Hierarchical Group and Attribute-Based Access Control: Incorporating Hierarchical Groups and Delegation into Attribute-Based Access Control

Attribute-Based Access Control (ABAC) is a promising alternative to traditional models of access control (i.e. Discretionary Access Control (DAC), Mandatory Access Control (MAC) and Role-Based Access control (RBAC)) that has drawn attention in both recent academic literature and industry application. However, formalization of a foundational model of ABAC and large-scale adoption is still in its infancy. The relatively recent popularity of ABAC still leaves a number of problems unexplored. Issues like delegation, administration, auditability, scalability, hierarchical representations, etc. have been largely ignored or left to future work. This thesis seeks to aid in the adoption of ABAC by filling in several of these gaps. The core contribution of this work is the Hierarchical Group and Attribute-Based Access Control (HGABAC) model, a novel formal model of ABAC which introduces the concept of hierarchical user and object attribute groups to ABAC. It is shown that HGABAC is capable of representing the traditional models of access control (MAC, DAC and RBAC) using this group hierarchy and that in many cases it’s use simplifies both attribute and policy administration. HGABAC serves as the basis upon which extensions are built to incorporate delegation into ABAC. Several potential strategies for introducing delegation into ABAC are proposed, categorized into families and the trade-offs of each are examined. One such strategy is formalized into a new User-to-User Attribute Delegation model, built as an extension to the HGABAC model. Attribute Delegation enables users to delegate a subset of their attributes to other users in an off-line manner (not requiring connecting to a third party). Finally, a supporting architecture for HGABAC is detailed including descriptions of services, high-level communication protocols and a new low-level attribute certificate format for exchanging user and connection attributes between independent services. Particular emphasis is placed on ensuring support for federated and distributed systems. Critical components of the architecture are implemented and evaluated with promising preliminary results. It is hoped that the contributions in this research will further the acceptance of ABAC in both academia and industry by solving the problem of delegation as well as simplifying administration and policy authoring through the introduction of hierarchical user groups

Words that Matter: Three Essays on Multilateral Opposition to War

My dissertation titled “Words that Matter: Three Essays on Multilateral Opposition to War” advances our understanding of how the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) constrains state behavior through the use of verbal condemnation. The UNSC has an array of tools to manage violent conflicts, including condemnations, economic sanctions, and military actions. Existing scholarship largely discounts verbal condemnations as ineffective because they are not backed up by coercive actions that impose tangible costs. Empirical patterns and anecdotal illustrations, however, suggest contrary findings – that verbal condemnations can constrain state behavior under certain conditions. I address this gap by examining how variation across UNSC condemnations impacts the crisis-actors’ decision to escalate. I argue that variation in legal invocation and rhetorical severity sends important signals to the targeted state that can change the expected costs of war and, ultimately, prevent escalation. I further examine the determinants of rhetorical variation across UNSC condemnations through the lens of power-sharing and power-politics within the UN. I find that the permanent members influence the contents of the resolution, but the Council President shapes the UN’s agenda. My theoretical expectations and findings are validated by an empirical analysis of international crisis-actors from 1946 to 2017 with the original coding of legality and severity in the UNSC resolutions. This dissertation project improves our understanding of the UN’s role in conflict management, especially through condemnations. The findings suggest that rhetorical tools can be just as effective, and that the UN’s multilateral efforts can mitigate interstate conflicts in world politics by invoking international law and designing impactful messages

The Lawfulness of United States Assistance to the Republic of Viet Nam

In recent months, critics of United States assistance to the Republic of Viet Nam have increasingly used legal arguments in their attacks on that assistance. They have asserted that the United States presence and activities in Viet Nam violate general principles of international law and the United Nations Charter. In support of these assertions, they argue that the Republic of Viet Nam is not a state, that the United States is merely intervening in a civil war, and that this intervention neither qualifies as self-defense under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter nor is otherwise legally justified. Although there is certainly room for choice and disagreement among the available policy alternatives, these legal arguments substantially misstate the case

The voting behaviour of the European Union member states in the United Nations General Assembly

Despite their explicit intent to speak with a single voice in foreign affairs, EU member states manage to do so only some of the time. Which are the factors that determine whether or not the EU member states successfully coordinate their positions in the international arena? To find out, I propose to examine the voting behaviour of the EU member states inside the United Nations General Assembly; a forum in which, notwithstanding heterogeneous policy preferences, they intend to coordinate their votes and are thus subject to coordination pressures. This means that for divisive resolutions, each member state must try to reconcile its national policy preference with the objective of casting a unified vote. I hypothesise that the balance a member state strikes generally depends on how important it views the issue at hand, how powerful it is, what type of relationship it maintains with the EU and under certain conditions, what type of relationship it maintains with US. I further argue that the balance is expected to tip in favour of EU unity when increasing the collective bargaining power by working together becomes a tangible objective. By adopting a multi-method approach, the thesis shows that the EU member states make a genuine and continuous effort to coordinate their votes inside the General Assembly. Significantly, the thesis illustrates that member states, at times, are able to override their heterogeneous national policy preference in order to stand united. I conclude by connecting the findings with the constructivist/rationalist debate, which juxtaposes foreign policy cooperation according to the logic of appropriateness with the logic of consequence. The results obtained have implications not only for the study of EU voting behaviour in the United Nations, but also for theoretical debate underlying it

Freedom of the High Seas Versus the Common Heritage of Mankind: Fundamental Principles in Conflict

This Article examines the competing claims surrounding the refusal of the U.S. and other industrialized nations to sign the Convention. The author argues that it is now possible that seabed mining will proceed under a reciprocating state regime based on unilateral legislation, justified under the principle of the freedom of the seas. However, the signatory States have claimed that this type of legislation is contrary to international law based on the principle of the common heritage of mankind. The author examines the basis for each of these claims and how these claim survive under the current legal regime governing seabed mining

The Principle of Complementarity: A New Machinery to Implement International Criminal Law

According to the doctrine of State sovereignty each State has the right to exercise its jurisdiction over crimes committed in its territory-known as the territoriality principle. Even if the crimes committed are of a type that affects the international community as a whole, States are often hesitant to have their own nationals tried by an international judicial organ. History demonstrates that States rarely waived this right, which is inherent to their sovereignties, and did not rely exclusively on international justice. Rather they always preferred to exercise their jurisdiction exclusively, and only occasionally, when coerced by special circumstances, have they accepted international intervention. In order to create an international criminal court to punish grave crimes of an international character, this historical obstacle had to be overcome. The compromise reached is the principle of complementarity. This principle requires the existence of both national and international criminal justice functioning in a subsidiary manner for the repression of crimes of international law. When the former fails to do so, the latter intervenes and ensures that perpetrators do not go unpunished

The Right to Political Participation In International Law

The 1980s and early 1990s have witnessed the extraordinary demise of authoritarian regimes once thought to be a permanent fixture of the political landscape. Defying old orthodoxies and alliances, communist governments in Eastern Europe, military juntas in Latin America, and one-party states in Africa have given way to governments chosen in free and open elections. A tide of democratic change is sweeping the world, Professor Rustow recently declared, and the numbers bear him out. At the turn of the century only nine countries could legitimately be called democratic, even excluding the question of women\u27s suffrage. The number rose to twenty-one by 1929 and twenty-nine by 1960. By 1990, according to one survey, sixty-five countries chose their governments in elections marked by fair electoral laws, equal campaigning opportunities, fair polling and honest tabulation of ballots

Reconstructing Iraq: A Guide to the Issues

Considers the implications of U.N. Resolution 1483, outlining reconstruction efforts in Iraq, from political, economic, social, and historical perspectives. Includes background information on recent post-war reconstruction efforts in other nations