broad variety of state preferences for strengthening or weakening IHROs. Previous research has mostly concentrated on democracies, leaving autocracies understudied. It also treated countries as black boxes. To account for such shortcomings, first, the author systematically tests the relationship between the UNHRC and its authoritarian and democratic members by means of inferential statistics. Second, he analyzes a bottom-up process inherent to New Liberalism. It scrutinizes the role of domestic societal actors, domestic institutions, as well as pressures on the international stage. The results reveal that societal actors, along with the interplay of wealth and regime type in the international realm, figure as the most important predictors of delegation preferences voiced by autocracies and democracies during the reform of the monitoring bureaucracy Special Procedures of the UNHRC. Societal actors play a more important role in democracies than in autocracies. Institutionalized domestic oversight mechanisms help societal actors to conduct effective lobbying at the domestic level. Oversight mechanisms are more important than the rule of law and electoral institutions. Regarding international coalition building, authoritarian regimes turn out to be better organized than democracies. The author concludes that supporters of strong IHROs shall 1. empower domestic societal actors; 2. disrupt cohesive delegation preferences of authoritarian regimes; and 3. invest in independent domestic oversight mechanisms.oversight mechanisms.
Increasing objections have been formulated towards broadening the security category. Securitisation is used to bring attention to urgent and existential threats that cannot be resolved through ordinary political decisions. During the time of the state of emergency between 2015 and 2017, France strengthened its security forces and introduced generalised surveillance measures to curb the terrorist threat. The purpose of this Bachelor thesis is to problematise the securitisation of terrorism in the French case. To do so, the Just Securitisation Theory by Rita Floyd is used to examine the following research question: Was it just to securitise terrorism in France between 2015 and 2017? Through critical discourse analysis of 54 presidential speech acts and secondary text analysis, this study aims to scrutinise securitising moves and security practices of the French government. The presented results indicate that the justness of securitisation is highly questionable. The analysis shows that the governments set excessive goals of eliminating terrorism and that security measures were misappropriated to fight organised crime instead of terrorism.