Putting Transitional Justice on Trial: Democracy and Human Rights in Post-Civil War Societies

This paper empirically tests the influence of transitional justice mechanisms (TJMs) – particularly truth commissions and war crimes tribunals – on post-civil war societies. The transitional justice literature advocates the effectiveness of such mechanisms in bringing about the reconciliation necessary to facilitate democratization and respect for human rights. However, few cross-national empirical studies exist to evaluate these claims. This article compares current levels of human rights abuses and democratization in post-civil war countries that have used TJMs with post-civil war countries that have not. These results support the advocates of war crimes tribunals: countries that have used tribunals have higher levels of democratization and human rights than societies that did not. However, the results show that truth commissions have less influence on democratization and human rights

Nuclear Proliferation and Authority in World Politics

We apply the “security-hierarchy paradox” to nuclear proliferation. Global security requires a certain amount of hierarchy. A world in which no nuclear proliferation rules exist to constrain states, for example, would not be secure. Global security requires legitimate and authoritative rules, which we define as rules that are mutually negotiated, binding to all and which provide a stable social order. Too much hierarchy, however, amounts to coercion and undermines global security. Rules that are not mutually negotiated, binding to all or do not provide a stable social order are not authoritative. We argue that North Korea and Iran have attempted to build nuclear weapons because they interpret the proliferation rules to lack authority. The coercive U.S. approaches to enforcing proliferation rules – including diplomatic isolation, preemption, and regime change – have undermined the legitimacy of those rules. When the U.S. pursues less hierarchical policies, as it has recently toward North Korea, the ensuing negotiations have facilitated progress toward an agreement. When the U.S. pursues a consistently hierarchical approach, as it has toward Iran, no progress is made. Our analysis suggests that it is worth attempting a less hierarchical approach toward Iran and encourage it to accept a deal similar to the one negotiated with North Korea

The United States and the Security Council : Collective Security Since the Cold war

viii.197 hal.;25 c

Nuclear Proliferation and Authority in World Politics

We apply the “security-hierarchy paradox” to nuclear proliferation. Global security requires a certain amount of hierarchy. A world in which no nuclear proliferation rules exist to constrain states, for example, would not be secure. Global security requires legitimate and authoritative rules, which we define as rules that are mutually negotiated, binding to all andwhich provide a stable social order. Too much hierarchy, however, amounts to coercion andundermines global security. Rules that are not mutually negotiated, binding to all or do not provide a stable social order are not authoritative. We argue that North Korea and Iran haveattempted to build nuclear weapons because they interpret the proliferation rules to lack authority. The coercive U.S. approaches to enforcing proliferation rules – including diplomatic isolation, preemption, and regime change – have undermined the legitimacy of those rules. When the U.S. pursues less hierarchical policies, as it has recently toward North Korea, the ensuing negotiations have facilitated progress toward an agreement. When theU.S. pursues a consistently hierarchical approach, as it has toward Iran, no progress is made. Our analysis suggests that it is worth attempting a less hierarchical approach toward Iran and encourage it to accept a deal similar to the one negotiated with North Korea

Improvements in Computing Multiple Phase Flows

of the Dissertation Improvements in Computing Multiple Phase Flows by Brian James Miller Doctor of Philosophy in Mathematics University of California, Los Angeles, 1997 Professor Stanley Osher, Chair Improvements are made to a level set method for solving the incompressible, immiscible Navier-Stokes equations for fluids separated by an interface. A variable density projection method combined with a TVD Runge-Kutta scheme is used to advance the computed solution in time. The improvements allow the method to be applied in three dimensions without difficulty, give more freedom in choosing boundary conditions, and enable the application of new fast solver techniques. The use of the level set formulation allows easy treatment of merging and breaking flows. We examine typical problems such as air bubbles in water and water drops in air. Comparisons are made with other numerical methods and with theoretical results. ix CHAPTER 1 Introduction In this presentation, we will develop improve..