What explains why governments and militaries pursue accountability against some human rights violations committed by members of their armed forces during ongoing conflicts, but not other violations? Further, what are the consequences of such prosecutions for their military and governmental objectives? The theory put forth by this study suggests that rather than only the natural outcome of strong rule of law, domestic prosecutions within a state’s security apparatus represents a strategic choice made by political and military actors. I employ a strategic actor approach to the pursuit of accountability, suggesting that the likelihood of accountability increases when elites perceive they will gain politically or militarily from such actions. I investigate these claims using both qualitative and quantitative methods in a comparative study across the United States and the United Kingdom. This project contributes to interdisciplinary scholarly research relevant to human rights studies, human rights law, political science, democratic state-building, democratic governance, elite decision making, counter-insurgency, protests, international sanctions, and conflict resolution. Particularly, this dissertation speaks to the intersection of strategy and law, or “lawfare” a method of warfare where law is used as means of realizing a military objective (Dunlap 2001). It provides generalizable results extending well beyond the cases analyzed. Thus, the results of this project will interest those dealing with questions relating to legitimacy, human rights, and elite decision making throughout the democratic world.

The creation of a wide array of international institutions has resulted in a diverse set of theories dedicated to explaining their development. Two theories in particular —neoliberal institutionalism and world culture theory — provide contrasting explanations for the emergence of these institutions. Neoliberal institutionalism is actor-centered, stressing the need for coordination and control to achieve a material interest-based social optimum. World culture theory takes into account a larger world culture that assigns agency to a wider variety of actors and a norm of institutional creation. This essay seeks to navigate the applicability of these two theories by examining the institutional category of international courts. The purpose of this essay is not to prove one theory’s applicability over the other, but rather to argue for the need for inclusion of a culture-centered approach in the analysis of newer and future international courts.

To illustrate this point, this essay identifies two distinct trends in the creation of international courts: trends in functionality and jurisdiction. The original function of courts has changed from strictly resolving disputes between states to include the enforcement of different types of international law. The jurisdiction of international courts has shifted in three areas: personal, subject matter, and membership jurisdiction. International courts now issue binding judgments that apply to actors other than states, interpret a more expansive selection of international law treaties and custom, and include more compulsory aspects for state membership in their founding documents. These trends are then used as a platform for application and analysis of both neoliberal institutionalism and world culture theory. The establishment of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in 2002 represents the latest forms of expanded functions and jurisdiction and is used as an in-depth case study. Specific aspects of the ICC’s negotiation process, such as the prominent use of moral discourse on the part of all actors and the significant and effective role played by non-state actors, holds unique implications for theoretical analysis. These two factors, in particular, illustrate a need to consider culture-based explanations for the ICC’s establishment in addition to traditional actor-centered theories.

The purpose of this paper is to analyze how Israel justifies its use of targeted killings. Israel's targeted killings became prominent during the Second Intifada and became an official part of Israeli counterterrorism. Shortly afterwards, in 2002, the State of Israel was sued by the Public Committee Against Torture in Israel and the Palestinian Society for the Protection of Human Rights and the Environment. They asserted that Israel's policy of targeted killings was a human rights violation because Israel was not involved in an international armed conflict with Hamas. However, the Israeli Supreme Court ruled that the policy is legal because Israel is involved in an international armed conflict, and therefore, targeted killings can be used as a method of warfare. According to IHL, there are two paradigms that are applicable to targeted killings. The law enforcement paradigm is used during times of peace to deal with domestic threats while the hostilities paradigm is used during international and non-international armed conflicts to achieve concrete military advantages. Therefore, because the Supreme Court claims that there is an armed conflict present, the hostilities paradigm is used, and IHL is needed to interpret Israel's targeted killings. Based on the laws and the case studies of five high-ranking Hamas militants who are representative of Israel's usual targets, I found that Israel generally abides by the Israeli Supreme Court rules and IHL but often encounters problems with the proportionality requirements. This leaves the legality of the cases dependent upon the person analyzing the killings. If one argues that there is no armed conflict present, then the law enforcement paradigm must be used, in which case Israel's actions would be illegal according to human rights law. Also, a critic can argue that the value of the targets killed during the strikes is not worth the civilian collateral damage and thus claim that the strikes are illegal. Based on my research, I concluded that Israel is in an international armed conflict, and therefore, IHL is applicable, under the hostilities paradigm. I also believe that Israel can argue that the strikes that incurred collateral damage were proportional due to the military value of the targets. However, an international court must clarify the laws concerning the use of targeted killings. This is because in cases like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, the legality of the strikes strongly depends upon the person interpreting the law, and therefore, there can be disagreements over which paradigm is applicable. In addition, because targeted killing is becoming a global trend, the ambiguity of the law will continue to cause problems, and so the international community will need to address this issue carefully.

This paper examines five different human rights treaties in order to test the role of reservations in international law. Through the creation of a typology of reservations, which include Domestic Framework, Minor Objection, Oversight, Cultural, Political, and Negation Reservations, this paper tests the typology against three hypotheses: 1) reservations weaken international law, 2) reservations are neutral to international law, and 3) reservations strengthen international law. By classifying reservations on this spectrum of hypotheses, it became possible to determine whether reservations help or hinder the international human rights regime. The most utilized types of reservations were Domestic Framework Reservations, which demonstrates treaty reservations allow for states to engage with the treaties, thus strengthening international law. However, because the reservations also demonstrate a lack of willingness to be bound by an external oversight body, reservations also highlight a flaw of international law. CEDAW proved to be a general outlier because it had 2-6 times the amount of negation and cultural reservations, which could potentially be attributed to the more societal, as opposed to legal, adjustments required of States Parties.

Abstract Piecing Together Peace: Do AIESEC International Internships Promote Global Peace by Fostering Individuals' Cosmopolitan Identity Eryn Spence The mission and vision of AIESEC (L'Association Internationale d'Etudiants dans les Sciences Economiques et Commerciales or the International Association of Students in the Economic and Commercial Sciences) are conducive to the cration of cosmopolitan sensibilities in the program's participants. Cosmopolitanism was first posited as an ideology by Diogenes of Sinope, and since this time, numerous forms of cosmopolitanism have eveolved, mainly focusing on the promotion of the idea of global citizenship, rather than allegiance to a single nation, group of people, or cultural ideology. This paper seeks to address AIESEC's success in promoting these sentiments in participants who take on international interships designed to foster cross-cultural relations and understanding on an individual level.

I have always been fascinated by history and studied the histories of the United States, Europe and the Middle East in both high school and college. However, I never had the opportunity to fully examine my own history and past until now. This thesis is an exploration of my family's history and the narrative of our journey from Palestine to America. I seek not only to understand my family's take on the Palestinian-Israeli conflict that so drastically shaped our lives, but also to understand the more quotidian thoughts, feelings, hopes, and dreams. I want to share stories that have not been heard before because the Palestinian narrative continues to be a contested issue by other competing narratives and it is important that an accurate depiction be recorded and distributed for the general public. I hope that this project will accomplish this task and encourage critical thinking of this long-standing conflict.

Unfortunately, rape has always been a part of war, but recently, media attention has focused on how rape has become a weapon of war on a massive scale. Though wartime rape and sexual assault has come to the forefront of our attention, the theories explaining wartime rape are still not adequate enough to explicate its presence in both the Rwandan and Bosnian Wars. These conflicts were chosen for two reasons. Firstly, they are two of the major conflicts in which rape ahs played a significant part. Secondly, these conflicts played an important role in the transistion in international law from focusing on murders and death to rape and sexual violence. For example, the Jean-Paul Akayesu trial was the first time in which rape was considered a crime against humanity. However, if the ultimate goal is to prevent wartime rape, it is not enough to simply prosecute those who commit it; rather, we must understand the reasons that it occurs. All of the existing theories are partially valid, but none presents a truly holistic explanation for wartime rape. In this paper, I will seek to composite a holistic approach, with the hope that such an approach will prevent the institution of policies that may be either ineffective or counter-productive for the safety of women.

In this paper, I wish to reassess the role of the International Criminal Court regarding victims and affected communities as we approach the tenth anniversary of the Court's establishment. I argue that the Court's intentions may be sound, the structure itself causes many difficulties and provisions for victims' participation are often difficult to implement or even dilatory to the administration of justice. The judicial ideals of the Court, including the maintenance of prosecutorial independence and the protection of due process rights of defendants, can actually come in conflict with victim participation provisions of the Rome Statute. In the course of my summer internship at the ICC, I came to believe that it is time to reconsider the Court's designation as an innovative organization and look for structural and institutional reform.